to observe every one may easily judge by what hath been hitherto said that what was offered for the celebration of the Sacrament was Bread and Wine but it may be all the world do not know that they were not the only things which were offered at first for the charitable Oblations of Believers being appointed not only for the Celebration of the Sacrament but also for the support of the Ministers and Pastours for relief of the Poor and generally for the necessity of the Church it cannot be questioned as I suppose that besides the Bread and Wine of which was taken what was convenient for the Sacrament there were also other things offered and if we should make any question of it the directions which we shall alledge will soon remove this doubt and scruple In fine the Pastours of Christian Churches having in time thought convenient to set apart the Oblation of Bread and Wine for the Celebration of the Eucharist from all the other Oblations made by Believers they absolutely prohibited that any thing else should be offered for the celebration of the Sacrament but Bread and Wine in pursuance whereof the third Canon attributed to the Apostles doth reprove and censure those who offered Honey Can. 3. Apost can 4. Milk Birds Beasts or Roots upon the Altar and in the fourth it allows of offering Oyl for the lights and incense for the times of Oblation But to prove what hath been said by a better authority recourse must be had unto more Authentick Monuments and to such as bear not the marks of Forgery as these Canons do The first of these Monuments which presents it self unto our sight is the third Council of Carthage assembled Anno 397. for in one of its Canons which is the 37. of the Code of the Church of Africa it makes this Decree That in the Sacraments Concil Carthag 3. can 24. or as Martin de Braga reads it in his Collection that in the Sanctuary nothing else be offered but the body and blood of our Lord as our Saviour hath taught that is to say Bread and Wine mingled with Water and to distinguish this Oblation which related unto the Eucharist from the others offered by the faithful people the Council adds As for the first-fruits whether it be Honey or Milk let them be offered after the usual manner upon some solemn day for the mystery of Infants and if these things especially the Milk be offered at the Altar yet let them receive their particular blessing to distinguish them from the consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord and as to first-fruits that nothing be offered but Grapes and Wheat Martin Bishop of Braga in his Collection of Canons hath expressed in these words that of the Council of Carthage There ought nothing to be offered in the Sanctuary Collect can c. 55. but the Bread and Wine which are blessed in Type or in Figure of Jesus Christ And the fourth Council of Orleans Anno 541. makes this decree That none presume to offer in the Oblation of the holy Cup ought else but the fruit of the Vine mingled with Water Concil Aurel. 4 c 4. it is what is repeated in the VIII Canon of the Synod of Auxerre Anno. 578. The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled the year 675. going about to reform some Abuses crept into Spain touching this Oblation made this Decree which Gratian and others ignorantly alledge as a fragment of a Letter of Pope Julius unto the Egyptians Concil 3. Bracar c. 1. al. 2. We have been informed that certain Persons puffed up with a Schismatical ambition do offer Milk instead of Wine at the Holy Offertory contrary to the command of God and contrary to the institution of the Apostles and that there be others which do not offer at the Sacrament of the Cup of our Lord the Wine pressed out but they communicate the people with Grapes which have been offered and having alledged against this abuse the Authority and Example of Jesus Christ these Fathers add That they should therefore forbear offering Milk at the Sacrifice because the manifest and evident Example of the Evangelical truth hath appeared the which permits only that Bread and Wine should be offered This was also the method of the VI. Oecumenical Council when it transcribes in the 32. Canon that which hath been above alledged of the Synod of Carthage and in transcribing they appropriate it unto themselves and make it their own But if any ask the reason of this proceeding of the Fathers I mean wherefore they thought fit to distinguish the Oblation of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist from all other things which in all likelihood were promiscuously offered at the same time with these things because these kinds of charitable Oblations had not for their scope the celebration of the Sacrament only I answer that by reason of the silence of Antient Writers it is very difficult to answer distinctly this question yet I will nevertheless thereupon offer my conjectures I say then in the first place I suppose the Fathers have thus done in honour and respect unto the Sacrament imagining that it was very just and reasonable that this Bread and Wine which by consecration were to be made the efficacious and Divine Symbols of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ should not be offered conjunctly with other things which indeed were to be applyed unto pious uses but less noble and considerable and methinks the Fathers of the Council of Carthage give us sufficient ground to conclude so from their Decree Secondly I think that having made this distinction they provided some other way for the maintenance of Church-men and for the relief of the Poor and so there being nothing else wanting but for the Sacrament the holy Fathers judged fit to limit the Oblations only to the species of Bread and Wine the two only things necessary for the celebration of the Divine Mystery Whereunto possibly it might be added that by this wise conduct they would prevent a growing superstition the multitude being but too much inclined to abuse the most innocent ceremonies being always sensual and carnal they might imagin that the Oblations made at the Altar being called First-fruits were of the same kind with the first-fruits of the Law whereof the Oblation sanctified the whole Lump so that the Fruits of the Earth might not be lawfully used until the first-fruits had been first offered unto God upon the holy Table as if without this Sanctification the use had been unlawful I cannot see but it may be so inferr'd from the words of Theodoret who speaking of the Oblation which the Church makes of the Symbols of the Body and Blood of the Lord saith That it sanctifieth the whole Lump by the first-fruits Theod. in Psalm 109. And what renders this conjecture the more probable is what S. Austin observed Aug. de Civit. Del l. 8. c. ult That many amongst the Christians
is so inconsiderable and of little moment that it deserves not our pains to examine It will be necessary to consider that in that which bears the name of St. James although it cannot be his the Priest makes this Prayer at the time the Elements are set upon the Altar or the Holy Table Liturg. St. Jacob. to be blessed and consecrated O Lord our God which hast sent the Bread from Heaven the food of all the World Jesus our Lord Saviour Redeemer and Benefactor to bless and sanctifie us bless we beseech thee this Oblation and receive it upon thy Heavenly Altar remember O Lord thou which art full of love towards mankind those who offer and for whom they have offered and keep us pure and immaculate in this Holy Celebration of thy divine Mysteries because thy great and glorious name O Father Son and Holy Ghost is glorified and praised now and for ever Amen And in that attributed unto St. Mark but not his the Priest praying in the same time but in terms something different Liturg. St. Marc. O Lord Holy Almighty and terrible which dwellest in the Holy Places sanctifie us and make us worthy of this Holy Priesthood and grant that we may minister at thy holy Altar with a good conscience cleanse our hearts from all impurity drive out of us all reprobate sense sanctifie our Souls and Spirit and give us grace with fear to practise the Worship of our Fathers to give us the light of thy countenance at all times for 't is thou which sanctifiest and blessest all things and we offer unto thee Praise and Thanksgiving As for the Greeks they carried the Elements that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament from the Table of Proposition as they call it unto the Altar or unto the Communion Table where they are to be consecrated with so great Pomp Solemnity and Ceremony that the ignorant people dazled with the Ceremonies forbear not to give unto these Elements before they are consecrated such an honour as doth not belong unto them Cabasil in Liturg. expos c. 24. Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica who wrote in the XIV Century complains of it in the Explication which he makes of their Liturgy and saith those which unadvisedly do so do confound the Elements which are sanctified with those which are not and that from this confusion proceeds the honour which they give unto the Bread and Wine before Consecration which this Archbishop doth condemn But in fine the Elements being so brought and laid upon the Holy Table to be consecrated these same Liturgies inform us that he that officiates after having recited all the History of the Institution of the Sacrament desires of God that he would send upon this Bread and Wine which were offered unto him his Holy Spirit to make them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and because the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions which were not written until the end of the third Century or the beginning of the fourth doth very clearly represent the manner of this Consecration we will begin with him to shew how this consecrating Liturgy was couched for after having ended the recital of the History of the Eucharist by these words Constitut Apostol l. 8. cap. 12. Do this in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come He goes on Therefore setting before us his Passion his Death and Resurrection his ascension into Heaven and his second coming which will be when he comes with power and glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward everyone after their works We effer unto thee O our King and our God according so thy Commandment this Bread and this Cup in giving thee thanks by him because thou hast made us worthy to stand in thy presence to execute this Ministry and we beseech thee O God who standest in need of nothing that thou wouldest favourably behold these gifts which are presented before thee and that thou wouldest therein do thy good pleasure for the honour of thy Christ and that thou wouldest send thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice the witness of the passion of the Lord Jesus to make this Bread the Body of thy Christ and this Cup his Blood to the end that those which partake of them may be confirmed in piety obtain remission of sins may be delivered from the temptations of the Devil filled with the Holy Ghost made worthy of thy Christ and of everlasting life when thou O Lord most mighty shalt be reconciled unto them In the Liturgy of St. James it is said O Lord send thine Holy Spirit upon us Liturg Jacob and upon these sacred Elements which are offered to the end that coming upon them he may sanctifie this Bread and this Cup by his Holy good and glorious presence and that he would make the Bread the sacred Body of thy Christ and the Cup his precious Blood In that of S. Mark We beseech thee O God lover of mankind Liturg. Marc. to send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Loaves and these Chalices to sanctifie and to consecrate them and to make this Bread the Body of Christ and this Cup the Blood of the New Testament of Jesus Christ our Lord our God our Saviour and our Sovereign King And so in those of St. Basil St. Chrysostome and generally in all excepting the Latin Liturgy at this time used I say in that of the present time for I cannot deny but that it was otherwise antiently and that in all appearance they cut off from this Liturgy I mean from the Canon of the Mass the Prayers which followed as in the other Liturgies the words of Institution by the which Prayers Christians were wont to consecrate the Divine Symbols even in the West during the space of a thousand years And to the end this truth should be made manifest this question must be throughly examined to wit whether the Antients did consecrate by Prayers and Invocations and by thanksgivings or otherwise Jesus Christ the absolute Master of the Christian Religion did consecrate his Sacrament by Prayers Blessing and Thanksgiving as the Divine Writers do testifie making use of two expressions the one of which signifying giving of Thanks and the other to Bless as to their Etymology but as to their sence and meaning they signifie one and the same thing The reason whereof may be that it was the manner of the Jews to conceive their Prayers in terms of Praise and Blessing the first Christians which made the example of Christ their Law and Rule intended not to consecrate any otherwise than he himself had done therefore Justin Martyr speaks of Prayers which the Pastour made after having received the Bread and Wine mingled with Water which was presented unto him Just Martyr Apolog. 2. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in the Act of Communion The Bread
and Wine whereon Prayers were made and saith expresly That this food is consecrated by Prayer Iren. l. 4. c. 34. St. Irenaeus saith the same for he also calls it The Bread upon which Prayers have been made the Bread which hath received invocation and that by this means ceaseth to be common Bread and saith that we sanctifie the Creature This is also the Language of Tertullian writing against Marcion Tertul. advers Marc. l. 1. c. 23. for he observes that if Jesus Christ had not been the Son of the Creatour as this Heretick deny'd he would not have given thanks unto another God upon a Creature that had been none of his Strom. l. 1. paedag l. 2. c. 2 It is unto Prayer and Thanksgiving that Clemens of Alexandria refers the Consecration of the Eucharist of our Lord Origen contr Cels l. 8. in Matth. c. 15. therefore Origen calls the Bread of the Sacrament the Symbol of Prayer and that he saith that it is made a sacred and sanctified Body by Prayer St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his Mystagogical Catechisms The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adorable Trinity is but common Bread and common Wine but Prayer being ended the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Wine the Blood of Christ Lib. 4. Juvencus a Priest of Spain in his Evangelical History which he compos'd in Latin verse Having saith he devoutly prayed Basil de Sp. Sancto c. 27. t. 2. p. 351. The great St. Basil in his Treatise of the Holy Ghost Which of the Saints hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation for consecrating the Bread of the Sacrament and the Cup of blessing Gregory of Nyssen his Brother In Baptism Christ p. 8 22. Orat. Catech. c. 37. p. 536. The mystical Oyl as also the Wine are of no great moment before Consecration but after the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit they operate excellently both the one and the other And elsewhere The Bread is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer And elsewhere Ibid. The nature of visible things is transelemented by the virtue of the benediction St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan L. 4. de side c. 5. t. 4. As often as we take the Sacraments which by the mystery of holy Prayer are transfigured into his flesh and blood we do shew the Lords death Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia describing the cruelties and rage of the Donatists against Catholicks and marking particularly against what they shew'd it What saith he is more sacrilegious than to break tear Lib. 6. and destroy the Altars of God whereon you your selves have sometimes offered c. where the Almighty God hath been invoked where the Holy Ghost drawn down by Prayers hath descended Paschal 1. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 87. Theophilus of Alexandria speaking of Origen He doth not consider saith he that the Bread of our Lord and the Holy Cup are consecrated by Prayer and by the coming of the Holy Ghost St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress in Italy In Exod. tract 2. When our Saviour presented unto the Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine he said This is my Body in speaking after this manner he shewed that the Bread was consecrated before the pronouncing of these words This is my Body Ephrem of Edessa if the Books published in his name were his The Lord taking Bread into his hands blessed and brake it De natura Dei curiose nonscrutandâ— in type of his immaculate Body and blessed the Cup in figure of his pretious Blood St. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon St. Matthew The Lord gave thanks shewing us how we should celebrate this Sacrament Hom. 82. Graec. And upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians Hom. 24. in 1 ad Corinth The Apostle said the Cup of Blessing because holding it in our hands we offer unto God Hymns and Praises and do praise him S. Jerom in his Letter unto Evagrius reproving the pride and vanity of the Deacons which rashly advanced themselves above the Priests Who can endure saith he Epist 83. that the Ministers of Tables and of Widows should raise themselves being swelled with pride above thofe which by prayers do make the Body and blood of Jesus Christ And elsewhere he saith That prayer is thereunto necessary St. Austin in his Letter unto Paulinus In Sophon â—3 Epist 59. We mean by prayers those which we make in celebrating the Sacraments before we begin to bless what is upon the Lords Table and by Benedictions those which are made when they are blessed and sanctified and broke in pieces to be distributed And in the Books of the Trinity We call that only the Body and blood of Jesus Christ Lib. 3. c. 4. which being taken from the fruits of the Earth is consecrated by prayer And elsewhere writing against the Donatists which rejected the Sacraments consecrated and administred by Sinners What then saith he De Baptism l. 5. c. 20. doth God hear an homicide praying either on the Water of Baptism or on the Oyl or upon the Eucharist And in fine in another place Serm. 87. de divers it is not all sorts of Bread that is made the Body of Christ but that which receives the blessing of Jesus Christ S. Cyrill of Alexandria doth very frequently call the Eucharist Glaphir in Genes Exod. Levit. in Joan. Eulogy that is Blessing because there 's no doubt but that 't is consecrated by Blessing and Prayers And that blessing is all one in St. Cyril's sense with Sanctification and Consecration he shews plainly Contra Anthropomopth c. 12. when he saith elsewhere We believe that the Oblations made in the Churches are sanctified blessed and consecrated by Jesus Christ Theodoret who was not always of St. Cyril's mind yet agrees with him fully in this matter Dialog 2. What do you call the Oblation which is offered before the Invocation of the Priest A Food made of such Seeds And what do you call it after Consecration The body of Jesus Christ St. Prosper or some body else in his name in his Treatise of Promises and Predictions Part. 2. c. 2. He affirms at his Table that the Bread is his sacred Body A fragment of a Liturgy attributed unto Proclus Bishop of Constantinople speaking of the Apostles and their Successors praying over the Bread and Wine By these Prayers saith he they looked for the coming of the Holy Ghost to make and consecrate by his Divine presence the bread offered and the Wine mingled with Water into the Body it self or to be the Body of Jesus Christ our Saviour Victor of Antioch in his Commentary upon St. Mark according to the Greek In cap. 14. It was necessary that those which presented the Bread should believe that after Consecration and Prayers it was his Body The supposed Eusebius of Emessa or rather Caesarius Bishop of Aâ—â—â—s or some other for
't is very uncertain whose the Sermon is the words whereof we intend to cite They are consecrated by the invocation of Almighty God De Pasch Hom. 5. Lib. 9. p. 405. and in the same Sermon he attributes it unto sanctification The Sanctification saith he being pronounced he saith Take and drink Facundus of Hermiane The Lord called his Body and Blood the Bread which he had blessed and the Cup which he gave unto his Disciples Gregory the first Bishop of Rome Epist l. 7. What we say of the Lords Prayer presently after invocation it is because the Apostles were wont to consecrate the host of the Oblation Epist 63. by that Prayer only Which some have observed after him that have written of Ecclesiastical Offices as Amalarius Lib. 4. Cap. 26. Walafridus Strabo cap. 20 and Berno cap. 1. Isidore of Sevill De Eccles offic l. 1. c. 15. St. Peter first of all instituted the order of Prayers by the which are consecrated the Sacrifices offered unto God And elsewhere it is called a Sacrifice as a holy action because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer in remembrance of the passion which our Lord suffered for us The Books of Charlemain touching Images The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord c. is consecrated by the Priest by the invocation of the name of God De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 32. Rabanus Maurus The Lord first of all consecrated by Prayers and Thanksgiving the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and gave them unto his Disciples which his Apostles imitating practised afterwards and taught their Successors to do so likewise which the whole Church doth now practise all the World over Ibid. c. 33. And again As the Body of Jesus Christ was embalmed with sweet Spices was duely put into a new Sepulchre so in like manner in his Church his mystical Body being prepared with the perfumes of Holy Prayer it is administred in sacred Vessels by the Ministry of Priests Serm. 11 t. 4. Bibl. Patr. part 2. to the end Believers might receive it Egberâ— against the Cathari in the XII Century seems also to refer the Consecration unto the Benediction although his Doctrine is quite different from that of Rabanus Had we no other testimonies but these above-mentioned and which are frequently alledged they were doubtless sufficient to prove that in the Primitive Church the Consecration of the Symbols of the Eucharist was performed by Prayers and giving of Thanks but because the thing is of great importance the Reader will not be displeased if I joyn the following testimonies unto the former To begin with St. Fulgentius who in the Fragments of his Books against Fabian saith Ex libro 8. p. 202. You have imagined touching the Prayer by the which at the time of Sacrifice the Descent of the Holy Ghost is implored that it would seem to imply that he is locally present and a little after The Holy Spirit doth sanctifie the Sacrifice and Baptism by his Divine Vertue Macarius Bishop of Antioch in the eighth Act of the VI. general Council We saith he Tom. 5. Concil p. 99. E. draw near unto the mystical Blessings and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy Body and of the precious blood of Jesus Christ the Saviour of all The XVI Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 693. saith Can. 6. t. 5. Concil p. 430. C. That the Apostle taught us to take a whole loaf and to put it upon the Table or Altar to be blessed And again Our assembly hath appointed by a general consent that there should be presented at the Lords Table an intire and good loaf to be consecrated by the Ministerial benediction A Council of Constantinople composed of 338. Bishops assembled Anno. 754. said That the Lord would that the Bread of the Eucharist Act 6. Concil 2. Niceni t. 5. Concil p. 756. as a true figure or image of his natural Body being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost did become his Divine Body and would you know how The Priest which makes the Oblation say the Fathers interposing to make it Holy whereas it was common to wit by his Prayers whereby he begs of God the presence of the Holy Ghost George Pachimer In Epist 9. t. 1. p. 290. Paraphraser of the pretended Denys the Areopagite declares That the mysteries are consecrated upon the Holy Table by Blessing the Bread and the Holy Cup. In the antient Formularies of an uncertain Author published by the late Monsieur Bignon C. 8. p. 121. ult edit the Author whereof lived in the days of Louis the Debonnair we find that this Prince to honour the Church ordered that all those should be set free and at liberty that were admitted into holy Orders and saith he who consecrate by the intervention of their Prayers De ordine baptism tit 18. the Body and Blood of our Lord. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost Pope Nicolas the first writing unto the Emperor of Constantinople Tom. 6. Concil p. 489. attributes the Consecration unto the benediction and Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Which words are found cited in the IV. Act of the Council assembled against Photius Ibid. p 738. which the Latins call the VIII Oecumenical Council The Council of Cressy assembled Anno. 858. saith Tom. 3. Conc. Gall. p. 129. That Consecratton is made by Prayer and by the sign of the Cross Charles the Bald King of France and Emperour of the West writing unto Pope Adrian the second complaining of some sharp and bitter words which this Pope used against him writes unto him amongst other things We cannot think that such words can proceed out of your mouth Supplem Conc. Gal. p. 265. as make the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by devout and holy Prayer Hugh Maynard a Benedictine Frier alledges in his notes upon the Books of the Sacraments of Gregory the first two Manuscripts of the Library of Corby viz an old explication of the Canon of the Mass and an ancient Treatise of the Mass in both which the Consecration is attributed unto Prayers In the former of these Manuscripts are found these words by Maynard's relation The Sacrifices are those which are consecrated with Prayers P. 12. P. 13. and in the other Sacrifices that is things made holy because they are consecrated by mistical Prayer Which words as is observed by this learned Frier were upon a matter taken out of S. Isidore lib. 6. Orig. c. 19. Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy in the tenth Century in his Treatise of the contempt of Canons Tom. 2. Spicil p. 183. first Part. The Oblation saith he which is to be presented and distributed unto the People is consecrated chiefly by the Prayer wherein we say unto God Our Father which art in Heaven Which in all likelihood he borrowed from Gregory the first In fine the whole Greek Church
differ in words yet tend to the same sense and contain one and the same Doctrine some instead of saying that there is offered Bread and Wine unto God have said that there were offered unto him the first-fruits of his Creatures that is to say things which he gives us for our nourishment Iren. l. 4. c. 32. so it is that St. Irenaeus expressed himself when he said That the new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church offers unto God throughout all the World is an Oblation of the first-fruit of his gifts that is of the Food which he hath given us Ibid. or as he saith afterwards of the first-fruits of his Creatures which he explains afterwards by Bread and by Wine which are Creatures of this World Others have spoken positively of Bread and Wine Just Martyr dial cum Tryph. p. 260. Macar Hom. 27. as St. Justin Martyr who makes the Sacrifices of Christians offered in all places in the Sacrament to consist of Bread and Wine St. Macarius an antient Anchorite was of the same mind when he observed that the primitive Believers knew not that Bread and Wine was offered in the Church to be the Antitype or the Figure of the flesh and Blood of our Lord. l. 1. ep 401. Thence it is that St. Isidore of Damietta confesseth unto Rabbi Benjamin That the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread Fulgent ad Pet. de side c. 19. That St. Fulgentius saith That the Catholick Church doth not cease to offer unto God throughout the world a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine That venerable Bede one of the greatest lights of the Church of England in the VIII Bed in Psal 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern l. 2. c. 2. t. 4. Century taught That our Lord had changed the Sacrifices of the Law into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine and that whereas the Antients celebrated the Sacrament of the passion of our Lord in the flesh and blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine That the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews attributed unto Primasius but which is of Haimon of Halberstad or of Remy of Auxerre and by consequence at least of the IX Century declares In c. 5. ad Hebr. That the Lord left unto his Church these two gifts Bread and Wine to offer them in remembrance of him Amalar. praesat 2. l. de offic l. 3. cap. 25. And that Amalarius Fortunatus seeks a Sacrament of Jesus Christ in the person of the Priest offering Bread Wine and Water and that he saith that the Sacrificer recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in stead of Jesus Christ That others not contented to speak of an Oblation of Bread and Wine have added the quality of this Bread and Wine saying that they were Sacraments of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ The Author of the Commentary upon Genesis attributed unto Eucherius Bishop of Lyons thus expresses his thoughts Eucher in Genes l. 2. c. 18. It hath been commanded saith he that Christians should offer in Sacrifice not the bodies of Beasts as Aaron did but the Oblation of Bread and Wine that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood Words which are yet seen in St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Isidor Hisp in Gen. c. 12. and which shew that where any of the Fathers instead of these words that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood have said that is to say his Body and Blood as St. Cyprian and the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Primasius it must of necessity be taken in the sence of St. Eucherius and St. Isidore otherwise they would be made to clash amongst themselves and those would be made to seem Enemies whose Doctrine differed not from one another as will evidently appear if the passages of the one are compared with the others and if the terms and expressions of the latter are carefully heeded with what went before and follows after It is also by the same Principle that the same St. Isidore saith elsewhere Idem de Allegor Idem de voc c. 26. That the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine is offered all the world over and that Christians do not now offer Jewish Sacrifices such as the Sacrificer Aaron offered but such as were offered by Melchizedeck King of Salem that is to say Bread and Wine which is the most venerable Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ Theodor. in Psal 109 Heb. 10. As for the famous Theodoret it is true that he speaks not of the Oblation of Bread and Wine but yet he sufficiently explains himself when he saith That the Church offers the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ sanctifying the whole lump by the first-fruits Others in fine have shewed their belief on this point in saying that Jesus Christ offered and that we offer in the Eucharist the same things Melchisedeck offered It is what Clement of Alexandria meant by these words That Melchisedeck presented Bread and Wine Clem. Alex. Stromat l. 4 p. 539. Cyprian Ep. 63. a Food sanctified in Type of the Sacrament And S. Cyprian when he said That our Lord offered unto God the Father the same Sacrifice which Melchisedeck had done that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood For as he saith again not to leave the least doubt in the mind of the Reader Ibid. We see prefigured in the High Priest Melchisedeck the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of our Lord as the Divine Scripture testifies when it saith and Melchisedeck King of Salem brought Bread and Wine Thence it is that he observes in the same little Treatise some lines after the words before mentioned Ibid. That the Lord accomplishing and perfecting the Image of his Sacrifice offered Bread and the Cup mixed with Water And Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea doth not he say Euseb demonst l. 5. c. 3. That Jesus Christ doth at present accomplish by his Servants as Melchisedeck did all the Sacrifice that there is to be performed amongst men that Jesus Christ first of all and then all his Ministers do by Bread and Wine declare and shew the Mysteries of his precious Body and Blood and that Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by the Spirit of God made use before of the types of future things the Scripture witnessing that he brought out Bread and Wine It was also if I mistake not the meaning of S. Ambrose when going to prove that the Sacraments of the Church were ancienter than those of the Synagogue Ambros l. de init c. 8. t. 4. p. 349. Chrysost in Psal 109. he saith That Abraham which was before Moses received the Sacraments of Melchisedeck Wherefore saith S. Chrysostom said he After the Order of Melchisedeck because of the Sacraments for he offered
Sacrament It suffers only the Ministers of the Altar he means all the Clergy to draw near and enter into the place where the Altar was and there to Communicate Concil Tol. â— c. 18. The fourth Council of Toledo assembled Anno. 633. hath left us this Canon After the Lords Prayer and the joining of the Bread and the Cup the blessing shall be given unto the people and then in this manner they shall participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord the Priest and the Deacon shall communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire And thence it is if I mistake not proceed all the prohibitions that Women and other Lay People should not enter into the close where the Altar Herard in cap. t. c. 24. and the Sacramental Table was as when Herard Archbishop of Tours ordered Anno 858. That the Women and Lay Persons should not approach the Altar it was probably what Pope Leo the fourth intended when he made this Decree as is seen in his life That whilst the solemnities of the Masses were celebrated no Lay Person should presume to stand in the Presbytery that is to say Vit. Leon. 4. t. 6. Concil p. 416. D. in the Quire or sit or enter therein but only such as are consecrated and appointed to perform Divine Service The Council in Trullo Anno 691. doth except the Emperour whom it permits to enter into the Sanctuary when he would offer his Oblation unto God Concil in Trullo c. 69. That it is not permitted say the Fathers unto any Lay Person to enter into the Sanctuary yet we do not pretend by virtue of a very antient Tradition to include the Emperors Majesty in this prohibition when hâ— desires to present his Oblations unto the Creator Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch and one of the most famous Canonists amongst the Greeks doth extend much farther this priviledge granted unto the Emperor he refutes their Opinion who restrain this liberty unto the time that the Emperor made his offering at the Holy Table as if he had not liberty to enter therein to offer unto God other acts of Adoration Balsam in can 69. Trullan For my part saith he I am not of that Opinion for the Orthodox Emperours who do make Patriarchs by Invocation of the Holy Trinity and which are the Lords anointed do without any opposition enter when they please into the Sanctuary and approach unto the Altar as often as they will But the Greeks having no Emperour of their Religion groaning for a long time under the Tyranny of the Turks there is none amongst the Lay people which partake of the priviledge which their Monarch and Sovereign enjoyed formerly therefore after the Clergy have participated of the Sacrament to wit him that celebrates either Bishop or Priest in the midst of the Altar the other Priests round the Altar and the Deacon behind but all generally within the rail of the Sanctuary the Lay people communicate without for the doors of that place being open the Deacons go out to distribute the Sacrament unto the People and the place where the Celebration is made is a little higher than the rest of the Quire as James Goar hath observed an Eye witness Goar in Encholog p. 150. n. 171. who also observes that the same was practised amongst the Latins in S. Jerom's days and proves it by these words of this holy Doctor writing against the â—uciferians Id. p. 151. n. 179. It pertains unto the Bishop to handle the Body of our Lord and from a higher place to distribute it unto the people It is very probable that all those who make profession of the Religion of the Greeks as the Muscovites and the Russians do observe the same custom it is also very near the same manner which is observed in communicating the people in Prester John's Country according to the report of Francis Alvarez a Portugueze that had travelled in those Countreys many years for he writes that the Seculars and Lay folks Alvar. de Aethiop c. 11. are near the chief door of the place where the Clergy is and it is there that both Men and Women receive the Communion As for the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant which is the last circumstance we intend to examine in this Chapter it is certain that when the Lord distributed his Eucharist unto his Disciples they were almost lying along that is leaning a little one upon another because that was the manner of eating at that time amongst the Jews and other Eastern Nations and that the Disciples changed not their posture in receiving the Sacrament but continued in the same posture they were in during the Supper of the Passover And because St. John the beloved Disciple leaned on the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ the Scripture mentions that he lay on his breast at the Table or leaned on his bosom the Christians of the following Age drew near and approached unto the holy Table presently after Consecration there to receive the sacred Symbols of their redemption as may be gathered from Justin Martyr's Liturgy where we do not see any Ceremony nor any kneeling practised by the Communicants in participating of this Divine Mystery only that going before unto the Communion they gave unto each other the kiss of Charity in token of their Love and Union whereof this venerable Sacrament was to be a more strict tye and from hence it is that in all the Liturgies the faithful are warned to kiss each other before they appear at the Lords Table although this warning is given in some sooner in others later but in all it is before the Communion in those very Liturgies which we have remaining we do not find any alteration to have hapned in the posture of the Communicant For after having shewed the Sacrament unto the people and invited them unto the Communion by these words Holy things are for the Holy each Believer draws near with the motions and desires of Piety and Devotion which he ought to have to partake worthily of this Divine Sacrament Denys Bishop of Alexandria gives sufficiently to understand Apud Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. that in his time that is in the third Century the Communion was received at the holy Table standing and not kneeling when speaking of a certain Believer which often appeared at the Lords Table to partake of the Eucharist for he useth a term that properly signifies to present himself and to be there standing Vales in Euseb hist l. 7. c. 9. p. 145. which gave occasion unto this observation of Mounsier de Valois The Believers which were to communicate drew near the Altar and there they received from the Priests hand the Body of Jesus Christ standing and not kneeling as is at this day practised Tertullian had spoke before Denys of this custom of Communicating standing in his Book of Prayer Tertul. de Orat. c. ult wherein he speaks of
understood the sub-Deacons which shews that the Deacons were not comprised in the prohibition which was made unto these Ministers Also the IV. Council of Carthage suffers the Deacons to administer unto the people in case of necessity Concil Carthag 4. c. 38. Ambros de offic l. 1. c. 41. the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord even in the presence of the Priest but by his order St. Ambrose speaking of the Deacon and Martyr St. Lawrence saith that he distributed the Cup and St. Leo in a Sermon where he treats of his Martyrdom Serm. infestiv Laurent and of his Triumph advanceth his Dignity by administring of the Sacraments and elsewhere making the Panegyrick of St. Vincent who was also a Deacon and Levite In nativit Vincent c. 2. he saith that he administred the Cup of our Lord Jesus unto Believers for their Salvation George Cassander alledgeth in his Liturgies these words of a certain Book which treated of all the Divine Offices Apud Cassandr in liturg c. 31. The Deacons are those unto whom it belongs to set in order upon the Holy Table the offerings of the people which are to be consecrated and after the Consecration to distribute the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord unto the people And in the Dialogues of Gregory the First there is mention made of a certain Deacon who being affrighted at the cruelty of the Pagans Gregor l. in dial l. 1. c. 7. as he was administring the Cup unto the people let it fall to the ground whereby it was broken In Spain they administred the Bread and Wine in the VI. Century as appears by the first Canon of the Council of Ilerda assembled Anno 524. In the Greek Church it is the Deacons which administer the Sacrament unto the people and amongst the Abassins the Deacon gives the Bread in little bits and the sub-Deacon the other Symbol in a spoon of Gold Silver or of Wood. But it is needless to insist any longer on a matter so clear and besides which is not of the greatest moment therefore 't is sufficient to know that at the beginning of Christianity the Deacons gave both Symbols unto the Communicants that afterwards they administred but the Cup only he which celebrated giving the Bread although this custom was not so soon admitted in all parts there being some places where the Deacons in the IV. Century distributed the whole Sacrament unto the faithful people and if in some Churches they were disturbed in the possession of their Rights yet nevertheless they have commonly injoyed the priviledge of administring the Cup of our Lord unto Christians after he that consecrated had distributed the holy Bread and it is they who amongst the Greeks distribute the Communion unto the people In the Kingdom of Prester John the Deacon giveth the Bread and the sub-Deacon the Wine as well unto the Clergy as unto the People But this is worth the considering that in divers parts of the West Women were permitted to administer the Sacrament unto the people and forasmuch as this abuse as far as I remember began in Italy Gelas Ep. â— ad Episc â—ucan t. 3. Concil p. 636. Pope Gelasius was also the first if I am not mistaken who indeavoured to prevent it grievously censuring the Bishops of Lucania for giving this liberty to Women and suffering them to serve at the Altar Men being only called unto this Office But it seems that this censure of Gelasius had not all the success as could have been wished seeing that about 500. Years afterwards to wit about the end of the X. Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy T. 6. Concil p. 431. T. 2. Spicil p. 261. in his Synodal Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese which have passed until our daies for a Sermon of Pope Leo the Fourth was forced to forbid Women to come near the Altar or touch the Cup of our Lord because in all likelihood they administred it unto Communicants And it was not only in Italy this permission was given unto Women but also in divers Provinces of France whence it is That the VI. Council Assembled at Paris under Lewis the Debonair Anno 829. Concil Paris 6. l. 1. c. 15. forbids it in one of its Canons which is yet to be seen in the seventh Book Cap. 134. of the Capitularies of Charles the Great and of Lewis the Debonair his Son a Prohibition which Isaac Bishop of Langres Isaac Ling. can tit 5. c. 7. 11. c. 23. was constrained to renew some time after As for the persons admitted unto the Communion they were Believers therefore the Deacons made the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and generally all such as were not initiated in the Mysteries of Christian Religion to go out and those people were not only not suffered to participate of the Sacrament but they were not suffered to stay in the Assembly when it was celebrated Indeed that they were not suffered to assist at the Celebration of the Sacrament was not alwaies practis'd amongst Christians seeing that it is most certain that in the two first Centuries and probably a good part of the third they hid not their Mysteries and did not celebrate with the Doors shut as appears by the Works of Justin Martyr which shews plainly that the Liturgies which go in the name of S. James and S. Mark are forgeries for therein is mention of excluding these sorts of persons above mentioned the Deacon making them go out before the beginning of Consecrating the Divine Symbols which is also to be read in all the other Liturgies and I shall not stand to prove this matter being indisputable and owned by all the World the truth whereof is easily to be seen by such as please to read the Liturgies which we have remaining and which by the care taken therein by the Deacons to shut out the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and the uninitiated do manifestly shew that they have been made since the third Century whatever care the Authors of some of them have taken to shroud themselves under the name of some Apostle or Disciple of the Apostles And if only Belivers were obliged to Communicate this obligation regarded them all in general for the Penitents were not thought to be Believers during the time of their penance the sins they had committed and for which they had been censured to undergo the burden of this penance having made them fall from this priviledge and happy state when I speak of Believers I do not mean only such as were grown up and such as were of years of discretion but also Children Therefore we are necessarily ingaged to make two Considerations of the persons of Communicants the first shall treat of the Communion of Adults the second that of Children As for the Communion of persons of Age and years of discretion there is no question to be made but they were all obliged to Communicate when
have always the Sacrament ready to Communicate Sick Folks be they old or young that they may not dye without Communicating Gautier Bishop of Orleans prescribes the same unto his Priests in his Capitularies of the year 869. And Riculfe Bishop of Soissons unto his in the year 889. proving the necessity of Communicating Infants which he will have to be given presently after Baptism by the same words whereby S. Austin proves it The Book of Divine Offices called the Roman Order was written as some think at the end of the Eighth Century or the beginning of the Ninth and as others think in the Eleventh In that Book this Decree is to be seen Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 84. Care is to be taken that young Children receive no Food after they are Baptized and that they should not give them Suck without great necessity untill they have participated of the Body of Christ Greg. lib. Sac. p. 73. Nevertheless in S. Gregory's time it was not forbidden to give them Suck but at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Centuries this pity was shewed unto these poor Infants and for the difficulty there was in making them swallow Bread they were communicated with the blessed Wine only Pasch 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. conc patr 1. p. 530. So it was enjoined by Pope Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban the Second Anno 1099. according to Cardinal Bellarmin's computation and this custom continued after his death as Hugh of S. Victor testifies who lived in the Twelfth Century in his Ecclesiastical Books of Ceremonies Sacraments Offices and Observations L. 1. c. 20. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 1376. Vnto Children new born saith he must be administred with the Priest's Finger the Sacrament in the species of blood because such in that state do naturally suck And he saith It must be so done according to the first Institution of the Church he laments the Ignorance of Priests who saith he retaining the form and not the thing give unto them Wine instead of Blood which he wished might be abolished if it could be done without offending the ignorant Nevertheless this practice of giving a little Wine unto young Children after Baptism continued a long time in divers parts of the Western Church Lindan Panop l. 4. c. 25. as appears by the words of Hugh of S. Victor and some have observed that not much above one hundred years ago the same thing was used and practised in the Church of Dordrecht in Holland Apud Arcad. de concord l. 3. c. 40. before it embraced the Protestant Reformed Religion In fine Simon of Thessalonica Cabasilas Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople and Gabriel of Philadelphia also defend this necessity of Communicating not only of persons of discretion but also of young Children This Tradition thus established there only rests to finish this Chapter to speak something touching the words of the Distributer and of the Communicant When the Lord gave unto the Disciples the Sacrament of Bread he said This is my Body and in giving them the Symbole of Wine This is my Blood or this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood but we do not find that the Apostles said any thing In Justin Martyr's time Apolog. 2. the Distributer nor the Communicant said nothing but the Deacons gave unto the Believers Bread and Wine which had been consecrated Serom. l. 1. p. 271. and it may be collected from Clement of Alexandria that it was so practised at the end of the Second Century Some time after it was said unto the Communicants in giving them the Sacrament the Body of Christ the Blood of Christ and the Receivers answered Amen as may be read in the Apostolical Constitutions S. Ambrose S. Cyril of Jerusalem S. Austin and elsewhere but it must also be observed that they said unto them Ye are the Body of Christ and that unto these words they answered Amen as they had answered in receiving the Sacrament as is restified by S. Austin in his Sermon unto the new Baptized in S. Fulgentius In the days of Gregory the First and after they said in distributing the Eucharist The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep ye unto Life everlasting The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ redeem ye unto Life everlasting But I do not find that Believers answered so punctually Amen Such Liberty the Church hath used in this circumstance of distributing the Sacrament Amongst the Greeks they say unto the Communicant In Euchol p. 83. Servant of God you do Communicate of the holy Body and precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in remission of Sins and unto Life everlasting But 't is time to consider the things which were given unto Believers when they did participate of the Sacrament and it is wherein we will employ the following Chapter CHAP. XII Of the things distributed and received WHat was distributed unto Believers in Communicating were the things which had been Blessed and Consecrated to be made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord. I will not now examine the change which Consecration may thereunto bring this not being the place to treat of the Doctrine of the holy Fathers which shall appear in the second part of this Treatise it will suffice here to enquire if Christians have always participated of both Symboles and if they have ever been permitted to Communicate under both kinds as is spoken or under one kind only As for the Symbole of Bread it is an undoubted truth that it hath always been given to Believers in all Christian Communions in the whole world and there hath never been any contest on this subject at least in what regards the thing it self I mean the matter of fact not to speak of the difference touching the quality of the Bread which ought to be used in this Mystery The greatest difficulty then is to know the practice of the Church in the species of Wine we are indispensably forced to treat of the Communion under both kinds and to lay before the Readers eyes the practice of Christians with the changes and innovations which have therein happened Jesus Christ who distributed the Bread unto his Apostles gave unto them also the Cup and expresly commanded them all to drink of it as S. Matthew hath written S. Mark hath said that they all drank of it The Christians immediately following the Apostles practised the very same but because it would make a whole Volume to collect the passages of the Ancients to prove the certainty of this matter and besides both Roman Catholicks as well as Protestants confess That Jesus Christ did institute this Sacrament under both kinds That the Apostles taught so and that it was so practised by the primitive Church for a long time as I think it may suffice to prove this Tradition from age to age by some of the clearest passages and to follow it until its abolishing at the Council of
Constance and from that time until the Council of Trent Justin Martyr affirms Apolog. 1. that in his time there was distributed Consecrated Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants Ep. ad Philadelph The pretended Ignatius tells us of one only Cup distributed unto all And S. Irenaeus disputing against certain Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Body Advers haer l. 5. c. 2. How saith he do they deny that the Body is capable of the gift of God which is life eternal which is nourished with the Blood and Body of Christ L. 4. c. 34. And again How do they again say that the Body corrupteth that is to say with a final corruption and that it receiveth not life to wit in rising again being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ Hom. 16. Origen on the Book of Numbers What is this people which are wont to drink Blood the Christian people the faithful people follow him who said If you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no life in you because my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed And to shew that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion Hom. 14. in Matth. he adds It is said that we drink the Blood of Jesus Christ not only in the Celebration of the Sacraments but also when we receive his words And elsewhere he speaks of unadvisedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian Ep. 63. hath written a Treatise expresly of the Sacrament of the Cup as S. Austin calls it where he amply proves this Communion which we examin and in another place writing with his Brethren unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome touching the resolution they had taken to admit into the unity of the Church those who had flinched in times of persecution and speaking of the excellent Motive which they found in communicating of the Cup to incourage Christians unto Martyrdom see here what they said Ep. 54. How should we incourage them to shed their blood for the confession of the name of Jesus if going to the Combat we should deny them the Blood of Christ Or how should we make them fit to drink the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first to drink in the Church the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication And in his Treatise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church he saith P. 175. ult edit That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present as Justin Martyr also hath taught us The Councils of Ancyra Anno 314. Apud Athanas Apolog. p. 732. in the second Canon and that of Neocaesarea the same Year in the XIII Canon inform us also the same thing as also a Synod of Alexandria Assembled during the Persecutions stirred up by the Arrians against S. Athanasius Thence it is that Leo the First In natal ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr Parmen speaking in the V. Century of S. Vincent Levite that is to say Deacon and glorious Martyr saith That he administred the Cup unto the Christians for their salvation Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia observes the same of Cecilian as he was yet but Deacon of the Church of Carthage and writes also that what drew on him the hatred of Lucilla a powerful and factious Woman who by her Riches and Credit supported the Party of the â—onatists against Cecilian promoted to be a Bishop was That Cecilian performing the Office of a Deacon pronounced a severe Sentence against her because in presenting her the Cup she kissed the Bone of some dead person or Martyr before she put her lips unto the Cup of the Lord. Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism c. 3. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood c. S. Basil said the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is That eating and drinking we should alwaies have him in remembrance who Died and is Risen again for us And elsewhere Ep. 289. It is a thing good and profitable to communicate daily and to participate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The Liturgies also which go in his name may be here alledged and all the others which are now remaining from which it is easie to collect the use and practice of communicating under both kinds S Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. Matthew Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E. The same Table is offered unto all the same Drink is given unto all but not only the same Liquor but it is also given unto us all to drink of one and the same Cup for our Father injoining us to love one another he so ordered it that we should drink of the same Cup And upon S. John speaking of the Water and Blood which came out of Christs side Hom. 85. Graec. The Mysteries do from thence take their Original to the end as oft as ye approach unto the terrible Cup ye should draw near as if it were to drink out of his side it self And upon the Second to the Corinthians Hom. 18. There are certain times when there is no difference betwixt the Priest and those over whom he doth preside as when they are to participate of the terrible Mysteries for we are all equally admitted there it is not as under the old Law the Priest ate some things and the people other things and the people were not permitted to eat of what the Priest did eat but now it is otherwise for one Body and one Cup is offered unto all S. Austin in his Questions upon Leviticus The Lord saying L. 3. c. 57. t. 4. If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no life in you What was the reason of so strictly prohibiting the people from the Blood of the Sacrifices offered for sins if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacrifice wherein the true and full remission of sins is made nevertheless no person is hindred from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment but rather all those who would be saved are exhorted to drink it Leo the First in his Lent Sermon speaking of the Manicheans who not to appear what they were frequented the Assemblies of Believers and did also participate with them of their Sacraments Serm. â— c. 5. To hide saith he their Infidelity they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments to shelter themselves the better they receive with an unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they absolutely refuse drinking the Blood of our Redemption Therefore we give your Holiness notice of it to the end this kind of men may be known by these marks and that such other Sacrilegious Dissimulation hath been discovered may be marked and that being forbidden to be present in the Society
of the Saints they might be expell'd by the Priestly Authority In the Tenth Action of the Council of Chalcedon Assembled An. 451. there is a request of the Priests of the Church of Edessa against Ibas their Bishop wherein they complain of many things T 3. Concil p. 382. F. ult edit but more especially That when the Commemoration of Martyrs was made there was no Wine given to offer at the Altar to be Sanctified and distributed unto the people except it were a very little and that bad and muddy just newly prest and made Pope Gelasius at the end of the V. Century De consecr dist 2. Ep. ad Major Joan. in Gratians Decree We have been informed saith he that some persons having only taken part of the holy Body do refrain the Cup of the holy Blood which persons doubtless it being said they are hindred by I know not what Superstition ought to receive the whole Sacraments or be quite excluded from them because that the dividing of one and the same Mysterie cannot be done without Sacriledge Fragm 28. contr Fabian L. 2. de vita sua c 15. p. 216. S. Fulgentius said That we participate of the Body and Blood of Christ when we eat of his Bread and drink of his Cup. S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon in the VII Century requires That the sick should with Faith and Devotion receive the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ T. 4. Concil p. 503. The Third Council of Toledo Assembled Anno 589. in the second Canon Ordains That the peoples heart being purified by Faith they should draw near to eat the Body and Blood of Christ Which the Fourth held in the year of our Lord 633. in the 7. and 8. Canons called Ibid. p. 584 587. To receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ And in the Eighteenth Canon it makes this Rule for reforming a certain abuse crept into the Church in the celebration of this Sacrament Some Priests communicate presently after saying the Lords Prayer and then give the Blessing unto the people which we forbid for the future but that after the Lords Prayer and the conjunction of the Bread and the Cup the blessing be given the people and that then the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord be received in this manner that the Priest and Deacon communicate before the Altar the Clergy in the Quire and the people without the Quire From which words it appears That in Spain in the VII Century the Communion of the Laity did nothing differ from that of the Priest who Officiated as to the manner but in respect of the place only Also the XI Council of Toledo Ib. p. 825. Assembled Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon plainly speaks also of the Communion under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine when it forgiveth such as being very sick through weakness refuse the Eucharist not through infidelity But because they cannot swallow it down except it be what they drink of the Lords Cup. Thus far it was the practice of the Church to administer unto Communicants both Symbols severally apart It is true that at the same time of this XI Council of Toledo some going about to change this wholsom custom and to administer the Bread steept in the Consecrated Wine the Council of Braga in Gallicia made a Decree to stop the current of this practice but before we alledge this new Decree it must be observed That the Church by a charitable condescension suffered the Eucharist steeped to be given unto very weak and sick persons and to young Children who were of a long time admitted to the participation of the Sacrament as hath been shewn We have an instance of the first in the old Man Serapion a Penitent and Bed-ridden for as I perceive in the Third Century the Eucharist was administred to no sick folks but such as were of the number of the Penitents and in danger of Death And we read in Eusebius that a Priest of Alexandria following the example of Denys his Bishop sent by a young Boy a bit or little parcel of the Eucharist Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. commanding that it should be steept and put into the old Mans mouth that he might swallow it As for young Children it appears that it may be collected both from S. Cyprian in his Treatise of those that were fallen and yielded during the time of Persecution Dimid temp c. 6. and of the counterfeit Prosper in what he hath written of Promises and Predictions that it was so done to such as were very weak I say it may seem to be gathered for the thing is very dubious in S. Cyprian who teacheth us that the Communion was given unto little Children but he doth not positively say that the Bread was steept in the Wine the pretended Prosper speaks more formally In a word it is evident that this kind of Communion was not practised but in great necessity De commun sub utraque spec p. 1027. and also as Cassander hath judiciously observed Those persons who steeped the Bread in the Wine did plainly shew and declare how necessary they believed both Symbols were to make a lawful Communion I say this sort of Communion was not practised I mean that the Bread was not steeped in Wine but upon great necessity In fine Hugh Maynard a learned Benedictine speaking of the Council of Clermont under Pope Vrban the second as 't is reported by Cardinal Baronius he collects that according to the intent of the Council may be given in a Spoon unto sick Persons ready to dye the Body of our Lord steeped in the Blood that they might swallow it the easier And to shew that the Eucharist was not so administred but unto such as were very weak he makes mention of a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims Of the anointing the sick written towards the end of the X. Century upon which he observes that when the Sacrament was administred unto such as were not extream ill it was said unto them separately The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you unto life everlasting which words saith he make a separate and distinct reception But as for those who were as 't were at the point of death these two expressions were joined together saying The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting life because saith he there was given unto the sick Person in a Spoon the Body of the Lord steeped in the holy Blood Now to return to the Council of Braga in Gallicia it was assembled in the year of our Lord 675. and in the second Canon which Gratian Ives of Chartres Cassander and several others mis-alledge as a Fragment of an Epistle of Pope Julius to the Egyptians I say in the second Canon it reproves divers abuses and amongst others that of administring the Sacrament
steeped therefore we will rest satisfied with alledging that which properly relates to the Subject in hand T. 4. Concil p. 832. We are given to understand that some Persons present unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped And having touched another abuse and having proved by the Scriptures that Milk should not be offered in stead of Wine in divine Sacrifices the Fathers add And whereas they give unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped the example of the Scripture which is alledged where Jesus Christ recommended his Body and Blood unto his Apostles will not admit of it for it is said that he bid them take his Body apart and his Blood apart And we do not read that Jesus Christ gave the steeped Bread unto any but the Disciple which should be known to be him to whom 't was given even him that would betray his Master and not to shew the Institution of the Sacrament We are then arrived at the end of the VII Century without seeing any other attempt against the Communion under both kinds separately but that which was vigorously condemned and censured by the Council of Braga Let us continue to give farther proofs of this use A Council at Paris assembled Anno 829 under Lewis the Debonnair it is the VI. which unto that time was there celebrated this Council I say in the first Book Canon the 45. condemns an abuse which was crept into certain Provinces T. 3. Concil Gall. Where the Women distributed unto the people that is in the Churches the Body and Blood of our Lord and in the 47. Canon it forbids Priests to celebrate Masses any where but in consecrated places unless it be in case of necessity To the end the people should not be without the celebration of Masses and the participation of the Body and Blood of our Lord. De ord Bapt. z. c. 18. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans in the same Century speaking of life eternal To obtain saith he this life we are Baptized and we eat the flesh of Christ and do drink his Blood and afterwards the Church continues the custom of receiving the Eucharist which was bequeathed unto her by Jesus Christ that is when any one is new born by Water and the spirit that is to say is Baptized he is nourished with the body of our Lord and drinks his Blood because that immediately after Baptism T. 7. Spicil p. 174. they received the Sacrament Amalarius Fortunatus It is to be observed saith he that every Sunday in Lent all the believers except such as are excommunicated ought to receive the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ Pope Nicholas the First in his answer to the Bulgarians requires T. 6. Concil p. 619. c. 65. that the venerable Body of Christ and his pretious Blood be distinguished and discerned from other meat and that the one and the other be received Regino in his Chronicle of the year of our Lord 869. observes that Pope Adrian the second gave the Sacrament unto King Lothair after that he had sworn that he had dismist for ever Waldrad his Concubine Regino in Chro. ad an 869. and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of the Lord and that it may not be thought it was a priviledge belonging to Lothair by reason of his Kingly Dignity the Historian saith that Pope Adrian did present the Communion unto all those which accompanied Lothair with these words If you have not been assisting unto Lothair your Lord and King in the sin of Adultery laid to his charge and if you have no way consented thereunto and have had no communication with Waldrad and others who have been excommunicated by this Apostolical Chair the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable unto you for life everlasting Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy De Contempt can part 1. t. 2. Spicileg p. 182. Ib. p. 262. towards the end of the X. Century Let all evil intentions be laid aside as well of those which receive as of those which administer the Body and Blood of the Lord in his Synodical unto his Priests he orders them to warn Believers to come four times a year to the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ and in his first Sermon of Easter P. 309. Let us saith he celebrate the Feast that is to say let us eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood And again Lay aside wickedness Page 310. if you will eat the flesh of the Lamb of God and drink his Blood And again speaking of him that had unduly celebrated the precedent Easter P. 311. He dared approach to receive the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God And of him that had not followed the example of the Saints P. 313. How doth he presume without sighing and grieving this day to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord And in his second Sermon P. 320. Let us with joy receive the Body and Blood of Christ which was sacrificed for us And in the third Let every one examine himself to see if the Priest hath said true of him that is to say if he hath received the Body and Blood of the Lord with the unlevened Bread of sincerity and of truth Ratherius dyed Anno 974. yet it is true that the practice of administring the Eucharist steeped was introduced into some places about the time Ratherius did write for Hugh Maynard above mentioned amongst several Manuscripts he used in his work upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First makes use of one under the name of Ratold Abbot of Corby written about the year of our Lord 986. wherein it is read that the Bishop should give the Communion unto the sub-Deacons In mingling the Sacrifice that is to say in mingling the holy Bread with the consecrated Wine for as for the Priests and Deacons he will have them to taste with their lips the Blood in the Cup the sub-Deacon holding it And another of John Bishop of Auranch whose title is The antient manner of celebrating Mass which he got from an antient Manuscript of the Priory of Saluza of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin in Normandy of Vexin near Vernon But it appears by the beginning of the Manuscript cited by Maynard that this John Bishop of Auranch is Author of the piece which he dedicated to Maurill Archbishop of Roan and this John dyed as the same Maynard in his Notes observes P. 277. in the year 1079. there this is to be read That the Priest should communicate not with steeped Bread but according to the definition of the Council of Toledo in all likelihood he means that of Braga in the year 675. The Body apart and the Blood apart excepting the people unto whom he is permitted to give the Communion with steeped Bread not by authority but by great necessity for fear of shedding the Blood of
tells us without falling into a great sin whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance From all which he concludes in favour of the steeped Sacrament and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steept in Wine saying That pious men had prudently directed that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry as our Lord had done but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord and that by this means it should happen that according to the precept of our Saviour we should eat his Flesh and drink his Blood and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter might avoid the danger And he gives for a reason of this conduct That we eat dry and drink liquid what goes down the throat after having received it in the mouth either together or separately And because some considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Judas did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament he saith there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him because the actions which have a different occasion cannot agree well together Afterwards taking with many others the Decree of the Council of Braga of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament for a Decree of Pope Julius he saith this Decree is no longer of force with modern persons and that the customs of the Church which surpasse all others as well in reason as in authority hath overcome this ancient Constitution that it should not be thought strange because the Decrees of other Popes are changed for the like and sometimes upon smaller occasions But although this Author of the XII Century of whom Cardinal Cusa cites something in Cassander in his Liturgies gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread as establish'd in his time in the West it cannot be said that it was universally received in all Churches without exception In fine besides what we alledged out of the Micrologue and of Pope Paschal who made his Decree in the XII Century Arnold of Bonneval contemporary with S. Bernard in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord in S. Cyprian's Works sheweth us sufficiently that in the same XII Century wherein he lived the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people when he saith Apud Cypr. p. 329. ult edit vid. p. 330. It was under the Doctor Christ Jesus that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World that Christians should drink Blood whereof the use was so strictly prohibited by the Authority of the ancient Law for the Law forbids eating of Blood and the Gospel commands to drink it And again We drink Blood Jesus Christ himself commanding it being partakers by and with him of everlasting life And at the conclusion of the Treatise he with several other Doctors of the Church who lived before him in that Believers are partakers of one Bread and of one Cup doth search a type of their union Ibid. p. 33â— or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus who is the head of this Divine Body We also saith he being made his Body are tied and bound unto our head both by the Sacrament and by the matter of the Sacrament and being members one of another we mutually render each other the duties of love we communicate by charity we participate with eating one and the same meat and drink one and the same drink which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval Peter de Celles Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims who lived at the end of the XII Century for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline which is come to light but within these seven or eight years he speaks in this manner The communication of the Body of Christ T. 3. Spicil p. 99. and of the Blood of Christ poured forth to wit of the Lamb without spot purifieth us from all guilt and from all sin Let us say something more formal Peter of Tarantes Apud Cassand de Commun sub utraque specie p. 1043. afterwards Pope under the name of Innocent IV. writes That the most considerable as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar do receive the Sacrament under both kinds William of Montelaudana in sundry places saith he They communicate with the Bread and Wine that is to say with the whole Sacrament And Peter de Palude testifies that in his time It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species Richard de Mediavilla was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution All these saith Cassander lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place that Thomas Aquinas who defends the use of communicating under one kind doth not say that this custom was universally received but in some Churches only And to say the truth Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind there were several Churches that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices by means whereof they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord as Beatus Rhenanus p. 438. testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds p. 1036. both of them in their time having seen of these Quills or little Pipes which were used for communicating the Laity Let us descend yet lower and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self not indeed of the People but of all the Cardinal Deacons for Vrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar in his Pontifical Habit wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubrick and in fine he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do T. 4. p. 306. Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders Anno 1378. by Pileiâ—de Prata Archbishop of Ravenna and Cardinal in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery But as from the
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
potest t. 5. p. 125 6. We must not saith he look only upon the Terms but the Scope of him that speaks the cause and occasion of his Discourse and comparing all together find out the sense and meaning of what is therein contained Nevertheless it must be noted this Rule hath its particular use when the Expressions are doubtful and difficult and when by staying at the Terms and following the rigour of the Letter a convenient Sense cannot be given unto what is said or heard except in such a case nothing hinders but looking unto the scope of him that speaks stress may be laid on his Words and much light taken from his Expressions Thus have the Holy Fathers proceeded in examining the Words used by our Saviour in instituting the Sacrament because all they have told us hitherto are only so many Reflections which they have made upon the Words and Expressions of this Merciful Saviour but because they were verily persuaded that Jesus Christ which is Wisdom it self had an end in instituting this Divine Mystery they would know the end and design which he proposed in leaving this precious earnest of his Love unto his Church Do this saith our Lord in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup saith St. Paul you shew the Lord's Death till he come From whence they concluded that the Intention of Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament and that of the Church in celebrating it by his Command was by this means to preserve amongst Christians the remembrance of his Death and Sufferings but because his Death doth suppose his Incarnation and Birth and that moreover his blessed Resurrection and Exaltation into Glory ensued thereupon I find they have included in this Commemoration commanded us by Christ the consideration of his Incarnation bitter Death of his Resurrection and of his Ascension into Heaven According to which some of them join unto the consideration of his Death that of his Incarnation as St. Justin Martyr which saith Just Martyr contra Tryph. p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance that he made himself Man for those which believe in him and for whom he made himself Mortal and the Cup in remembrance of his Blood But sometimes also considering the Death of Christ as the end of his Conception and of his Birth because he took not our Nature and was born of a Virgin but to die they are content to consider the Sacrament as a Memorial of his Death only Id. ibid. p. 259. In this regard the same St. Justin said That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in remembrance of the Death which he suffered for the Souls of those which have been cleansed from all Malice This was also the meaning of Tatian his Disciple Tat. Diates t. 7. Bibl. Pat. when he said The Lord commanded his Disciples to eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Sacrament because it was the memorial of his approaching Affliction and of his Death There were others who making this Reflection in themselves that the Death of Christ would be of no benefit unto us without his Resurrection which assures us of his Victory over the Enemies of our Salvation and of the Eternal Father's accepting of the Satisfaction he made unto his Justice in our stead and in consideration whereof he delivers us from the Slavery of Sin and the Devil have considered the celebration of the Sacrament as the commemoration of his Death and Resurrection Such was the Reflection of St. Basil Basil de Bapt. c. 2. p. 581. when he observed that What we eat and drink to wit of the Bread and Wine it is to the end we should always remember him who died and is risen again for us Others in fine considering that Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven and that he had left us the Sacrament as a pledg of his Presence to comfort us in expectation of his glorious Return they thought the consideration of his Death ought not to be separated from that of his Ascension and that as they should think of his Humiliation and Sufferings they should also think of his Exaltation and Glory This was in all likelihood the meaning of St. Gaudent tr 2. l. 2. Bibl. Patr. Gaudentius when he taught That the Sacrament is our Viaticum or Provision for our Journey whereby we are strengthned in the Way until by departing out of this Life we go to him that it is an earnest of his Presence and the portract of his Passion until he come again from Heaven but an earnest and a resemblance which he will have us take in our Hands and receive with the Mouth and Heart to the end we may have engraven in our Memories the great Benefit of our Redemption To thus much also amounts what is said by the Author of the Commentaries In Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. attributed unto St. Jerome That Jesus Christ hath left us the last Commemoration or the last Remembrance as if one taking a Voyage into a far Country would leave a Token with his Friend to the end that when-ever he look'd on it he should be mindful of his Love and Kindness which he cannot do without shedding Tears if he perfectly loved him and that he gave us this Sacrament to the end that by this means we should always remember the Death which he suffered for us Sedulius hath only transcribed this Testimony in his Commentaries upon the same Epistle and upon the same Chapter Primatius an African Bishop declares in the VIth Century that it was his Judgment and he explained himself almost as the other two had done and Christian Druthmer will say the same in the IXth Century as for the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 8. c. 12. he hath joined all these considerations together For he will have us to remember his Passion his Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and his second Coming which will be when he comes with Power and Glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward every one according to his Works The same thing is to be read in the Liturgy of St. Mark and what is found in that which the Latins use at present comes very near it But the Fathers rest not there for I have observ'd that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Pledge and Memorial they set it in opposition not only of the Truth but even also of the Truth absent so it hath been understood by Gaudentius Sedulius Primasius the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerome in the Passages we have alledged whereunto may be joined these Words of the latter In 1 ad Cor. Cap. 11. That we have need of this Memorial all the time which shall continue until he be pleased to come again It is in the same sense Theodoret said Theodoret in 1 ad Cor. c.
11. After his coming we shall have no need of Signs or Symbols of his Body because the Body it self shall appear It was also the meaning of St. Austin if I mistake not when he said Aug. Serm. 9. de divers Id. in Psal 37. That we shall not receive the Eucharist when we are come unto Christ himself and that we have begun to reign Eternally with him he said also elsewhere That no Body remembers what is not present A Maxim grounded upon the Light of Reason De memor reminisc c. 1. De Invent. l. 2. for 't is by this Principle the Philosopher said that the Memory is not of things present and the Prince of Eloquence That the Memory is that whereby one remembers things which are past I never think of these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body but I deplore with grief and sorrow of Heart the State of Christians which have made the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted to be the Bond of their Love and Union the occasion of their Hatred and the sorrowful matter of their sad Divisions and as I should be over-joy'd to contribute any thing to disabuse those which are in Errour by giving the Words the Explication which they ought to have I thought one of the best means to effect it was diligently to search in what sense the Holy Fathers have taken them and in what manner they understood them for I make no question but a belief agreed upon by Christians at all times and universally received at all times in all the Climates of the Christian World is Catholick Orthodox and by consequence worthy to be retained in the Church as an Apostolical Truth Therefore I have applied my self unto this Inquiry to endeavour to find in their Works their true and real Thoughts and because for the most part in their Homilies and popular Exhortations they are transported with the fervour of Zeal and the motions of Piety which often made them use Hyperbolical Expressions fit for the Pulpit and suitable unto Orators which should be pathetical and feeling I have not stopt at these sorts of Works I have chiefly examined Commentaries and Expositions where for the most part they speak Dogmatically and in cold Blood and the true and genuine Thoughts of those which write or expound may be seen And but that I mean exactly to keep within the Bounds prescribed at the beginning of this second Part I might continue my Inquiry unto the XIIth Century which would give us the Testimonies of Zonaras a Greek Canonist and of Rupert de Duitz as the IXth doth those of Raban of Christian Druthmar and of Bertram Laying then aside these five Testimonies not to infringe the Law I willingly imposed on my self I 'le begin vvith Clement of Alexandria Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. who lived at the end of the second Century Jesus Christ said he blessed Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine the holy Liquor of Joy represents by Alegory the Word to wit with regard to his Blood which was shed for many for the Remission of Sins From Clement of Alexandria I will pass unto Theophilus of Antioch Theoph. Anti. och in Matth. who wrote in the same Age When Jesus Christ saith he said This is my Body he called Bread which is made of many Grains his Body whereby he would represent the People which he hath taken unto himself Tertul. l. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. Cyprian ep 76. The third shall be Tertullian which saith That Jesus Christ having taken Bread and distributed it unto his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body The fourth is St. Cyprian When the Lord saith he doth call the Bread made of several grains of Wheat his Body he signifieth thereby the faithful People whose Sins he bore inasmuch as it was but one Body The fifth is St. Jerome Hieron Com. in Matth. c. 26. who dyed in the year of our Lord 420 As they were at Supper saith he Jesus took Bread blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the New Testament for the remission of Sins When the Typical Passover was accomplished and that Jesus Christ had eaten with the Apostles the Flesh of the Lamb he took Bread which strengthneth Man's Heart and proceeds on to the true Sacrament of the Passover to the end that as Melchisedek Priest of the most High God had offered Bread and Wine to represent him so he also should represent the Truth of his Body and of his Blood The sixth is St. Austin contemporary with St. Jerome and dyed about eleven years after him The Lord made no difficulty to say August contr Adim c. 12. This is my Body when he gave the Symbol of his Body The seventh is Theodoret Our Lord saith he made an Exchange of Names Theod Dial. 1. and gave unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body and in the same place tells us in Truth whereof the Holy Food is the Sign and Figure Is it of the Divinity of Jesus Christ or of his Body and Blood Id. ibid. It is evident 't is of the things whereof they have their Names for the Lord having taken the Sign said not This is my Divinity but This is my Body and afterwards This is my Blood The eighth is Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa who assisted at the Fifth Oecumenical Council about the middle of the sixth Century Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. We do call saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery or the Sacrament of his Body and Blood From whence it is also that the Lord himself called the Bread and the Cup which he blessed and gave unto his Disciples his Body and his Blood The ninth is St. Isidor Bishop of Sevill in Spain Isid Hist oâ—igin l 6. c 19. We call saith he by the Command of Christ himself his Body and Blood that which being sanctified of the Fruits of the Earth is consecrated and made a Sacrament The tenth is Bede that bright Star of the English Church which finished his Course Anno 735. Beda Commâ— in Marc. 14. Jesus Christ saith he said unto his Disciples This is my Body because Bread strengthens the Heart of Man and Wine doth increase Blood in the Body it is for this reason that Bread represents mystically the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood The eleventh is a Council of 338 Bishops Concil Constantinop in act
Concil Nicaen 2 act 6. assembled at Constantinople against Images in the year 754. Jesus Christ say these Fathers having taken Bread blessed it and having given Thanks he brake it and giving it to his Disciples he said Take eat for the Remission of Sins This is my Body in like manner having given the Cup he said This is my Blood do this in remembrance of me there being no other kind of Thing nor Figure chosen by him that could so fitly represent his Incarnation See then the Image of his quickning Body made honourably and gloriously Here are eleven substantial Witnesses which being added unto the five others which we passed over and shall appear in due time make up the number of sixteen without touching those which may by evident and necessary Consequences be drawn unto the same Testimonyâ— for I have made choice only of those which seemed most evident and of those also some speak in more express Terms than others The Reader may judg if all these Witnesses which speak of Bread Wine Fruit of the Vine of Figure Sign Type Symbol Sacrament of Representation of Fruits of the Earth do not give a figurative sense unto these Words This is my Body This is my Blood And to do it the better let him exactly see if any of these antient Commentators have spoken of Reality of bodily Conversion and of local Presence in interpreting them for say the Protestants they could not pass over in silence so important a Doctrine as that in an occasion which indispensably obliged them to say something of it without rendring themselves guilty of horrid Hypocrisy and Injustice So that if they have not done it and that there appears no such thing in what hath been produced and examined as indeed say they whatever Scrutiny we could make no such thing nor like it doth appear it may be safely and lawfully concluded that all these Fathers have taken these Words not in a proper and literal Sense but in a figurative and metaphorical Sense Moreover all these Reflections of the Ancients upon these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament amount just to the manner of understanding them commanded by the Council of Trent when it forbids to interpret the holy Scriptures Sess 4. contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Because as 't is explained by Melchior Canus Locor l 7. c. 3. num 10. Bishop of the Canaries who assisted at the Council The Sense of all the Saints is the Sense of the Holy Ghost CHAP. II. Of what the Father 's believed concerning what we receive in the Sacrament and what they have said of it BEsides the many Reflections made by the ancient Doctors upon the Words used by our Saviour in the instituting this most august Sacrament which we have sufficiently enumerated and set down in the foregoing Chapter I find they have said many other things which may direct us unto the true understanding of their Belief which we will enquire into in this second Chapter In the first place they have called the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating There is given unto each of these present Just Mart. Apol. 2. vol. 1. Iâ—en l. 4. c 34. saith Justin Martyr the Bread the Wine and the Water which have been consecrated St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons gives it the same Name calling it The Bread upon which Prayers and Thanks have been made And I make no question Contr. Tryph. p. 260. Orig. contr Cels l. 8. Id. ibid. Id. Homil. 5. in Levitic Cyprian Ep. 76. 63 Apud Euseb Hist l. 6 c. 43. prope fin but 't is also for the same reason that our Christian Philosopher I mean St. Justin speaks of the Eucharist of Bread and Wine Origen against Celsus The Bread which is called the Eucharist the Symbol of our Duty towards God And in the same Book The Bread offered with Thanksgivings and Prayers made for the Mercies bestowed on us And in his Homilies upon Leviticus The Bread which the Lord gave unto his Disciples St. Cyprian was of the same Judgment when he called it The Bread of the Lord And in his Treatise of the Cup or in his Epistle to Cecilius he very often calls it Bread and Wine mix'd with Water and saith That the Body of the Lord is not Flower only nor Water only but a composition of these two things kneaded and moulded together and made into the substance of Bread And Cornelius Bishop of Rome writing unto Fabian Bishop of Antioch of what passed in the undue Ordination of Novatian unto the Episcopacy and speaking of the Sacrament in the act of distribution and reception he calls it That Bread From hence 't is that Tertullian disputing against the Marcionites Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 23. who taught that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Creator he reproaches them That they were baptized in the name of another God upon anothers Earth and with anothers Water and that they made Prayers and gave Thanks unto another God upon the Bread of another It is easy to understand that in speaking in that manner to Marcion he presupposed that the Orthodox made their Prayers unto God the Creator upon this Bread that is to say The Bread of the Eucharist And the Author of the Epistle to the Philadelphians under Ignatius's Name Ep. ad Philad saith That there is one Bread broken unto all If we descend lower Conc. Ancyr c. 2. Conc. Neoces c. 13. we shall find that the Council of Ancyrus in the year 314 forbids Deacons that had sacrificed unto Idols To present the Bread and the Cup. And that of Neocesarea of the same Year saith That the Country-Priests cannot offer nor give the Bread in Prayer nor the Cup in the chief Church in the City if the Bishop or the Priests of the City are present Euseb dem l. 5. c. 3. Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea wrote about the year 328. That the Ministers of the Christian Church express darkly by the Bread and Wine the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ It was also the opinion of St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers Bil. in Matth. c. 30. when he said That the Passover of our Lord was made the Lord having taken the Cup and broke the Bread Macar Hom. 27. St. Macarius followed the same Steps in saying That in the Church one participates of visible Bread to eat spiritually the Flesh of our Lord. Concil Laod. c. 25. The Council of Laodicea assembled about the year 360 ordains That Ministers ought not that is to say the Deacons or rather Sub-Deacons to administer the Bread nor bless the Cup. A Council of Carthage made this Decree Concil Carth. c. 24. That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord nothing else should be offered but what the Lord himself had done to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water This Decree is the 37th in the Code
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
their Difference with Origen was only in the Circumstance whether or no the holy Bread went unto the Place of Excrements Origen holding the Affirmative the others the Negative but as to the Ground of the Doctrine I find them all agreed and that all of them teach that what we receive at the Lord's Table is the Substance of Bread which some subject to the same fate of our common Food that goes into the Belly and from thence into the Draft others think this Bread doth pass into our Substance and if it feed our Souls by the virtue wherewith God accompanies it after Consecration and lawful Use of the Sacrament it also nourisheth and increaseth the Body by its proper Nature without turning into Excrements And the latter as I conceive are inclin'd unto this Opinion the rather because receiving but very little Bread and Wine in the Sacrament they made no difficulty to believe that it all turns into our Substance In the third place the holy Fathers testify that this Sacrament is consumed Aug. de Trin. lib. 3. c. 10. The Bread saith St. Austin which is made for that purpose is consumed in taking the Sacrament And again in the same Chapter What is put upon the Table is consumed the holy Colebration being ended Commonly there was no more alledged but this Passage of St. Austin to prove that the antient Christians believed that what was received at the Sacrament was of such a nature as to be in effect consumed Wherefore I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd if I lead him farther and make it appear this manner of Speech was us'd in the Church a long time after St. Austin's Death These Considerations we make upon the Doctrine of the holy Fathers are of such importance that we endeavour to find out in all Ages of the Christian Church what Foot-steps they have left us of it in their Writings Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the first alledgeth and wholly transcribes a Pontifical Manuscript which is kept in the Church of Rouen and is as far as I can guess near to the eighth Century and probably of later times in this Pontifical the whole Ceremony of holy Thursday is represented and amongst many other Observations this is to be read When the Bishop washeth his Hands In Not. Menar in Sacram. Greg. p. 84. and the Deacons go unto the Altar to uncover the holy Things and that the Bishop comes to the Altar separates the Oblations to break them that he takes some of the whole ones to keep until next day the Day of Preparation and that they communicated without the Blood of the Lord because the Blood was wholly consumed the same Day It may be easily seen that the Blood mentioned by the Pontifical is not the proper Blood of Jesus Christ for all Christians unanimously confess that the real Blood of our Lord which was shed upon the Cross for the Salvation of Mankind is shed no more and is not in a state of being consumed in the Celebration of the Sacrament then saith the Protestant he must needs speak of a Typical and Figurative Blood I mean of the Mystical and Sanctified Wine which Believers drink at the holy Table and which is subject unto the fate of being consumed No other Explication can be given unto the Words of the Pontifical above-mentioned which doth not ill suit with those of St. Austin and I promise my self that the tenth Century however dark and ignorant it be represented by Historians will furnish us with another Witness an Abbot of a famous Monastery which will speak of the other Symbol what the Pontifical hath said of the Symbol of Wine In the fourth Place They avow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is an inanimate Subject as Theophilus Arch-bishop of Alexandria for refuting the Opinion of Origen who denied that the holy Ghost exercised any Operation upon Things that have no Soul he speaks thus In affirming this he doth not consider Theop. Alex. Pasch 1. Bibl. Pat. t. 3. p. 87. that in Baptism the Mystical Waters are consecrated by the holy Ghost which descends and that the Bread of the Lord whereby the Body of the Lord is shewn forth and which we break for our Sanctification and the holy Cup which with the Bread is set upon the Table of the Church and which are things inanimate are sanctified by Prayers and by the coming of the holy Ghost St. Epiphanius was not far from this Belief when comparing the Bread after Consecration with the Body it self of our Saviour he said Epiphan in Anchor That the one is round as to its Form and insensible as to its Power but the other hath the Features and Lineaments of a Body and is all Life Motion and Action To thus much also amounts their Belief that the Change in the Sacrament concerned not the Nature of the Bread and Wine to change them into another thing but only to add unto them the Grace which they had not before that is to say a quickning and sanctifying virtue in the right use of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. Jesus Christ saith Theodoret hath honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding the Grace In the fifth place These same Fathers affirm that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration it is the Judgment ment of St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesar The Bread of the Sacrament saith he is called Bread before it is sanctified but Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Ministry of the Priest it is no longer called Bread but it is judged worthy to be called the Body of Christ although the Nature of Bread remains Monsr de Marca in his French Treatise of the Eucharist Pag. 12 13. of the last Edit pag. 9. doth agree That until St. Chrysostom the Fathers believed that the Bread did not change its Nature after Consecration Moreover he confesseth for truth the Letter of St. Chrysostom unto Caesarius As also the Abbot Faggot doth in his Letter unto Monsr de Marca Son to that Illustrious Prelat and President of the Parliament of Paris he therein further informs us that this Letter of St. Chrysostom is in the custody of Monsr Bigot who in his Voyage into Italy found it in the Library whence Peter Martyr of Florence formerly procur'd it I mean in the Library of the Duke of Florence so that for the future there ought not to be any farther Contest of the validity of this Letter because the true Author of it cannot be unknown Theodoret a great admirer of St. Chrysostom Theod. dial 2. tells us That the Nature of the Symbols is not changed And in another of his Dialogues The Mystical Symbols saith he after Consecration do not change their proper Nature for they continue in their former Substance Gelas de duab in Christ natur ad Nestor â—ueych in
Adim c. 12. is that of Sign St. Austin saith That our Lord made no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body The third is that of Figure Tertul. contr Marc. l. 4. c. 40. according to which Tertullian said That Jesus Christ made the Bread his Body in saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body Id. l. 3. c. 19. and in the foregoing Book he said That our Lord gave unto the Bread the Figure of his Body St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. Aug. in Psal 3. said That the Wine is offered in Figure of the Passion of our Lord that is to say of his Blood And St. Austin declares that Jesus Christ in his first Sacrament recommended and gave unto his Apostles the Figure of his Body and Blood It was also the Opinion of the Author of the Treatise of the Sacraments L. 4. de Sacram. apâ—d Ambros falsly attributed unto St. Ambrose when he calls the Oblation of the Eucharist The Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ This Passage also is alledged by Paschas Rathbert â—ede in Luc. c. 22. in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Venerable Bede who died Anno 735 spoke the same Language for in his Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke he saith That instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Jews Passover Our Lord substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine Id. in Psal 3. And upon the 3d Psalm he repeats the Words of St. Austin and saith That our Lord in his Sacrament gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood This Expression continued longer in the Latin Church seeing Charlemain who lived until the Year 814 used it in one of his Letters unto Alcuin De Ration Sepâ—â—uzg ad Alcuin wherein he treats of the Reason of the Septuagesima Our Lord saith he Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for the Figure of his Body and Blood and left them a great Sacrament for our Benefit Christian Druthmar will employ the same Word in the IXth Century The fourth is that of Type Eâ—â—r de natur Dei non serut in this sense Ephrem the Syrian saith in the IVth Century That our Lord taking Bread into his Hands broke it and blessed it for a Type of his immaculate Body and that he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples for a Type of his Blood Cyril Hiâ—ros Mystag 4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem In the Type of the Bread is the Body given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian Orat. 42. vol. 2. de Pasch We are made Partakers of the Passover and nevertheless typically although this Passover is more manifest than the old one for the legal Passover I dare affirm was an obscure Type of another Type that is to say of the Eucharist And again Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. Hieron in Jerem. c. 31. Id. l 2. contr Jovin Ibid. Theod Dialog 3. Id. Dialog 1. he calls the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament The Types of his Salvation St. Jerome in his Commentary upon Jeremiah The Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ is made with Wine And again Jesus Christ offered not Water but Wine for a Type of his Blood And again The Mystery which our Lord expressed in Type of his Passion Theodoret speaking of the Holy Bread calls it The venerable and saving Type of the Body of Jesus Christ And in another place he said That the Eucharist is the Type of the Passion of our Lord and that the Holy Food is the Type of his Body and of his Blood The fifth is that of Anti-type Const Apost l. 5. c. 13. the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions saith That our Lord gave unto his Disciples the Mysteries Anti-types of his Body and precious Blood Judas not being there present And again He calls the Eucharist Ibid. l. 6. c. 29. Ibid. l. 7. c. 26. the Anti-type of the Royal Body of Jesus Christ And again he affirms That we celebrate the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of our Lord. St. Macarius Macar Hom. 27. There is offered in the Church Bread and Wine the Anti-type of his Flesh and of his Blood Eustatius Bishop of Antioch Act. 6. Cenc Nicaen 2. expounding these Words of the 9th Chapter of Proverbs Eat of my Bread and drink the Wine which I have mingled by the Bread and Wine saith he he meaneth the Anti-types of the bodily Members of Jesus Christ Basil Liturg. St. Basil in his Liturgy We beseech thee presenting the Anti-types of the Body and Blood of thy Christ St. Gregory of Nazianzen Greg. Nazian de obiâ—u Gorgon vel Orat. 11. Id. Orat. 1. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. Theod. Dial. 2. Id. Dial. 3. extr his intimate Friend to express both parts of the Eucharist saith The Anti-types of the precious Body and Blood And in his Apologetick he considers the Sacrament as The Anti-type of great Mysteries St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith That we eat the Anti-type of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Theodoret The Divine Mysteries saith he are the Anti-types of the true Body And elsewhere He speaks of participating of the Anti-types of the Body Now the words Types and Anti-types are nothing else but the Form the Expression and a Representation and they signify almost the same as the word Figure doth The sixth is that of Symbol which signifies a Sign Signal or Mark as Grammarians say so in the Apostolical Constitutions Consâ—â—t Apost l. 6. c. 23. there is mention of a Sacrifice which is celebrated in memorial of the Death of Jesus Christ and which was instituted to be the Symbol of his Body and of his Blood Dionvs Hier. Eccles l. 9. The Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the Name of Dennis the Areopagite declares That Jesus Christ is signified and that we partake of him by the venerable Symbols Ibid. And again he observes That the Bishop that officiates washeth his Hands before the sacred Symbols and that this washing is done before the most holy Symbols as in the Presence of Christ himself Euseb demonst l. 1. c. 10. who knows our most secret Thoughts Eusebius saith we have received or learned to make the Memorial of this Sacrifice of our Lord upon the Table with the Symbols of his saving Body and Blood Ib. l. 8. a Gen. And in the same Treatise he saith That Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body and accordingly he calleth the Wine the Symbol of his Blood Ibid. and testifies that our Lord himself gave unto his Disciples the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy that is to say Chrys Hom. 83. in Matth. Palled
in vita Chrysost of his Incarnation St. Chrysostom If Jesus Christ be not dead of whom are the consecrated things Symbols Palladius in the Life of St. Chrysostom often useth this term speaking of pouring out the Symbols of communicating of the Symbols of our Lord Theod. 1 Cor. 11. and of burning the Symbols of Mysteries Theodoret After the coming of our Lord we shall have no more need of the Symbols of his Body Id. in Psal 109. And in another Treatise The Church offers the Symbols of his Body and Blood And in his Dialogues he often speaketh thus Id. Dial. 1. Our Lord saith he hath made an exchange of these Names and hath given unto his Body the Name of Symbol and to the Symbol the name of his Body that is to say giving unto his Body the name of Bread and the name of Bread unto his Body calling himself a Vine and his Blood that which is the Symbol of it Ibid. He saith again That our Lord honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood that the Holy Food is the Symbol and Type of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Id. Dialog 2. And in the following Dialogue he speaks of the Mystical Symbols which after their Sanctification do not change their first Nature Maxim in c. 3. Hier. Eccles And Maximius Scholiast of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite speaking of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist said These things are Symbols and not the Truth it self Vict. An ioch in c. 14. Mâ—rc Victor of Antioch in his Commentary upon St. Mark calls the Bread of the Eucharist The Symbol of the Body of Jesus Christ The seventh is that of Image but because Image Similitude and Likeness signify the same thing we will comprehend all three under the Name of Image Euseb dem l. 8 a Genes Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea saith That Jesus-Christ commanded his Disciples to make the Image of his Body Trocop in Geâ—es c. 49. Gelaf de duab Christ Nat. Procopius of Gaza upon Genesis He gave saith he unto his Disciples the Image of his Body Pope Gelasius said the same at the end of the fifth Century Certainly saith he the Image or Similitude of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is celebrated in the Mysteries that sheweth us plainly what we are to believe touching Jesus Christ our Lord even what we profess what we celebrate and what we receive in his Image The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in the Works of Origen keeps the same language when he calls the Bread and the Cup the Images of his Flesh and Blood Orig. Dial. 3. contra Marc. And 338 Bishops assembled at Constantinople Anno 754 say that Jesus Christ hath commanded us to offer the Image of his Body and all along in their Discourse which is very large they constantly and divers times call the Bread of the Eucharist the Image of the Body of our Lord. We may add unto these Testimonies of the antient Doctors of the Church those which say that the Body and Blood of our Lord are signified shewn represented in the Eucharist as having clearly the same force and meaning as the former as when Tertullian saith of the Bread of the Sacrament Tert. l. 1. c. 14. that it is a Bread by which Jesus Christ represents his Body St. Cyprian Cypr. ep 63. that the Blood of Jesus Christ is exhibited by the Wine the which is repeated by the Council of Braga in the second Canon Anno 675. Dion Areop Hier. Eccl. â— 3. Theoph. ep Pasch Ambros de iis qui init c. 9. Apud Bed in 1 Cor. 11. The pretended Denis the Areopagite that by the Symbols Jesus Christ is signified Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria that by the Bread of our Lord his Body is represented unto us St. Ambrose that before the Words of divine Benediction another thing is named after Consecration the Body of Jesus Christ is signified St. Austin that the Infant is not frustrated of the participation of this Sacrament he means that of the Eucharist when he finds what the Sacrament doth signify The Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose that in eating and drinking in the holy Communion we signify the Flesh and Blood In fine the true St. Jerome imitating Tertullian's Expression Hieron in Mat. c. 26. that Jesus Christ took Bread and Wine that he might also represent that is as Melchisedek had done before the truth of his Body and of his Blood But the more easily to penetrate into the meaning of these Expressions and the better to understand their Force we must relate two things which we have observed in the Writings of the holy Fathers First when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign a Symbol a Figure an Image It is in opposition unto the Reality which they consider as absent In this sense they say Maxim 〈…〉 Dionvs Areop p. 68. 75. 6â— that these things are Symbols and not the Truth That the sacred Oblations to wit the Bread and the Cup are Signs of Things from above which are more certain That the things in the Old Testament were the Shadow that those of the New are the Image but that the Substance shall be in the World to come That the Shadow was under the Law the Image under the Gospel and the Truth in Heaven And I believe it was in this sense that the old Latin Liturgies said Lord Ambros l. 1. de Offic. c. 48. Vetus Liturgia apud Bettram in receiving the Earnest of Life Everlasting we humbly beseech thee that we may receive by a manifest Participation what we now have in a Sacramental Image And sometimes after That thy Sacraments O Lord may accomplish in us what they contain to the end we may receive in reality what we now celebrate in shew and appearance The second thing I have observed is that the Holy Fathers unanimously avow that the Image and Figure cannot be the Thing itself whereof they be the Image and Figure As when Tertullian saith Tert contra Marc. l. 1. c 9. That the Image will not be entirely equal unto the Substance for saith he it is one thing to be according to Truth and another thing to be the Truth it self And elsewhere Id. contra Prax. c. 26. Athan. contra Hipocr Melet. Contr. Marcel l. 1. c. 4. Hilar. de Syn. that which is of a Thing is not the Thing it self whereof it is And St. Athanasius that which is like unto a Thing is not the Thing it self whereunto it is like Marcellus of Ancyras if it be not Eusebius himself who disputes against him Never was the Image of a Thing and the Thing whereof 't is an Image one and the same And St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers No Body is the Image of himself St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan observed almost the same language when he said
Antio in Marc. Seeing our Saviour hath said This is my Body This is my Blood those which offer or present the Bread must esteem after Prayer and Consecration that 't is the Body of Christ and participate of it and that also the Cup is instead of his Blood But I see nothing more positive and formal hereupon than what is said by Proclus Bishop of Constantinople in one of his Orations Proclus Orat. 17. where he exhorts his Hearers to imitate the Piety and Devotion of the wise Men which went to worship the Child Jesus in the Manger at Bethlehem for after having represented unto them that instead of Bethlehem they had the Church instead of a Stable the House of God and instead of a Manger the Altar or Communion-Table he adds instead of the Child we embrace the Bread which was blessed by the Infant And it shall appear in its place that Amalarius was very near of this Opinion when he taught That the Sacrament is that which is sacrificed instead of Jesus Christ But because the Fathers which say That the Bread and Wine are the Body of Jesus Christ say also that they pass and are changed into the Body and Blood they have taken care to explain unto us these latter Expressions as they also have fully done the former for they tell us that when they say That when the Bread and Wine pass into the Body and Blood of Christ they mean that they pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil gives us in these Words Isid Hispal de offic Eccles l. 1. c. 18. The Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ who saith I am the true Vine but the Bread because it strengthenâ— the Body is for this Reason called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine because it increaseth Blood in the Body for that cause refers unto the Blood of Jesus Christ now these two things are visible yet nevertheless being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the divine Body It was also the Opinion of Bede Bed Hom. deâ— Sant in Epiphan Jesus Christ saith he daily washeth us in his Blood when we renew at the Altar the remembrance of his holy Passion when the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Raban Bishop of Mayans was of his mind but we may not speak of him now And when these same Fathers say That the Bread and Wine are changed and converted into the Body and Blood of our Lord they also tell us that it is into the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body It is in this sense that Theodotus said Apud Clem. Alex. p. 800. Vict. in Marc. 14. Manus That the Bread is changed into a spiritual Vertue St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch speaks yet plainer God saith he taking pity of our Infirmities communicates into the things offered an enlivening Vertue and changeth them into the Efficacy of his Flesh whereunto amounts what hath been already said by Theodoret Theod. Dial. 1. That Jesus Christ hath honoured the Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding his Grace unto their Nature It is for that Reason he adds Ibid. That the Lord made an exchange of Names giving unto his Body the Name of Bread and unto the Bread the Name of his Body to the end saith he that those which participate of the Divine Mysteries should not stop at things which are seen but that by the change of Names they should believe the change which is made by his Grace It is just what Ephraim Apud Phot. God 229. Patriarch of Antioch intended by these Words The Sacrament doth not change the outward Form but it remains inseparable from the hidden Grace as it is in Baptism Ammon cat in Joan. 3.5 For as Ammenius saith The material Water is changed into a divine Vertue I think no other sense can be given unto these words of the 338 Bishop assembled in the Council at Constantinople Anno 754 In Conc. Nicaen 2. Act. 6. against Images As the natural Body of Jesus Christ is Holy because it was Deified so also this here which is his Body by Institution he speaks of the Substance of Bread and which is his Image is Holy as being made Divine by an Institution of Grace But we will retrench having voluntarily prescribed our selves this Law to avoid Confusion therefore it shall suffice to observe That from all these Considerations of the Holy Fathers which we have alledged there results two Doctrines from their Writings both which have been their Foundation for the Vertue and Efficacy which they attribute unto the Sacsament the first is that they regard it as a Sacrament which not only barely signifies but which also exhibits and communicates unto the believing Soul the thing which it signifies I mean the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This is it which made St. Chrysostom say explaining these Words Chrysost Hom. â—4 in 1 ad Cor. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ wherefore did he not say that it is the Participation because he would give something more to be understood and shew a great Union For we not only communicate in that whereof we receive and take but also in that we are united for as this Body is united unto Jesus Christ so are we also united unto him by this Bread This was also the Judgment of St. Macarius when he said Macar Hom. 27. Dionys c. 3. Hier. Eceles That in participating of this visible Bread the Flesh of Christ is spiritually eaten And also of the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy who calls the Bread and Wine the venerable Symbols whereby Jesus Christ is represented and whereby we enjoy him And of Victor of Antioch Vict. Antioch in Marc. c. 14. By the Symbol of Bread saith he we are made to participate of the Body of Christ and by the Cup we partake of his Blood St. Fulgentius had no other meaning when he thus read the words of St. Paul Fulg. de Baptis Aethiop the Breads which we break are they not the participation of the Body of the Lord. And in another place which we find in the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian he declares himself so fully that nothing can be said more expresly unto the Subject in hand The participation it self saith he of the Body and Blood of our Lord Id. ex l. 8. Fragm 28. when we eat his Bread and drink his Cup intimates this unto us to wit that we should dye to the World from hence it is they oppose the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord by means of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto the participation of
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
entire in each portion of the things divided These words can receive no good sense but by understanding them of the Sacrament that is to say of the Bread which is broken in pieces as to its matter and substance but that remains whole and intire as to the vertue of the Sacrament which made the great St. Basil say Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. That to receive one part or several at ae time is the same thing as to its virtue Moreover German will have us consider Jesus Christ as dead in the Sacrament and as pouring forth his precious blood for the Salvation of mankind when he saith Id. Germ. ib. p. 407 409 410. That the Elevation of the precious body represents the Elevation in the Cross the Death of our Lord on the Cross and his Resurrection also That the Priest receiving the Bread alone without the Blood and the Blood also without the Body signifies nothing else but that the Divine Lamb is yet all bloody and that we eat the Bread and drink the Cup as the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God confessing his Death and Resurrection And clearer yet in these words where speaking of the holy Bread which he distinguisheth from Jesus Christ he saith Ibid p. 408. That it is the only Bread wherein is figured and represented the Divine and all-healing Death of him which was Sacrificed for the Lafe of the World because it is the only Divine Bread which is Sacrificed and Offered as the Lamb but as for the other Divine Gifts they be not cut in the form of a Cross with the Knife but they are put in pieces as the members and parts of the body It is the true Commentary of what he saith in the same Treatise That Jesus Christ is always sacrificed because he is so not in himself for that cannot be by the confession of all Christians but in the Sacrament the Celebration whereof doth lively represent unto us the imolation of Jesus Christ upon the Cross Ibid. p. 408. Add unto this that he declares That Jesus Christ drank Wine in his Sacrament as he did after his Resurrection not through necessity but to perswade his Disciples of the truth of his Resurrection And that he desires at the instant of communicating we should lift up our thoughts from Earth unto the King which is in Heaven Now let it be judged after all these declarations what the change can be which he saith is passed upon the Bread and Wine by Consecration if he meant a change of substance or only of use and condition for the former seems unto Protestants to be inconsistent with the Explanations which he hath given us whereas the latter doth not ill accord with it in all appearance German saith That Jesus Christ is seen and felt in the Eucharist but he positively affirms that it is done in his Sacrament that is to say that he is seen and touched inasmuch as the Sacrament is seen and felt which doth represent him Ibid. p. 401. Our Saviour saith he is seen and suffers himself to be touched by means of the ever to be revered and sacred Mysteries I will not insist upon what is said by this Patriarch That the Bread and Wine offered by Believers for the Communion do in some sort become upon the Table of proposition which amongst the Greeks is different from that where the Consecration of the Divine Symbols are made I say they become in some sort the Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because it is a frivolous conceit and with reason rejected by Roman Catholicks and Protestants But let us lay aside the Patriarch German and prosecute the History of the VIII Century in the same City where German was Patriarch the Metropolis of the Eastern Empire Constantine the 6th commonly surnamed Copronymas Son of the Emperor Leo the third called Isaurus assembled a Council of 338 Bishops Anno 754. The Assembly held full six months during which they quite abolished the Worshipping of Images and by the way Concil Constantinop in Act. Concil Nicaen 2. t. 5. Concil p. 756. clearing up the Doctrine of the Church upon the point of the Sacrament to draw a proof against the same Images they had condemned they left unto us for a Monument of their belief this following testimony Let those rejoyce which with a most pure heart make the true Image of Jesus Christ which desire which venerate and which do offer it for the Salvation of body and soul the which Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples in Figure and Commemoration And having repeated the words of Institution they add That no other Species under Heaven was made choice of by him nor any other Type that could represent his Incarnation That it is the Image of his quickning body which was honourably and gloriously made That as Jesus Christ took the matter or humane substance in like manner he hath commanded us to offer for his Image a matter chosen that is to say the substance of bread not having any humane Form or Figure fearing lest Idolatry may get in As then say they the Natural Body of Jesus Christ is holy because it is Deified It is also evident that his Body by Institution that is to say his holy Image is rendred Divine by Sanctification of Grace for it is what our Saviour intended to do when by virtue of the Union he Deified the Flesh he had taken by a Sanctification proper unto himself so also he would that the bread of the Sacrament as being the true Figure of his Natural body should be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Ghost the Priest which makes the Oblation intervening to make it holy whereas it was common therefore the Natural body of our Lord endowed with Soul and Understanding was anointed by the Holy Ghost being united unto the Godhead so also his Image to wit the holy bread is filled with the Cup of enlivening Blood which flowed out of his side What renders this testimony the more considerable and worthy to be credited is That these Fathers which represented all the Eastern Church or at least the greatest part of it were assembled about the matter of Images and not about the subject of the Sacrament for had they been assembled upon the point of the Sacrament it may be some uncharitable person might suspect them of pre-occupation or of design but having been assembled upon a very different subject of necessity it must be granted that it is by the by that they inform us of the common and general Opinion and Belief of Christians They would draw from the Eucharist an argument against the use and Worship of Images and to do it the better they were obliged to unfold unto us the Nature of the Sacrament and they explain it in saying That it is the substance of Bread that it is no deceiving Figure of his Natural Body and as they say a little before a Type
make the Bread is meant the Union of the whole Church which is baked into one body by the fire of the Holy Ghost to the end the Members should be united unto their Head c. And by the Wine the Blood of the Passion of our Lord is exhibited and so when in the Sacraments the Water is mingled with the Flower and the Wine the faithful People is incorporated and joyned unto Jesus Christ He follows the steps of St. Cyprian from whence he borrowed the expression And elsewhere he disputeth against Christ's Presence upon Earth Id. in Joan. l. 5. c. 28. He was saith he to continue but a little time corporally with his Church but as for the Poor they were to remain always so that we might always give unto them Ibid. l. 6. c. 34 35. And in the same Treatise If I depart by the absence of my Body I will come by the presence of my Divinity whereby I will be with you unto the end of the World And again in the sense of venerable Bede Ibid. c. 37. It is expedient that I should remove from before your eyes the form of a Servant to the end that the love of the Divinity might sink deeper into your hearts It is necessary I should carry into Heaven this Form which is known unto you to the end you should the more ardently desire to be in that place And according to what St. Austin said in explaining the 6th Chapter of St. John Whosoever eateth my flesh Ibid. l. 3. c. 15. and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him This eating saith he his Flesh and drinking his Blood is to dwell in Jesus Christ and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us And so he that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Jesus Christ dwelleth not for certain eateth not spiritually the Flesh although he visibly and carnally doth eat the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing because being impure he presumed to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ which none receive worthily but those that are holy After all this let it be judged which side Alcuin was of Although the Book called the Roman Order is not of any certain date and that the Learned do not agree at what time it first appeared Nevertheless because there be some that judge that it was written about the time that the Books of Images were composed under the name of Charlemain but they are deceived Ord. Rom. de Offic. Miss t. 10 Bibl. Pat. ed. 4. p. 5. the Author being much younger We will make no difficulty of joyning it unto what we have alledged of those Books and of the Works of Alcuin The Sub-Deacons saith he having seen the Chalice wherein is the Blood of our Lord covered with a Linnen Cloth and having heard Deliver us from Evil depart and prepare the Cups and clean Cloaths wherein they receive the Body of the Lord fearing it should fall to the ground and be turned to dust Let it be imagined if that could befall the true Body of Jesus Christ And again Ibid. in the same place The Bishop breaketh the Oblation that is to say the Bread on the right side and leaves the piece he broke upon the Altar He speaks of a Subject that may be broken into bits and pieces Ibid p. 6. And in the following Page The Fraction or as 't is read in the Margin the Consecration being done the youngest of the Deacons taking the pattern from the Sub-Deacon carries it unto the place where the Bishop is to the end he may communicate and having communicated he delivers unto the Arch-Deacon the holy Host which he had bit See again if the Flesh of Jesus Christ could be bit and if it could be said of the real Blood of Jesus Christ what he observes in the same place Ibid. That it is made in the Cup where there is put a portion of the holy Host a mixture of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Ibid. p. 10. And in the same Treatise That the Deacon saith he holding the Cup and the Quill doth stand before the Bishop until he hath taken what he thinks fit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ I cannot tell if one may take more or less of the true Body of Jesus Christ and whether it depends on the free Will of men to take as they list and as much as they please In fine Ibid. he will have the Deacon take care with much precaution that there be nothing left remaining in the Cup and Plate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Is it to to be conceived say the Protestants that any drop of the Blood of our Saviour could remain in the Cup or any part of his glorified Body in the Paten In the Roman Order of those times which this Author afterward relates there is to be read what we have alledged of the Cannon of the Mass in the 8th Chapter of the first Part. Whence it is inferred that the Oblation presented unto God was after Consecration an Oblation of Bread and Wine according to the Inference which was made at the end of the 6th Chapter of this Second Part which 't is not needful to repeat again in this place CHAP. XIII Containing the History of the IX Century WHatever change hapned unto the Ancient Expressions relating to the point of the Sacrament nevertheless the Belief of the Church received no alteration during the eight first Centuries the Doctrine still continued sound as I think hath been fully justified hitherto but at last in the IX Century Paschas Radbert a Friar of Corby near Amiens yet bolder than Anastatius of Mount Sina who contented himself in giving an assault unto the ancient manner of Expressions about the year 818. attacked the Doctrine it self the Providence of God permitting that the Innovations which arose in the terms and in the belief took beginning by two Friars which being both of them inclosed in their Cloisters departed in their meditations the one from the Expressions the other from the Belief of their Ancestors I said that Paschas began to write of this matter in the year 818. because it was in that year he composed his Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord as may be collected from the Preface to his Scholar Placidus where speaking unto Adelard his Abbot under the name of one Arsenius an old Hermit he sufficiently shews that he wrote in the year that Bernard King of Italy and some others had their eyes put out for conspiring against Lewis the Debonaire and that some Bishops that were of the same Combination were banish'd and depos'd which hapned exactly in the year 818. the Rebellion having begun in the year 817. as the Historians of those times inform us I will not mention that Paschas appears sometimes to be disturbed at what
and unto Jonas Bishop of Orleans when he sent them to Rome unto Pope Eugenius upon the Subject of the Images he thus begins Tom. 2. Conc. Gall. p. 461. The Bishops Halitgarius and Amalarius are come unto me c. Let us conclude then from what hath been said that Amalarius was in his time in Esteem and great Consideration in Church and State Amalar. de Offic Eccles l. 1. c. 1. And now let us examine what he said of the Sacrament directly or indirectly After saith he that our Saviour had appeared according to his own pleasure unto his Disciples whom he would have to be Witnesses of his Resurrection he ascended up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men as he himself testifies I came forth from the Father and came into the World and now I leave the World and go unto the Father Which is plainly to say I made my self visible unto men returning unto my Father I shall be invisible Although we do not see his bodily presence yet we daily salute him in adoring of him Id. de Ordine Antiphon c. 9. And elswhere We cannot think of the absence of Jesus Christ without sadness But what he is going to tell us is yet more plain and positive Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 29. because he testifies that Bread and Wine is consecrated and made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ We saith he call Institution the Tradition which our Saviour left us when he made the Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to the end it should be known what he meant by the word Sacrament he gives us this Definition of it Sacrament that is a holy Sign Id. l. 1. c. 15. He saith moreover that the Sacrament is in the stead of Jesus Christ The Priest bows and recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in the place of Jesus Christ Id. l. 3. c. 23. He distinguisheth what was sacrificed from Jesus Christ himself and considers what is offered and Jesus Christ as two different Subjects whereof the one serves us instead of the other Id. l. 3. c. 25. for it cannot be conceived that a person or a thing can be instead of it self He yet goes farther and declares expresly that that which is offered instead of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine Id. de Offic. prafat sâ—cunda and that this Bread and Wine are the Sacraments of his Body and Blood The things saith he which are done in the Celebration of Mass are done in the Sacrament that is to say in representing the Passion of our Saviour as himself commanded us saying As often as ye do this ye do it in remembrance of me Therefore the Priest which sacrificeth the Bread the Wine and Water doth it as a Sacrament of Jesus Christ that is in the place of Jesus Christ and represents him the Bread the Wine and the Water in the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ The Sacraments should have some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments Let the Priest then be like Jesus Christ as the Bread and the Liquor is like the Body of Jesus Christ These words are easie to be understood and need no Commentary because every body may perceive without help of others that Amalarius considers the Act of the Sacrament as a mysterious Representation where the Priest celebrating is in the place of Jesus Christ the Bread Wine and Water instead of his Body and Blood and will have a Relation of Resemblance to be betwixt these things and those whereof they be Sacraments which according to some is plainly contrary unto the Identity taught by Paschas Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 26. The Oblation saith he again and the Cup do signifie the Body of our Saviour When Jesus Christ said This is the Cup of my Blood he signified his Blood which Blood was in the Body as the Wine is in the Cup. And in another place Id. l. 4. c. 47. Id. l. 3. c. 25. Id. l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 34. Ibid. c. 31. Ibid. c. 35. The Bread set forth upon the Altar signifies the Body of our Lord upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do represent the Sacraments which flowed out of our Saviours side upon the Cross He calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine and saith That Jesus Christ in the Bread recommended his Body and his Blood in the Cup. And with Bede that the Apostle recommends the Unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread He observes the Bread is put into the Wine Ibid. l. 1. c. 15. And in the passage which gave occasion of the Censure of Paschas and of Florus he speaks of what is received in Communicating as of a thing broken into several peices In fine he affirms that Jesus Christ did drink Wine in his Sacrament Our Saviour said I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you which the Lesson read the second Sunday after the Resurrection of our Lord sheweth to have been done Peter saying Unto us who eat and drank with him after he was risen from the dead He will have it that this fruit of the Vine which our Saviour drank when he celebrated his Sacrament was of the same nature with that which he drank with his Apostles after his Resurrection But besides all these Testimonies which are commonly alledged out of the Writings of Amalarius we have others for which we are beholden unto Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar Rantgarius Bishop of Noyon demanded of him how he understood these words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament with this Addition which is in the Canon of the Mass The Mystery of Faith Amalarius answers him by Letter wherein after having spoken unto him of the Paschal Cup he passeth unto the Sacramental and having alledged what St. Luke saith Amalar. ad Rantgar t. 7. Spicile p. 166. he adds This Cup is in figure of my Body wherein is the Blood which shall flow out of my side to fulfil the old Law and after it is shed it shall be the New Covenant He sheweth that the Cup is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ because as the Wine of the Sacrament was contained in his Body not to be poured out until his death that he shed it on the Cross for the Salvation of Men and in the same Letter he makes the eating the Flesh of Christ to consist in the Participation of his Death The same Cup saith he is called the Mystery of Faith Ibid. because he that believes that he was redeemed by this blood and that doth imitate his passion is profited thereby unto Salvation and Eternal Life which made our Saviour himself to say If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man nor drink his Blood you have no life in
that the Bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup which is called his Blood are Figures because a Sacrament and that there is a great difference betwixt the Body which is by Mystery and the Body which suffered which was buried and rose again This here is the real Body of our Saviour where there is neither Figure nor Signification but the evidence of the thing it self is present The Faithful desire to behold him because he is our Head and because that in his sight consists the joy of our Souls for the Father and him are but one which is to be understood not in regard of the Body which our Lord hath assumed but in regard of the fulness of the Divinity which inhabits in Jesus Christ God-man but the mystical Body is a Figure not only of the true Body of Jesus Christ but also of the believing People for it bears the Figure both of the one and the other Body of Jesus Christ that is to say of Jesus Christ himself which was crucified and is risen again and of the People which are born again in Jesus Christ by Baptism and was raised from the Dead Unto which may be added that this Bread and this Cup which are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are a Memorial of the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour as himself hath declared in the Gospel saying Do this in remembrance of me which St. Paul expounds after this manner As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink of this cup you shew forth the death of the Lord until he come It is then our Saviour and St. Paul which teach us that this Bread and Cup that are set upon the Altar are there laid as a Figure or Memorial of the death of our Saviour And as Ratramn opposed himself directly against the Opinion of Paschas so he also refuted the Consequence of this Belief by opposing in his Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ what Paschas had written of the Delivery of the blessed Virgin For in this little Treatise he positively affirms the Locality or the Inclusion of the Body of Jesus Christ within the bounds of the place which it occupieth whereas the Hypothesis of his Adversary imported that it could be in several places at the same time In Spicil d'Acher t. 1. p. 333 In holding these things saith he you wickedly utter a kind of Novelty to cry that there was nothing could hinder our Saviour that he should not be born because no Creature could resist the Creator but that all things that do subsist are open and penetrable unto him Whilst you judge so you judge very prudently but when by this rule you go about to subject the beginnings of the Birth of Jesus Christ you plainly dogmatize as to what regards his Power but as to what regards the property of the Body which he hath taken and his Humane Birth you stray very far from the way of Truth for there is nothing firm nothing that is not penetrable unto the Power of the Will of Jesus Christ But as for the Humanity which he hath taken it was inclosed and shut up in the Virgins Womb that during the time it remained there it was not elsewhere but in a short time it left the Abode of the Virgins Womb and went forth and returned no more thither What is it that he hath shewed by this change of place if it be not that though he be omnipresent by the propriety of his Divinity he was but in one place according to the circumscription of his Body That that which is local as it is not always every where but it goes unto one place when it leaves the other so also also when he goeth from one place to another he at the same time is not at the right hand and at the left neither walketh he before and behind nor above and below So also the Saviour as he was at one time in the Womb of the Virgin according to the Flesh and at another time he was out of it so in going out though nothing could stop him when he would come out nevertheless he made use only of one way for his coming forth and he issued not out by all the parts of the body wherein he had been formed I will not here say any thing of certain Sterconaristes which some pretend to have been opposed by Ratramn and not by Paschas Others say he was one of this Sect himself and others in fine That in disputing against it he varied from the true Sentiments of the Church because we will treat of it in examining the Testimony of Heribold To continue the Course of my History I come to John Erigenius the other Doctor which the Emperor Charles the Bald consulted and whom he commanded to write upon the same Subject He had a singular esteem for him and lived so familiarly with him that some Historians have assured that he made him eat with him at his own Table and lie in his own Bed-chamber I am not ignorant how unworthily he was treated by Remy Archbishop of Lyons and by the Deacon Florus and that Prudens Bishop of Troys and the Council of Valentia did censure some Errors that appeared in some of his Books upon the Subject of Predestination Neither would I undertake to defend all his Expressions and Phylosophical Notions about the state of the Blessed and of the Damned neither can I but confess that the Pen of his Adversaries have been steeped in too smart Liquor to tear the Reputation of this Man unto whom Historians give great Commendations Gulicl Malms de gestis Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. Apud Usser in Sylloge Ep. Hibernic Ep. 24. de Christian Ecclesiar success c. 2. dignifying him with these two glorious Titles of most Learned and most holy William of Malmesbury assures us That he was a very wise Man and very eloquent that he translated out of Greek into Latin at the desire of Charles the Bald the Hierarchy of Dennis the Arcopagite A Translation so acceptable to Anastatius Library-keeper unto the Popes that he wrote a Letter unto King Charles which was inserted in the Preface of this Translation wherein after having admired that a Man born in one of the remotest parts of the World that is in Ireland should be capable of comprehending and of rendring this Hierarchy into Latin he adds That he had heard he was a Saint concluding that it was the work of the Spirit of God which had made him as zealous as he was eloquent Also the fame of his Learning made him be sent for by Alfred King of England where he died Anno 883. or 84. in the Monastery of Malmesbury having received several Wounds by Penknives from young Men that he instructed The Writers also of England observe that having been buried without much honour in the Church where he had been slain there shined a miraculous Light several nights upon his Grave which made the
At Troys is solemnized the memory of St. Prudens Bishop and Confessor this Saint was born in Spain endowed with Divine Graces and Illustrious by his Zeal for Religion and his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures having been driven out of Spain by the Saracens and being come into France he drew the Admiration and Love of all men therefore after the Death of Adelbert Bishop of Troys whither he had retired himself and had given proofs of his Vertue and Merit he was Elected and appointed the 37th Bishop of that Church by the common consent of the Clergy and People being so advanced unto the Episcopal Dignity he shined like a Light set in a Candlestick not unto this Church alone but also throughout all France by the example of a most holy Life and by the splendour of Divine Wisdom he was the Ornament and Delight of the Bishops of his time a Defender of the Purity of the Faith and an Oracle of Ecclesiastical Knowledge As for the Deacon Florus he hath transmitted unto us himself evidences of his belief in his Explication of the Mass at least if that be the work of this Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons who in this Explication is styâ—â—â— Master Florus for Trithemius attributes this little Treatise whereof we speak unto one Florus a Benedictine Friar in the Abby of Trom in the Country of Liege and others make its Author to be the Deacon Florus that wrote against Amalarius and against John Scot upon the Subject of Predestination This latter Opinion seems the most likely and the reason which makes me not to doubt of it is that I observe the Author of this Interpretation of the Mass hath copied ten lines verbatim out of the Book which Agobard Bishop of Lyons under Lewis the Debonair Son of Charles the Bald wrote against Amalarius Vid. Flor. Bibl. Patr. t. 6. edit ult p. 171. unde Eccles c. Et Agobard contr Amalar. c. 13. p. 115. Florus in Exposit Missae Bibl. Patr. t. 6. p. 170. Now there 's much more probability to say that it was written by a Deacon of the same Church then by a Monk of the Country of Liege It being then evident after this remark if I mistake not that this little Treatise is to be attributed unto the Deacon Florus Let us hear what he hath designed to inform us The Oblation saith he although taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of the only Son of God by the ineffable virtue of Divine Benediction He seems to make a difference betwixt the Wicked and the Good and saith the Sacrament is made unto the latter the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but unto the former it is nothing less because they have not Faith a Declaration which as the Protestants say agrees not with the Doctrine of the Real Presence by which the Eucharist is made the Body of Jesus Christ not only unto the Good but unto the Wicked also Florus explains himself very clearly Ibid. when he adds This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in the Ears of Corn and in the Grapes Nature gives it not unto us but it is Consecration that maketh it unto us mystically Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creature of Bread and Wine pass into the the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost he is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and he remains entire in Heaven and entire in your heart He would say that the Eucharist is naturally Bread and Wine that Consecration makes it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is eaten in Morsels under the Sign which represents him but as to himself he is whole and entire in Heaven as he is whole and entire in the heart of every Believer in quality of a quickning and saving Object embraced by Faith so to find Life and Salvation in partaking of him because it is he that hath merited Salvation for us by his Death and purchased Life for us by his Sufferings And as the Eucharist is the Memorial of this Death and these Sufferings Florus makes no difficulty to say that it is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because in participating of this Divine Mystery Faith looks unto him as the only Object of its Contemplation Manducation and Participation Thus much these other words of the same Author import Ibid. p. 171. All that is done in the Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is mystical we see one thing and we understand another what is seen is corporal what is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. Moreover he saith plainly that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread He said unto them of the Bread Take and eat ye all of this Ibid. And speaking of the Cup The Wine said he was the Mystery of our Redemption And he proves it by these words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine In fine expounding these last words of the Mass Whereby O Lord Ibid. thou always createst for us all these good things c. which is a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy doth follow the Consecration he sufficiently gives to understand that he believed not that the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as of things which God had created from the beginning of the World which he maketh still every year by Propagation and by Reparation which he sanctifieth and fills with his Grace and Heavenly Blessing which himself interprets to be of Corn and of Wine Thus it is that many do explain the meaning of this Author About the same time that the Deacon Florus wrote at Lyons Christian Druthmar Priest and Friar of Corby and Companion or Ratramn in the same Monastery composed his Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel and we should forthwith see what he wrote of the Eucharist if Sixtus Senensis did not stop us a little moment This famous Library-keeper doth accuse Protestants of having corrupted the Text of Druthmar in Reading in the Sacrament whereas he pretends upon the Credit of the Copy of a Manuscript to be seen in the Library of the Franciscans at Lyons that it should be read Subsisting really in the Sacrament The first thing we should do then is to consider the nature of this Accusation for the faith of Sixtus is look'd upon by many as the faith of a Man that approves very well of Expurgatory Indexes and one that hath laid two other Accusations unto the same Protestants Charge which are believed to be false Bibl. Sanct. in Ep. ad Pium V. Id. l. 6. Annot. 72. One is to have corrupted and altered a passage of Ferus a Franciscan Friar concerning the Temporal Power of the Pope although Ferus his Commentary upon St. Matthew wherein the passage in dispute is contained was
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
say they that the Consecration being ended the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine but only in resemblance and in figure and that Jesus Christ did not transubstantiate really the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but only in type and in figure One may lay what stress they please upon the testimonies of these two men which may be looked upon but as of one seeing the one transcribed it from the other As for my part I shall only say that I take the present Armenians to be so grosly ignorant that they scarce know what they do believe of this Mystery Prateolus doth positively teach the same thing De haeres l. 1. haer 67. which is also confirmed by the testimony of Thomas Herbert an English man which had been so informed upon the place as he declares in the relation of his Voyage of the Translation of Mr. Wick fort What I say of the Armenians I may almost say of all the Greeks in general for it cannot be denied but they be fallen into very great ignorance of the Mysteries of Christian Religion and have corrupted their primitive Faith by many Alterations Nevertheless Learning having flourished a long time amongst them their ignorance is not so very great as that of other Christian Communions of the East They have had but very few that have written since the Ages which we have examined in the precedent Chapter yet have they had some few as Nicholas de Methona Nicholas Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus and Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople As for Bessarion I do not put him into the number because he turned unto the party of the Latins who to requite him honoured him with a Cardinals Cap whereas the others died in the Communion of the Greek Church If you would know of them what they believed of the Eucharist they will answer That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that after Consecration they are his Body Blood And so far the Roman Catholicks have cause to believe they be of their side But it must be confessed also that they say things which do not agree well with the Hypothesis of the Latins and which make the Protestants conclude that the change whereof they speak is not a change of substance but of vertue and efficacy for not here to repeat what is said by Euthymius in the foregoing Chapter In Matth. 26. That the nature of the things offered is not to be considered In exposit liturg c. 32. 43 t. 2. Bibl. Pat. Graeco-Lat but their vertue And without insisting upon Cabasilas his regarding the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as dead and crucified for us which by the confession of all Christians cannot be true in the reality of the thing but only in the signification of the Mystery nor in that he saith that all those unto whom the Priest gives the Communion do not receive the Body of our Lord. De Corpore sanguin Christi ibid. Nicholas de Methona doth formally affirm the Union of the Symbols unto the Divinity which is exactly the Opinion of Damascen an Opinion which as hath been shewed doth presuppose the Existence of the Bread and Wine Jesus Christ saith he doth this that is to say communicates unto us his Flesh and Blood by things which are familiar unto Nature in joyning unto them his Divinity and saying This is my Body This is my Blood Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople saith as the others That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ But he adds Respon 1. c. 10 That Jesus Christ for all that did not give the flesh which he carried unto his Disciples to eat And elsewhere Ibid. c. 7. That the Grace of the Holy Ghost doth spiritually sanctifie our Souls and our Bodies are sanctified by the sensible things to wit the Water the Oyl the Bread the Wine and the other things sanctified by the Holy Ghost Which language agrees better with Damascen whom he cites in his second Answer than with the Latins because the first preserves the substance of Bread and Wine but the latter quite destroys it The Cardinal of Guise being at Venice had a Conference with the Greeks and amongst several Questions that he asked them he demanded of them what they believed of the Sacrament Cum Sigismundo Libero de rebus Moscovit Basileae 1571. See here the Answer they made him We believe and confess that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine into his Blood that neither the Bread nor the accidents of its substance do remain but are changed into a divine substance Were there no more but this in the Answer of the Greeks it might be said either that they did not well understand themselves or that through complaisance unto the Latins amongst whom they lived they allowed the change of the substance of the Bread in such a manner nevertheless that to shew that they followed not the Opinion of the Roman Catholicks they say That the very accidents do not remain which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But because in this Answer they alledge as well the words of Theophelact upon Mar. 14. by which he declares That the Bread and Wine is changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ as also several passages of Damascen some of which have already been examined in the 12th Chapter to strengthen their Belief and Opinion we are obliged to believe that the change whereof they speak is quite different from that of the Latin Church It is true that scarce any of them explained themselves as fully as Cyril of Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople who a little above thirty years ago said Cyrillus Constantinop Patriarch confession fidei c. 17. We believe that the other Sacrament which our Lord did institute is that which we call Eucharist for the night wherein he was betrayed taking Bread and blessing it he said unto the Disciples Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave thanks and said Drink ye all of this it is my Blood which is shed for you Do this in remembrance of me And St. Paul adds As often as ye eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup ye shew the Lord's death This is the plain the true and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery in the administration and knowledge whereof we confess and believe the true and certain presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ to wit that which Faith teacheth and giveth unto us and not that which Transubstantiation rashly and unadvisedly invented doth teach If I would write the History of this Patriarch I should be obliged to speak of his Country I mean of the Isle of Crete now Candia of the great affection he had unto Learning the marvellous progress he made therein during his stay in Italy of the Voyage which he made â—â—to
318. Of the care which should be taken in receiving of the Eucharist In reading this Title it came into my mind that the Fathers of the Council might haply have comprised Auricular Confession in the preparations which they commanded yet nevertheless I do not find therein any such thing they only warn That a great deal of care must be taken in participating of the Body and Blood of our Lord and take care that we do not abstain from it too long lest that should turn unto the ruin of the Soul and that if one partake thereof indiscreetly we should fear what the Apostle saith Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own Damnation A man ought therefore to examine himself according to the Command of the same Apostle and so eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup that is to say to prepare himself for the receiving of so great a Sacrament in abstaining some days from the works of the Flesh and in purifying of his Body and Soul Hincmar Arch-Bishop of Rhemes who died towards the end of th IX Century useth the same method when he represents unto Charles the Bald the Preparations necessary for worthy receiving the Sacrament Opusc 1. c. 12. t. 2. p. 101 102. He desires that every one would judge himself to the end that the trial being made in the heart the thought should serve for an Accuser the Conscience for a Witness and fear for an Executioner Then that the blood of the Soul should fall by tears And in fine that the Understanding should give such a sentence that a man should judge himself unworthy of participating of the Body and Blood of our Saviour And several other things which he proposeth without speaking any thing of Confession But by degrees Confession established it self infensibly amongst the Christians of the West and at length Innocent the Third authorized it by a Decree at the Council of Lateran in the Year 1215. at which time the Albigensis and Waldensis had separated themselves from Communion of the Latins The most part of all Christian Communions have no such Law as the Latins that obliges them unto Confession before receiving the Communion for example the Abyssins or Ethiopians the Armenians the Nestorians Confession 't is granted is used in the Greek Church which is of a large extent but it is so little practised that their Bishops and Priests do scarce ever confess De concord l. 4. c. 2. as Arcudius a Greek Latinized doth inform us And as for the Protestants every body knows they have found this Yoke of the Latins too heavy to bear But if the holy Fathers have not hitherto demanded private Confession before coming unto the Table of our Lord they do require other dispositions without which they forbid us approaching unto it It is in this sense that St. Chrysostom condemning the practise of those which came unto the Sacrament as it were by Rancounter and by custom at certain times which they looked upon to be more solemn he sheweth them that it is not the time that makes us any thing the more worthy to receive but that it is the purity of the Soul the holiness of our life the innocence of our Conversation Chrysost Hom 3. in c. 1. ad Ephes p. 1050 1051. It is not saith he the Epiphany nor the Lent that renders us worthy to approach unto the holy Sacrament it is the sincerity and purity of heart therewith draw near at all times and without them never come unto it Consider with what care and with what respect the Flesh of Sacrifices was eaten under the Law What caution did they not use what trouble were they not continually at to purifie themselves to that purpose And you approaching unto a Sacrifice which the very Angels behold with a religious reverence you think it is sufficient to prepare your selves unto so solemn an action by governing your selves according to the course of the Season Consider the Vessels which are employed for the Celebration of this Sacrament how clean they be how bright and shining they be yet nevertheless our Souls should be cleaner more holy and more resplendent than these Vessels seeing that it is only for us that they be prepared And in another place speaking of seldom and often receiving the Sacrament Id. Hom. 17 in Ep. ad Heb. p. 1872. We regard not saith he neither those which communicate often nor those which communicate seldom but those which communicate with a sincere Conscience a pure heart and an unreprovable life Let those that are in this condition always draw near and those which are not let them not so much as once draw near because they only draw upon themselves the wrath of God and make themselves worthy of Condemnation of pains and of punishments which should not seem strange unto us for as Meats which are wholsom of themselves being received into a diseased Body there causeth a disorder and an entire corruption and becomes the Original of some disease so it is the same of these terrible and venerable Mysteries when they be received into Souls which be indisposed And because the holy Fathers considered that this august Sacrament which giveth life unto some gives death unto others that is to say unto those which receive it unworthily and that if it be full of consolation unto holy Souls it is also full of terror unto the wicked They have spoken of it as of a terrible and fearful Sacrament because according to the saying of the same St. Chrysostom Whilst the death of Jesus Christ is celebrating Hom. 21. in Act a dreadful Sacrament is represented God gave himself for the World From thence came the Exhortation addressed unto the people in the ancient Liturgies to call them unto the Communion Draw near with fear August l. 3. de doctr Christ c. 16. in Ps 21. Hom. 2. Id. qu. super Evang l. 2. q. 38. p. 152. t. 4. And in fine should not we be seized with a holy fear accompanied with a very great respect to participate of the death of our Saviour to eat his Passion in eating his Supper as St. Austin speaks and to lick as he saith again his Sufferings in the Sacraments of his Body and of his Blood But if this warning was given unto Communicants they were told also in inviting them unto the holy Communion Holy things are for the Saints Whereupon St. Chrysostom makes this reflection When the Deacon cries Hom. 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. Holy things are for the holy it is as if he said Let not him draw near which is not holy he doth not say only him which is free of sin but him that is holy for it is not barely the remission of sins which renders a man holy but it is the presence of the Holy Ghost and the abundance of good works And St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. The holy things saith he are proposed to be sanctified by the
in the XIII that it was not then given in the Latin Church but amongst persons of the same Sex I say that Men kissed each other and also Women the like And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted that is the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers but they being penned variously according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants we forbear inserting them in this place to endeavour to discover in prosecuting our design whether the holy Fathers which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined WEll to explain a matter and to give it the full demonstration which it requires the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chiefly depend Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers it self the first thing we should do is carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself and his Sacrament for the question is not whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped all Christians are agreed upon this point But whether the Sacrament should be adored that is to say that which the Priest holds in his hands and which is commonly called the Hostie and the Sacrament for it appears to me that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question Sess 13. c. 5. when it defined That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable and that his Flesh it self deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce as well as the Roman Catholicks for say they in coming unto the holy Table one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant humbles it self in his presence and doth truly adore him An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works What we read saith he in the Gospel Hom. 5. in divers t. 2. p. 285. ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures or after two manner of ways viz. When holy men beloved of God which govern the Churches enter under your Roof then our Lord doth enter by them and you should believe that you receive our Saviour When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food the Bread of Life I say and the Cup you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof Humble your selves therefore and in imitation of the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for wheresoever he enters unworthily he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him He saith That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers and that we should humble our selves in receiving as well his Servants as his Sacrament to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one and which sendeth unto us the others confessing that we are not worthy of this favour St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning for see here what is said by the first Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12 We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries and the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christs being present in the Sacrament because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore we will joyn unto St. Ambrose St. Austin who saith Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ In Psal 98. until he hath first adored him How say some is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters for speaking of things sensible and corporeal I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly he saith That they ought not to be adored although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore Ep. 119. ad Januar cap. 6. The Water and Oyle of Baptism the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration without speaking one word of the Sacrament by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man but you also know the vertue and all the dispensation of it and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished Being well informed of all these Mysteries let us then stir up our selves let us be seized with astonishment and let us testifie yet greater respect then was shewed by the Wise men
in a bad light they can never rightly understand what was the true Belief of the Church upon the Controversies wherewith it hath been agitated so many years Nevertheless there is nothing we should more indeavour than to represent and discover the naked truth not caring that men should triumph over us so that truth might triumph over us all It is with this design that I have undertaken to discover sincerely what Christians have believed in past Ages and the Article of the Eucharist which seems to me one of the most essential and which causeth the greatest division amongst Christians in the West But to the end that none may be mistaken in the explication of the testimonies of the holy Fathers and not swerve from their Intentions I will propose some means which seem not to me improper and the practice whereof may be of great use unto all such as desire to be instructed in what they believed In the first place their Works ought to be read without any prejudice I speak of their genuine not forged Works for when one is pre-occupy'd in favour of an Opinion and sets about reading them one shall find what is not intended therein prejudice so darkning the understanding that many times the shadow is taken for the substance and a fallacious appearance for the truth because that prejudice predominates and makes men incapable of rightly judging what they read the Idea of the opinion which prepossesseth us so filling the faculty of the Understanding that it can receive no other impression until we dismiss these prejudices Wherefore the first thing to be done when we set about reading the Monuments which we still injoy of Ecclesiastical Antiquity is well to examine our selves to see if we be free from all sorts of preoccupation For provided we bring unto this study nothing of our own but attention and a sincere desire of knowing the truth we shall gather Fruits full of consolation and joy and we shall doubtless discover what hath been the belief of those ancient Doctors upon the point which we examine Secondly great heed must be taken not to separate what God hath joined together I mean the nature and the matter of the Symbols from their efficacy and from their vertue in their lawful use for then these things are inseparable although they be different one from another for the nature of Bread and Wine is one thing and the grace and vertue which the Consecration addeth unto their nature is another thing and therefore it is that the holy Fathers spake not so honourably of the Sacrament when they consider the substance of the Symbols as when they regard their efficacy and vertue And indeed when they have a design to represent this efficacy they make use of the loftiest and most magnificent expressions to raise the Dignity of this Mysterie and to make us conceive a grand Idea of it and certainly it is with great reason because 't is a thing very worthy our admiration and which I may say doth surpass our understanding that Christ Jesus should accompany his Sacraments with so great a power that he should cleanse our Souls with a few drops of Water and that he should nourish them with a few crumbs of Bread and a few drops of Wine but after a manner so Noble so Heavenly and so Divine that all we can do is to feel the fruits and advantages without conceiving the manner or how it is effected And therein is seen that magnificence of the Works of God Tertul. de Baptis c. 2. which is promised in the effect whereof Tertullian speaks and which he opposeth unto the simplicity of these same Works which appears in the Action and in respect of which Simplicity the Fathers have expressed themselves in terms more humble and not so lofty agreeable unto the nature of Symbols This second means shall be follow'd by a third which is not the least considerable and for the understanding whereof it is necessary to observe that the Holy Fathers have used two sorts of expressions in speaking of the Eucharist by the one they affirm that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine and by the other they say it is the Body and Blood of Christ These two sorts of expressions taken literally cannot agree together nor be both true in relation to one and the same Subject For if the Eucharist be properly the Body of Jesus Christ it is not properly Bread and if it be properly Bread it cannot be understood to be properly the Body of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Fathers who have said that the Eucharist is Bread have also said that it is the Body of Jesus Christ how shall we then do to give a right sense unto expressions so different and which in appearance are so inconsistent That which we should do is maturely to consider what these Holy Doctors have said for explanation of their meaning and that cannot better be done than by diligently searching their Works that of the two sorts of expressions which they have used they have restrained the one without giving any limitation unto the other for in equity it must be granted that those which they have limited ought not to be explained according to their intention without the restrictions which they have used and that on the contrary the others which have received no limitation should be understood simply and absolutely and in the proper terms wherein they have expressed them and to say the truth had they intended that these two so different expressions should have been understood in the same manner wherefore should they have taken so much care and pains to limit and restrain the one and never heed to take the least care in restraining or sweetning the others Such different proceedings in regard of these kinds of expressions doth it not plainly declare that they intended that they should be differently understood and that there should be given unto those which they have restrained a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and unto those which were not restrained a proper and litteral Sense that is to say that the former should be taken for Figurative Speeches and the latter for proper expressions and without any Figure If then they have restrained and limited the expressions which do affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and if they have not limited those which affirm that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it must be concluded that those which declare that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine are improper and figurative Speeches and that the others which say that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord are proper and literal expressions But if on the other side they have taken exact care to restrain the propositions which say That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without adding any limitation unto the others which asserted that it is Bread it must be necessarily infer'd that when they said that the Eucharist is the Body of our Lord they spake improperly and
and not Bishop of Marsellis as Pope Adrian stiles him doth speak for he makes mention of certain persons Gennaâ— l de Dogm Eccles c. 75. That under pretence of sobriety would not celebrate the Eucharist with Wine but with Water only All the attempts of this Enemy of the Salvation of Mankind have proved vain in this regard God hath not suffered him to prevail in this matter over his Church for all Christian Communions have faithfully retained the use of Bread and Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament insomuch as even in those Countreys where Wine doth not grow they endeavour to imitate the best they can the other Christians who live in those Climates which abound with it For instance the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies where there is no Wine use dry Grapes brought from Mecha and Ormus and steep them a whole night in Water next day they press them and with the Liquor that comes out they celebrate the Eucharist instead of Wine Ramusio vol. 1. p. 313. aâ—d several others also The Abassins also do in like manner as Francis Alvarez in his Voyage into Ethiopia doth testifie But upon this matter of the Wine of the Eucharist it may not be altogether needless to consider what was the Sentiment of Antiquity touching the two Cups mentioned by St. Luke which were distributed by our Saviour unto his Disciples as is alledged by St. Luke in his Gospel observing also that it was in giving the former that he said I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine which he mentions not to be spoken by our Saviour in distributing the latter Now seeing that St. Fulgentius Bishop of Rusp in Africa hath collected the several judgments of those which preceded or were his contemporaries what we find in his Writings shall suffice and I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd to satisfie his curiosity on this matter Fulgent ad â—â—rrand Diacon de quinque quast c â—5 Some persons saith he would have this passage of the Gospel understood viz. That the Lord gave not two Cups but rather they affirm that he said so by way of anticipation and that there was indeed but one sole Cup of which first there is mention made that it should be divided and then that it should be given to the Disciples to drink of it Others there be that affirm That there were two Cups distributed but which opinion soever of them is followed the sense of the one and the other is no way contrary to the true Faith Those which think our Saviour gave two Cups say that it was done mystically and that by the former Cup he would prefigure his Passion and by the second that of his followers Others again have said that the two Cups did represent what had been commanded under the old Testament viz. that whosoever had not celebrated the Passover of the first Month in eating a Lamb should do it the second Month in eating a Kid. As for me adds St. Fulgentius it seems there is here discovered another Mystery which accords very well with the Christian Faith viz. that both in the one and the other Cup ought to be understood both the Old and New Testaments especially seeing the Truth it self hath so plainly declared it unto us that there remains no doubt of it unto those which search the truth For the Lord himself called the New Testament the Cup which he gave us to drink and afterwards Ibid. c. 38. in this part of the Gospel whereof we now dispute we are not permitted to understand any thing else but what we are taught by our Saviours own words who saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood and according to this rule whereby the Cup is termed the New Testament is very justly to be understood the Old Testament in the Cup which he gave first The same Lord then which gave unto his Disciples both Testaments gave also both Cups therefore at the same Supper he eat of the Jewish Passover which was to be offer'd and distributed the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which was to be instituted for the Salvation of Believers he eat the Passover of the Jews whereby Jesus Christ was promised to come unto our Passover which he became when sacrificed himself In fine consider what the Evangelist St. Luke relates that he said unto his Disciples for he saith thus When the hour was come he sate down at the Table and the twelve Apostles with him and he said unto them With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer he eat therefore the Passover by which he was represented to suffer before he suffered voluntarily for us there is also in the words of our Saviour something which ought diligently to be considered by Believers and wherein may be perceived a difference betwixt both Testaments for St. Luke thus speaketh of the Cup which he first mentioned And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and said Take ye it and divide it amongst you but speaking afterwards of the Bread and the Cup he saith And having taken the Bread he gave Thanks and broke it and gave it unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Also he gave them the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Of all the opinions or divers Interpretations cited by St. Fulgentius I find his own the most reasonable because in effect St. Luke hath mentioned two several Cups the Paschal Cup and the Eucharistical Cup the former being a Sign and Seal of the first Covenant and the latter the Sign and Seal of the new Covenant If this Evangelist hath not taken notice of our Saviours saying of the Eucharistical Cup I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine but only in speaking of the Paschal Cup it is in the first place because he considered our Saviours whole action to be but one Supper at the end whereof he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist so that 't is as if he should have made our Saviour say After this Supper and my now sitting at Table with you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine Secondly That although Jesus Christ might have said so of the two Cups the Paschal and Eucharistical yet nevertheless S. Luke seeing the two other Evangelists had not observed it of the Paschal he contented himself to observe it of the Paschal and not of the Eucharistick the Evangelists being accustomed to supply in this manner the omissions one of another I mean that the one observes some things the others had omitted that it might not be thought they had all written of design and by consent CHAP. III. Continuation of the considerations of the matter of the Eucharist wherein is examined what S. Ignatius saith of certain Hereticks which rejected the Sacrament the Heresie of one named Tanchelin who also
if it be true that the Priesthood according to the Law was abrogated and that the High Priest after the order of Melchisedeck offered a Sacrifice and that for this reason he did it that we may have no more need of another Sacrifice see here how he resolves this difficulty It is manifest unto those that are instructed in Divine matters that we do not offer another Sacrifice but that we do or celebrate the remembrance of that only saving Sacrifice he means that of the Cross for the Lord himself hath commanded us Do this in remembrance of me to the end that by contemplating the Figure we may bring to our minds what he suffered for us thereby to inflame our love unto our Benefactor and to expect the injoyment of good things to come Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria contemporary and friend unto Gregory the First followed the others steps when he said Eulog apud Phot. Cod. ult That the Sacrament which we celebrate is not an oblation of divers Sacrifices but the commemoration of the Sacrifice which was once offered The same language was used in the Ninth Century seeing that Bertram or Ratramn said That the Oblation which Jesus Christ once offered Bertram de corp Sang. Domini is every day celebrated by the faithful but mystically and in remembrance of his Passion and that nevertheless it is not falsely said that the Lord is sacrificed or that he suffers in these Mysteries because they have a resemblance of this death and passion whereof they are the representations Id. Ibid. c. That the Bread and the Cup do represent the memorial of the death of our Lord and that they are set upon the Altar in type and memory of his death to represent unto our memory what was formerly done and that to the end we thinking of this death he who hath delivered us from death might make us to partake of the Divine Oblation And the Deacon Florus said he not at the same time Flor. in Exposit Miss That the Oblation of this Bread and this Cup is the commemoration and annunciation of the death of Jesus Christ and that the commemoration of the death of Christ is the shewing forth of his love because he so loved us as to die for us If we descend lower Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences will tell us in the Twelfth Century Lombard l. 4. sentent dist 12. litt g. That is called a Sacrifice and Oblation which is offered and consecrated by the Priest because it is the memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice and of the holy immolation which was made upon the Altar of the Cross And Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century That the Celebration of the Eucharist Thom. sunn part 3. q. 83. part 1. is called the immolation of Jesus Christ because as S. Austin saith unto Simplicius the Images are wont to take their name from those things whereof they be Images and that the Celebration of this Sacrament is a certain representative type of the death of Jesus Christ which is his true immolation therefore the Celebration of this Sacrament is called Immolation Secondly the Eucharist being an act of our duty towards God and towards his Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death the antient Doctors might also in this regard call it by the name of Eucharistical Sacrifice of Thanksgiving of Prayer and of Acknowledgement This in appearance was the meaning of St. Chrysostom when he said Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 26. That the venerable Mysteries are called Eucharist because they are a commemoration of sundry benefits and because they dispose us always to render thanks unto God And because God is honoured with two very different qualities one of Creator the other of Redeemer we give him thanks that as Creator he gives unto us the Fruits of the Earth and we then consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as the First-fruits of his Creatures and that in quality of Redeemer he hath given unto us the Body and Blood of his Son and in this regard we consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as Memorials of the bloody death of our Saviour St. Ireneus observes this use as to the first regard Iren. l. 4. cap. 34. We are obliged saith he to make our offerings unto God and that in all things we should be thankful unto the Creator but that must be done with pure affections and with a sincere Faith a firm hope and ardent Charity in offering unto him the First fruits of his Creatures which are his but it is only the Church which offers unto God this pure Oblation presenting unto him with Prayers of the Creatures which he hath made St. Austin if I be not deceived intended to touch the latter regard when speaking of the Sacrifice of the Cross August l. 20. contr Faust cap. 21. he said That the flesh and blood of this Sacrifice had been promised before the coming of Christ by typical Sacrifices of resemblance that in the passion of Jesus Christ they were accomplished by the truth it self and that after his Ascension they are celebrated by a Sacrament of Commemoration But Justin Martyr hath joyned both together in his Excellent Dialogue against Tryphon Jesus Christ saith he hath commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in Commemoration of the Death which he suffered for those whose Souls have been purified from all malice Just Mart. dialog contr Tryph. p. 259 260. to the end we should neturm thanks unto God for the Creation of the World and the things which are therein for the use of Man And for that he hath delivered us from the wickedness wherein we lay having triumphed over Principalities and Powers by him who in executing the good pleasure of his will was pleased to take upon him a frail Nature In the third place the Holy Fathers considering that the Eucharist serves us now in the room of Mosaical Sacrifices being our outward worship under the dispensation of the Gospel as the Sacrifices were the Jewish Service under the Oeconomy of the Law they have freely called it Sacrifice and rightly to understand in what sense they have given it this Title in the consideration that 't is our Worship and exteriour Service we must consider that they often take this word Sacrifice in a very large extended and improper sence therefore 't is that they apply it unto all the acts of Piety and Devotion and generally unto all things that pertain unto the worship of our Saviour in which they have followed the stile of the Holy Scriptures that so speak in many places David calls the contrite heart Psal 51. a Sacrifice well pleasing unto Almighty God The Prophet calls it Hosea c. 14. Heb. 13. Philip. 4. rendring Calves of our lips which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains The fruit of the Lips which confest the name of God The Apostle gives the name of Sacrifices
this reconciliation and peace in permitting them to participate of this Divine Mystery But if I am demanded Whether this practice of administring the Sacrament unto bed-rid Penitents and after the third Century unto other sick Folks at the time of death doth not presuppose that the Eucharist was kept to the end it might be apply'd in these hasty necessities to speak sincerely I do not see there was any necessary consequence of one of these things unto the other but that also I find no directions thereupon in the first Ages of Christianity which makes me believe they contented themselves then in preparing I mean in Blessing and Consecrating the Bread and Wine to make them the Body and Blood of the Lord at such time as there was occasion to communicate any Bed-rid dying persons To alledge for refutation of the keeping the Sacrament what is written in the XI Century by Cardinal Humbert of Blanch-Selva against the Greeks who reserved the gifts presanctified in Lent were not in my Opinion to argue but trifle because it is certain that a long time before Humbert wrote against Nicetas the Sacrament was kept in the Latin Church it might with more reason be urged against keeping the acrament that the remainder of the Sacrament was in some Churches burnt and in others it was eaten by little Children but although this last custom continued a long time in our France as shall appear in the following Chapter nevertheless I find from the time of Charelemain that is to say in the VIII Century formal directions for keeping the Sacrament Capitul l. 1. c. 161. That the Priests saith this Prince in his Capitularies have always the Sacrament ready to communicate the Sick whether Old or Young to the end they should not dye without the Sacrament Since which time several Ordinances are seen upon the same Subject but before that time I do not remember to have met with any which nevertheless I do not say to assure positively that there were none before the time which I assign but only to declare that I have not observed nor found any on the contrary in the Second decretal Epistle which is attributed unto St. Clement Disciple of the Apostles about the same time it is expresly forbidden Ep. 2. Pseudo-Clem To keep till the next day any part of the Sacrament But in fine seeing it ought to be confessed that in the three first Centuries the Sacrament was sent unto Bed-rid dying Penitents and afterwards unto Believers in the same condition It is requisite to inquire by whom it was sent there is no doubt but for the most part they were Clergymen that carried it unto these sorts of Persons yet nevertheless in such a manner that they made no difficulty to ease themselves sometimes of this care and to imploy Lay Persons young Boys Men and Women to carry it in fine Denys Bishop of Alexandria relates in Eusebius the History of a certain Old Man called Serapion who having Apostatized in the time of persecution was excluded from the Communion of the Church whereunto he could not be restored notwithstanding his earnest entreaties to that purpose but some time after being seized with a violent sickness whereof he dyed he sent one of his Daughters Sons for a Priest who being sick sent him the Sacrament by the Child He gave unto this Youth saith Denys some Apud Euseb hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. or a little of the Sacrament commanding that it should be moistned and to put it in the Old Mans mouth that he might the easier swallow it down his grand Child being returned steeped it and poured it into the sick Mans mouth who having by little and little let it down presently gave up the Ghost So the Martyrology of Ado Bishop of Vienna that of Bede and the Roman Ad. d. 15 Aug. Apud Baron ad an 260. §. 5. as also the Acts of the life of Pope Stephen the First testifie that during the Persecution of the Emperors Gallian and Valerian Tharsitius Acolyth of the Church of Rome did carry the Sacraments of the Lords Body and this custom need not seem strange unto us if we consider the liberty which was for a long time given unto Christians to carry the Sacrament home with them unto their houses and keep it In the life of Luke the younger Anchoret Combef auct Bibl Pat t. 2. Grac. l. p 986. cum 1014. who lived in the X. Century and which Father Combefis a Dominican hath published at least some Copies part of it we find this Hermit having demanded of the Bishop of Corinth how such Persons as he was that lived solitarily in the Desarts might participate of the Sacrament having no Priest nor Assemblies made in those places I say we find he suffered him and such as he was to communicate themselves although they were Lay Persons and also prescribed after what manner they should do it And Father Combefis in his Notes observes Ib. p. 1014. that the Bishop of Corinth was then in the Bishop of Rome's Diocese is it to be thought any difficulty would have been made of intrusting the Sacrament unto Women in those places where they were permitted to distribute the Sacraments in the Churches unto the people as hath been before recited There is in the VI. Tome of the Councils a Homily in the name of Pope Leo the Fourth T. 6. Concil p. 431. who lived in the middle of the IX Century where Priests are forbidden to give the Sacrament unto Lay Persons Men or Women to be carried unto the sick It cannot then be questioned but the thing was practised to that time and afterwards also for 't is certain this Sermon is neither Leo the Fourth's nor St. Vlrick's as Gretser imagined it is nothing else but a Synodical Letter of Ratherius Bishop of Verona unto his Priests now this Ratherius died towards the end of the X. Century Mr. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius P. 138. saith That he hath lately been so informed and we cannot doubt of it because we have the Book it self by the care and industry of Dom Luke d'Achery wherein we find this Decree That no Body presume to give the Sacrament unto a Lay Person T. 2. Spicileg p. 261. Man or Woman to carry it unto the Sick It must then be necessarily concluded that it was so practised in sundry places even in Italy and near Rome until the end of the X. Century The same Mr. de Valois observes upon the words of Denys Bishop of Alexandria above mentioned P. 138. That it was so practised a long time after And he proves it by the Prohibition which Ratherius was obliged to give unto his Priests who without scruple committed the Eucharist into Lay Persons hands to be carried unto sick Folks but because Ratherius was but a private Bishop and that his power reached not beyond his Diocese nothing hinders but it may be believed it was also
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
certain Observations which suffer us not to be ignorant after what manner they understand it to be so Aug. Serm 53. de verb. Dom. For in the first place they make this Observation Almost all saith St. Austin call the Sacrament the Body of Christ And again Id. l. 3. de Triâ—it c. 4. We call nothing the Body and Blood of Christ but that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystical Prayer is received by us for the Salvation of our Souls Isid Hâ—sual Orig. 6. c. 19. And St. Isidore of Sevil By the command of Jesus Christ himself we call his Body and Blood that which being taken out of the Fruits of the Earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament We may also alledge upon this Subject those amongst them who have declared in the first Chapter of this second Part that Jesus Christ in instituting his Eucharist called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood and those who in the second affirmed that the Sacrament was Bread and Wine but to avoid repeating the same Testimonies we remit the Reader unto those two Chapters where he may consult those two Observations whilst we shall only say that this Observation being so express and positive gives very much Light and Strength unto the silence we hinted at although it appears plain enough to be understood by several but yet farther they give us notice in the second place that the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ The Bread saith St. Chrysostom Chrysost ep ad Caesâ—r Theod. Dial. 1. is esteemed worthy to he called the Body of cur Lord. And Theodoret in one of his Dialogues He that called Wheat and Bread that which is his Body by Nature hath honoured the visible Symhols with the Name of his Body and of his Blood Having a long while meditated saith the Protestant upon these sorts of Testimonies of the Holy Fathers I have been forced to conclude that because one thing which is honoured with the Name of another cannot be truly that same by whose Name it is honoured or that these Holy Doctors which affirm That the Bread of the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ knew not how to reason which cannot be said without slandring them or that they believed not that this Bread was really the Body of Jesus Christ He adds that he doth not examine what they should have said but what they did say and he infers that none can dispense themselves from approving what is contain'd in the second Branch of his Dilemma For my part I leave it to others to judg the Inductions which are made from the Passages of these Holy Doctors because it is properly the Interest of Roman Catholicks or Protestants whose Arguments I only alledge But this is not all which the Holy Fathers say for the clearing up of their Intentions They tell us for a third Advertisement that if the Sacrament be the Body of Jesus Christ it is but after a manner and in some sort So St. Austin doth declare Aug. Ep 23 ad Bonif. Id. in Psal 33 Conc. 2. The Sacrament saith he of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ after a manner And elsewhere Jesus Christ accommodated himself after a certain sort when he said This is my Body I have not yet observed that these kinds of Corrections and Restrictions were used when things were spoken of which were truly what they were called but only when the Discourse was of those which were only so improperly and by reason of certain relations which they have unto the Subjects whose Names they bear and in whose consideration there 's no scruple made to say that they are the Subjects themselves not really in the strictness of the Expression but after a sort Quintil. inst Orat. l. 8.3 p. 404. so the most excellent Orators whom we may term the Masters of the Science put this Term after some sort for one of the Tempers which may be used for modifying of Metaphors and figurative Expressions which may be too bold But let us continue our design and hear the famous Theodoret who will furnish us with such pregnant and clear Lights that we shall have no difficulty to comprehend in what sense the Holy Fathers called the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Theod. dial 1. the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ see here how he speaks The Lord saith he made a change of Names giving unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body which he said upon the occasion that our Saviour had called his Body Bread in the 6th Chapter of St. John and the Bread his Body in the Institution of the Sacrament So that his design is to shew that the Sacrament is the Body of Christ as the Body of Christ is Bread seeing he puts no difference in this exchange of Names and that he observes that the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ belongs no more to the Sacrament than that of Bread belongs to the Body of Jesus Christ Tertullian if I mistake not had an opinion much like this long before Theodoret when he said Tertul. conâ—r Marc. l. 3. c. 19. Chrysost iâ— c. 5. Galat. That Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body to interpret the ancient Prophecy of Jeremiah which had called the Bread his Body St. Chrysostom will not a little contribute to the clearing of what we examine for explaining these Words of the 5th to the Galatians The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh He observes that this Word Flesh hath divers improper and figurative Significations and amongst these sundry significations he puts this that sometimes it is taken for the Mysteries or for the Sacraments The Scriptures saith he is wont to call the Mysteries by the Name of Flesh and the whole Church saying that it is the Body of Jesus Christ but nothing can be seen plainer nor more intelligible than these Words of Facundus Facund l. 9. c. ult We call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup his Body and Blood not that the Bread is truly his Body nor the Cup his Blood Hitherto these Holy Fathers have not ill informed us of the Nature of this manner of Speech that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but nevertheless they intend not to rest there they will moreover inform us wherefore it is so used in the Church They tell us then in the first place that the Bread and Wine is called the Body and Blood of our Lord by reason of their resemblance It is the Lesson St. Austin teacheth us in one of his Letters Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. If the Sacraments saith he had not some resemblance unto the things whereof they be Sacraments they would be no Sacraments and it is because
of this likeness that they often take the Names of the things themselves as then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood are after some sort his Body and Blood so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith He means that the Eucharist should be the Body and Blood of Christ by reason of the resemblance which there is betwixt them as the Sacrament of Faith that is to say Baptism is called Faith and as the Fridays before Easter are called the Passion of our Lord and the representation of his Death which is made in the celebration of the Sacrament his Death it self He instanced these two Examples of this kind of Speech in what preceded that which hath been cited I will not here stand to shew that the Fathers ground this resemblance some in the composition of Bread and Wine and others in their Effects because we have done it in the first Chapter of the first part Secondly they say that they are so called because They are the Sacraments the Signs and the Figures which do contain the Mystery I find it was formerly the reason of the Learned Tertullian Tertul. contr Marc. l. 3. c. 19. God saith he hath called the Bread his Body that you might know that he whom the Prophet had anciently represented by the Bread hath now given unto Bread the Figure of his Body And I cannot see that any other meaning can be given unto these Words of St. Austin Our Saviour made no difficulty to say this is my Body August contr Adim c. 12. when he gave the Figure of his Body It is necessary to observe that this Holy Doctor having alledged the Words of Jesus Christ This is my Body at the end of the Chapter he cites these Words of the Apostle The Rock was Christ to shew that what is said in the Old Testament that the Blood is the Life of Beasts ought to be understood significatively to signify that it is the Sign as the Bread is called the Body of Christ because it is the Figure and the Rock Christ because it was the Symbol of Christ The same St. Austin speaks thus elsewhere How is the Bread his Body and the Cup Id. ad Infant apud Fulgent Bed or that which is in the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Substance that which is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. I judge it was also the sense of Theodoret when he wrote Theod. dial 1. that our Lord who called his natural Body Wheat and Bread and who also called himself a Vine hath also called the visible Symbols by the Name of his Body and Blood not by changing their Nature but adding Grace unto their Nature Fac. l. 9. â— ult It is in the same sense Facundus said The Bread is not really his Body nor the Cup his Blood but they be so called because they contain the Mystery and for this reason our Lord called them his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Ireneus gives unto the Names of Body and Blood wherewith Jesus Christ honoured the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Iren. l. 5 adver haeres c. 4. It is saith he the Eucharist of the Body and Blood And I know not but St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon Eligii vit l. 2. c. 15. t. 5. Spicileg borrowed this kind of Expression from St. Iraeneus for he makes use of it in the VIIth Century Let him saith he that is sick trust in the sole Mercy of God and let him receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Orig. in Matth. c. 15. Chrysost t. 5. Homil. 33. It is also in this sense that Origen calls the Bread the symbolical and typical Body Also St. Chrysostom the mystical Body and Blood Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria doth positively make a difference betwixt the Mystical Body of our Lord be it what it will and his true Body when going to explain what Jesus Christ saith in the 6th Chapter of St. John â—useb de Eccles Theol. l. 3. c. 12. Hiâ—ron in Ezech. c. 41. Bed in c. 14. Mar. 2â— Luc. of the eating his Flesh and Blood he observes That he spake not of the Flesh which he had taken but of his Mystical Body and Blood St. Jerom calls it the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And Venerable Bede thus explains himself The Bread and Wine do Mystically relate unto the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ In the third place they give us for a Reason of this Denomination that the Sacrament is a memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death but for this third Reason we refer the Reader unto what we have said in the first Chapter of this second Part where we have examined the Reflection which the Holy Fathers have made upon these Words of the Institution Do this in remembrance of me We must then pass unto their fourth Reason which consists as they tell us in that the Bread and Wine are in the place and stead of the Body and Blood of Christ It is very likely Tertullian thought so when he said The Body of Jesus Christ is reputed to be in the Bread Tertul. de Orat. c. 6. This is my Body Corpus ejus in pane câ—nsetur hot est corpus meum Mr. Rigaut is not far from this Opinion when he makes this Observation upon the Words of Tertullian It appears that they may be thus explained by the Sacrament of Bread he recommends his Body as St. Austin lib. 1. quaest Evang. 43. hath said by the Sacrament of Wine he recommends his Blood But whatever Mr. Aug. in Joan. Tract 45. Rigaut's Explication may be St. Austin speaks as I think cleanly enough in one of his Treatises upon St. John where he makes this difference Id. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 45. betwixt the ancient People which lived under the Law and those now who live under the Gospel See how the Faith continuing the same Faith the Signs have been changed the Rock was Christ unto us what is put upon God's Table is Jesus Christ He also elsewhere establisheth this Maxim That all those things which do signify seem in some sort to hold the place of the things signified as when the Apostle saith that the Rock was Christ because without doubt it signified Jesus Christ It is in the same sense St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag 4. Cyril of Jerusalem said Let us receive these things with full assurance as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for in the Type of Bread the Body is given unto you and the Blood in the Type of Wine Bullinger writing against Casaubon alledges a Greek Text out of a Passage of Victor of Antioch taken out of his Commentary upon St. Mark wherein we find the same Doctrine Victor
to the Persecution of the Heathens It may be saith St. Cyprian that some may fear at the Morning Oblation to make known by the Scent of the Wine that he hath participated of the Blood of Jesus Christ Was ever any Fear so ill grounded or any pannick Fear like this If it had then been believed that what was drank in communicating was the real Blood of Christ where was the Sense of those People to be afraid of a Shadow and to tremble where there was no Cause of Danger Seeing it could not be said that the Blood of Jesus Christ had the same Smell that Wine had and that moreover it is expresly spoken of the Smell of Wine and not of the Odour of the Blood of Christ And what surpriseth them yet more is that those of whom we speak were not private ordinary Persons but Conducters also for St. Cyprian designs such at the Beginning of his Treatise by those which consecrate the Cup of the Lord and distribute it unto the People To say that the Smell of Wine should rest in the Sacrament although there had been no Wine that could not be because the Holy Fathers before declared That Accidents could not exist without their Subjects without ever excepting the Sacrament Moreover when St. Cyprian condemned this Abuse as doubtless he had reason to condemn it wherefore had he not said That those People were the most to blame that could be to take for Wine the proper Blood of Jesus Christ and to think that the Sacrament had the Scent of Wine seeing there was no Wine in it Wherefore had he not alledged against them the Belief of the Universal Church if it held for an Article of Faith that what is contained in the mystical Cup is not Wine after Consecration but the very Substance of the Blood of the Son of God It was say they the only Means that could have been used to have made them ashamed and to have reclaimed them from their Error yet nevertheless St. Cyprian doth not make use of it He contents himself to pity their Ignorance and their Timidity and to blame them that they had not followed the Example of Jesus Christ who had not used Water alone in his Eucharist nor Wine alone but of both The other Christians which celebrated the Sacrament with Water did it by another Motive as Gennadius hath informed us when he told us De dogm Eccles c. 75. That they did so under a Pretext of Sobriety Is it possble that this Thought could ever come into the Mind of a Christian that to drink the Blood of the Lord Jesus was to want Sobriety What were Men made of in those Times say the Protestants Had they common Sense and Reason as we have For we cannot conceive their Proceedings it must be freely confessed if participating of the Holy Cup they believe they drink the pure Blood of the Son of God and not Wine how they could think that under a Pretext of Sobriety that they ought to use only Water therein But wherefore had not the Holy Fathers taken Care better to instruct and inform them herein it had been their Duty and Charity to have cured these Souls from this mistaken Niceness which caused them to err they also did it for they were too zealous and charitable to let themly in Error But how have they done it was it in saying unto them That the holy Liquor in the Sacramental Cup is no longer Wine but the proper Blood of Jesus Christ no at least no such Thing is seen in their Writings to think so On the contrary you would think they take Delight in shewing that it is Wine Id. ibid. For see here all the Answer that Gennadius makes to combate this Abuse There was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption our Saviour having said I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine Prudence is very necessary in the Conduct of Life but I think it is more in matters of Religion especially unto Pastors and Conducters which lead the Way unto others they should take care not to make any wrong Steps I mean not to teach any thing either by Preaching or Writing but what they carefully digest particularly not to urge any Thing against Unbelievers or Hereticks that may reflect upon any of the Mysteries of our holy Religion No body that I know hath accused St. Chrysostom of want of Prudence and to say the Truth for what is known of him great heed ought to be taken of laying any such thing to his Charge Nevertheless it is observed in one Part of his excellent Works one thnig which would certainly be ill relished had he been in the Opinion of the Latins It is a Reproach which he makes unto Laban upon his complaining that he was robbed of his Gods Chrysost Homil 57. in Gen. ad c. 30 31. t 2. O Excess of Folly saith he unto him thy Gods saith he are they capable of being stoln Art thou not ashamed to say Wherefore have ye stolen away my Gods For if this holy Doctor believed that the Bread of the Sacrament after Consecration were no longer Bread but the true Body of Jesus Christ his Saviour and his God it may be said that the Reproach he made unto Laban was neither prudent nor judicious because he might have been answered That the same might befal his God And indeed others before me have observed Alex. Gerald. itiner Romae I dit extr that Alexander Geraldin Bishop of St. Domingo in that Spanish Island complained formerly unto the Emperor Charles the fifth That the Temple of his Bishoprick not being well covered all therein was exposed unto Thieves insomuch saith he that the Body of God it self is not there secure against Robbers against Witches and Sorcerers nor against the Rage of wicked Men. But when we should not have the Complaint of this Bishop all the World knows that what St. Chrysostom saith of the Gods of Laban may befal the consecrated Host One cannot then forbear either to accuse this holy Doctor of want of Wisdom or to say that he did not believe the substantial Conversion of the Latin Church which I will refer to the Readers Judgment whilst I say Theodoret. in Genes Quest 55. that Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom should not avoid the same Censure however discreet he was otherwise If he had believed that the proper Body of Jesus Christ which all Christians adore and unto whom they address the Soveraign Worship of their Religion were truly and properly eaten with the Mouth of the Body Id. in Levit. Quest 11. p. 124. For if that were so say they with what Face could he say That it is the highest Folly to adore what we eat And again when he asks this Question Where is there any Man of good Sense that can call that his God which he eateth himself after having offered it unto the true God Had it not been to have exposed himself
c. 31. in Exod cap. 22. That the Bread and Wine is the undoubted Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord Id. in Sentent l. 1. c. 16. Vide lib. 1. Offic cap. 37. And that it is this Sacrament which Believers offer and which they call an Oblation of Bread and Wine Agreeable unto this Doctrine he speaks elsewhere of the Flesh of Jesus Christ as of the Nourishment of Saints which preserves from Eternal Death and which maketh those that eat it to live Spiritually Id. in lib. 2. Reg. ca. 3. p. 49. and he saith That Jesus Christ ascending into Heaven is gone in regard of his Body but is present according to his Majesty Concil Hispal 2. Concil Eracar t. 4. p. 832. as he said Behold I am with you even to the end of the World And he borrows these words from St. Austin That our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The second Council of Sevil assembled Anno 619. forbids Priests to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in presence of the Bishop The Council of Braga Anno 675. testifies That Jesus Christ gave the Bread apart and the Wine apart He calls that which our Lord gave his Disciples bread And the 16th of Tolledo Assembled Anno 693. Concil Tollet 16. to 5. Concil p. 430. cap. 6. Eligius Noveom in vita ejus l. 2. cap. 15. p. 216. t. 5. Spicil Dacher Ib. p. 217. declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Loaf distributed it by parcels unto his Apostles It speaks also of what remains after the Communion as of that whereof too great a quantity may burden the Stomach of him that Eats it The true St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon gave this Precept unto those whom he instructed Let him that is Sick confide wholly in the Mercy of God and receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And forbidding them to Sing the Songs of Pagan he alledges for a reason of this Defence That it is not fit to hear Diabolical Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein enters the Sacrament of Jesus Christ He retains as may be seen the Ancient Expressions and Doctrine According to which St. Ouen Archbishop of Roan his intimate Friend and Author of his Life which he wrote at large doth observe that as he drew near his Death he said That he would be no longer absent from Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 2. c. 32. p. 264. It was thus the true St. Eloy spake and in so speaking he rejects as false and forged some Homilies that have been published in his name especially the 8th and the 15th the former of these being only a Rapsody composed by several Authors some of which are of the 8th and 9th Centuries whereas St. Eloy died towards the end of the 7th Century Neither doth he that wrote his Life make any mention of these pretended Homilies Thus several do reason CHAP. XII Wherein is examined what passed in the Eighth Century AS Anastatius a Frier of Mount Sinai had rejected the name of Sign or Figure not allowing to say that the Sacrament is only the Sign of the Body of Jesus Christ words which might receive a good Construction as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter so John Damascen surnamed Mansur another Frier of the East extraordinarily given to the worshiping of Images and therefore Anathematized by 338 Bishops Anno 754. bethought himself in the Eighth Century of condemning the terms of Image of Type and Figure but because he stopped not at Expressions but proceeded to the Doctrine it is requisite to see if he therein made any Alteration and if his Innovation favoured the Belief of the Latin Church See here then what he saith Damasc de Fide Orthod l. 4. c. 14. The Bread offered the Wine and the Water are supernaturally changed by the Invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and are not two but one and the same thing Ibid. And a little after The Bread and Wine are not the Type or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Ah God forbid but the Body it self of our Lord Deified our Lord himself saying Ibid. This is not the Figure of my Body but my Body not the Figure of my Blood but my Blood And again If some have called the Bread and Wine Figures or Signs of the Body and Blood as St. Basil they spake not after Consecration but they called them so before the Oblation was consecrated As there are two things in these words of Damascen the one regarding the Terms the other the Doctrine we are obliged to examine both to give the Reader all the Information he may expect of us in this matter I will begin with the Doctrine to see if it agreeth with that of the Latin Church If Damascen said that the substance of the Symbols were quite destroyed and that if passed into the substance it self of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ so that there remained no part of the Bread and Wine but the bare Accidents only which subsisted miraculously without their Subject it must be granted that he was of the same Opinion that Roman Catholicks are of at this time and it were very unjust to deny it But if on the other hand he so plainly expressed himself that it cannot be doubted but he believed that the substance of the Symbols remained whatever Change it was that intervened by Consecration it must of necessity be concluded that his Belief upon this Point was not the Belief of the Latin Church The better to succeed in this Enquiry it must be noted that he lays this down for a certain Maxim Id. Dialect c. 1. That the Accident cannot subsist in it self but hath its Being in another Subject Ibid. that the Soul is a Substance and Wisdom an Accident that the Soul being taken away Wisdom also perisheth Ibid. c. 28. That which subsisteth not of it self but hath its Existence in another Id. de Fide Orthod l. 1. c. 17. is an Accident He affirms again That nothing but the Divinity is infinite that Bodies have beginning and ending and a bodily place Ibid. c. 4. and that they may be held that what is invisible and impassible is not a Body All which things do not well accord with the Real Presence Ibid. no more than his restraining the Invisible Presence whereby our Saviour is with us unto the Presence of his Divinity Moreover he affirms positively that the substance of Bread remains and that it nourisheth our Body by turning into our substance Id. l. 4. c. 14. The Shew-bread saith he did represent this Bread and it is the pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Lord foretold by the Prophet which should be offered unto him throughout the whole World to wit the Body and Blood
our Saviour gave unto his Disciples in his Sacrament the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable sanctification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour hath changed the Legal Sacrifices into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine And that whereas the Ancients celebrated the Passion of our Lord in the Flesh and Blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine According to which he testifies in a great many places Homil. de Sanct. in Epiph as hath been seen in the 4th Chapter That Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Body but is present by his Divinity It is true he saith That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the Mouth of believers for their Salvation But after what he hath spoken it is very evident say the Protestants that he speaks not of receiving them in their matter and Substance but in their Sacrament accompanied with a quickning and saving virtue and that if he be not so understood he will be made to contradict himself and to destroy with one hand what he built with the other therefore it is that he distinguisheth the Sacrament and that he declares that the wicked participate only of the Sign and not of the thing signified saying with St. Prosper in the Sentences drawn from St. Austin Id. in 1. ad Cor. 11. He that is not reconciled unto Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood although he receiveth every day the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his condemnation It is also true that he often calls the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but he declareth with St. Austin whom he exactly follows Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Id. in Marc. cap. 14. That it is by reason of the resemblance they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments And with St. Isidor of Sevil That it is because Bread strengthens the body and Wine increaseth Blood in the Flesh and that for this reason the Bread relates mystically unto the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine to his Blood And because say they in the matter of Sacraments it is not so much to be consider'd what they be August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 22. saith St. Austin as what it is they signifie because that as Signs they are one thing and yet they do signifie another Venerable Bede makes no difficulty to say That the Bread and Wine being visibly offered another thing must be understood which is Invisible to wit The true Body and Blood of Christ because in effect he will have the Believer raise up his Soul and his Faith unto Jesus Christ sitting at the right Hand of his Father for as he told us before He carried by his Ascension into the Invisible Heavens Beda domui vocem Ju. Id. Hom. de Astil de temp in vigil Pasch the Humane Nature which he had taken In fine he is not afraid to speak of Sacrificing again Jesus Christ for the advancement of our Salvation but all Christians agreeing That Jesus Christ cannot any more be truly Sacrificed he doubtless speaks of offering him by the Sacrament whence it is that he acknowledgeth with St. Austin That Jesus Christ was once offered in himself Let the Reader judge then what advantage the Latins can draw from these latter words of Bedes which they mightily esteem Unto Bede may be joyned Sedulius a Scotchman or more truly an Irishman not him that composed the Easter work who was much later than the other I mean the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul which many attribute unto one Sedulius a Bishop in England but originally of Ireland who assisted with Fergust a Bishop of Scotland at a Council held at Rome under Gregory the 2d Anno Dom. 721. I find that the Author of these Commentaries expounding the 4th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians cites a long passage of the 14th Chapter and 19th Book of the Morals of Gregory the First without naming him Now this Sedulius whom we place in the VIII Century until we receive better information furnisheth us with these words which he seemeth to have taken out of Pelagius and Primasius when explaining these words of St. Sedul Comment in 1. ad Cor. C. 11. Paul Do this in remembrance of me he saith He lest us his remembrance as if one going a long Loyage left a Present with his Friend to the end that every time he saw it he should think of his Love and Friendship which he could not look upon without grief and tears if he dearly loved him Whereby he shews that Jesus Christ left us his Sacrament to be in his stead until he comes again from Heaven We read in the Life of the Abbot Leufred Vita Leufred C. 17. in Chron Insulae term about the beginning of the VIII Century that Charles Martell having desired him to obtain of God by his prayers the recovery of his young Son Gryphon he gave him the Sacrament of the Body of Christ In notis Menard in Sacram Greg. And we have seen in the second Chapter by the testimony of a Pontifical Manuscript kept in the Church of Roan that Christians then believed that what was drank in the Eucharist was a thing which might be consumed as that was indeed consumed If we pass from the West into the East German Germ. Constantinop Theor. rerum Eccles t. 12. Bibl. Patr. pa. 402. 403. Patriarch of Constantinople and a great stickler for Image Worship will present himself unto us in the beginning of this same Century and tells us that the Priest prays a second time to the end the Mystery of the Son of God may be accomplished and that the Bread and Wine should be made and changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which the Latins stand upon very much but the Protestants pretend he declares very favourably for them and moreover they observe that it is not certain this piece is that German's which lived in the VIII Century others attributing it to another German that lived in the XII They indeed observe that to shew of what kind the change whereof he speaks is he saith In celebrating the Eucharist Ibid. p. 410. the Oblation is broken indeed like bread but it is distributed as the Communication of an ineffable benediction unto them which participate thereof with Faith He testifies that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread but Bread accompanied with the Blessing of God and with a Heavenly and Divine Virtue for the Salvation and Consolation of Believers Ibid. p. 408. And in another place he saith That presently after Elevation the Division of the holy body is made but though it is divided into parts it remains indivisible and inseparable and that it is known and found whole and
very Testimonies which Wicliff had borrowed out of Rabanus for the defence of his Doctrine It is then most certain that this Archbishop of Mayans taught two things of the Sacrament of the Eucharist one that by reason of its substance and matter it was subject unto the meanest accidents of our ordinary food and in so saying he followed the Opinion of Origin who said so positively six hundred years before him The other thing which he taught is That the Sacrament doth feed our body and turns it self into our substance which he learned from St. Irenaeus St. Justin Martyr St. Austin St. Isidore of Sevil and others But let us hear what he intends himself to say unto us Raba Maur. de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 31. Our Saviour saith he chose rather that believers should receive with the mouth the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that it should be converted into their nourishment or as it is cited by Thomas Waldensis agreeable to the Manuscript Copies into part of themselves to the end that by the visible thing the invisible effect should be shewn for as material food doth nourish the body and preserve it outwardly so in like manner the Word doth inwardly strengthen and preserve the soul And again Ibid. the Sacrament is one thing and the vertue of the Sacrament is another The Sacrament is converted into the nourishment of the body but by the vertue of the Sacrament we do acquire Eternal Life As then the Sacrament is converted into us when we do eat and drink it so also are we converted into the Body of Jesus Christ when we do live in Obedience and in Holiness And building always upon this Foundation Id. in Mat. c. 26 he saith elsewhere with venerable Bede That Jesus Christ Id. in Ecclesia li. 7. c. 8. in the room of the Paschal Lamb hath substituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Creator of the World Id. de Instit Cler. c. 31. l. 1. and the Redeemer of Mankind making of the Fruits of the Earth that is to say of Wheat and Wine a convenient Mystery converted it into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood That the Unlevened Bread and Wine mixed with Water are sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Then he gives the reason wherefore our Lord chose Bread and Wine to be made the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and saith That it is because Melchisedek did offer Bread and Wine Ibid. and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek he ought to imitate his Oblation And teaching us wherefore the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of our Saviour he saith with Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Ibid. Because bread doth strengthen the body it is fitly called the Body of Jesus Christ and because Wine increaseth blood in the body it doth for this cause resemble his Blood Now both these are visible yet nevertheless Ibid. c. 33. being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body a Sacrament which he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ by opposition unto his natural Body from which he distinguisheth it It must then be granted that Rabanus Archbishop of Mayans did teach quite contrary unto what Paschas did teach After Rabanus I will receive the Deposition of Amalarius Fortunatus although a little ancienter It is something difficult to know who he was and what Ecclesiastical Dignity he enjoyed And this difficulty is occasioned because some make him a Deacon others a Priest others an Abbot and in fine others a Bishop but the difficulty is not great because it is most certain he was invested with these four Dignities one after the other unto which also they added that of Archipresbyter Let the Reader see the Preface of the 7th Tome of the Collections of Dom Luke d'Achery where this learned Benedictine proves what we now say And he alledges besides the Manuscript Copies Father Sirmond which called him only Deacon and refutes him the late Monsieur Blondell who wrote that he was also Bishop he approves and of Monsieur Baluze who speaks of him as Abbot and Archipresbyâ—â—r although hitherto cannot be discovered neither the place of his Monastery nor of his Diocess Remy Archbishop of Lyons and the Church of the same place have endeavoured to eclipse his Reputation Lib. de trâ—â—us Epist because he was not of the same Opinion with them touching Predestination which Subject at that time was very hotly disputed and controverted amongst the Prelates of France Agobard Archbishop of the same place hath mightily inveighed against him in a Book which he composed against Amalarius his four Books of Ecclesiastical Offices Agoâ—ard cont Amalar. index Chronolog 〈◊〉 Pat. in autor 9. secul maâ—usc Flori. He was no better treated by Florus Deacon of the same Church in a Book which he wrote expresly against him where he denies amongst other things what Amalarius had said of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ de triformi Corpore Christi an expression which also escaped not the Censure of Paschas Radbert who gives this intimation at the end of his Letter to Frudegard Follow not the fooleries of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ De Tripartito Christi Corpore But as men are always men and that they but too much suffer themselves to be lead by their Passions it would not be just to judge of the Merits of Amalarius by the Testimony of his Enemies for not to insist upon what is said in the Manuscripts alalledged by Dom Luke d'Achery in the Preface above-mentioned he is qualified with the Title of a Man most learned And those which after him have written of Divine Offices mention him with honour and great commendation Two things may inform us in what esteem he was The first is in that he was by the Emperor Lewis the Debonair sent unto Pope Gregory to search for Antiphonaries Amalar. in Prolog Antiphon as he testifies himself in the Preface of his Book of the Order of the Antiphonary The second is That the same Emperor having assembled a Council at Aaix la Chappell Anno 816. he ordered a Rule to be made for Prebends drawn out of the Writings of the holy Fathers that the Prebends should conform unto it as the Friars did unto St. Bennet's And it was this Amalarius that by Order of this Prince composed this Book as is testified by Ademar a Friar of Angoulesm in his Chronicle Whereunto may also be added Ademar in Chron. Anno 816. In Supplem Concil Gall. p. 110. that the same Amalarius was chosen with Halitgarius by the Council of Paris assembled Anno 824. against the worshiping of Images to present into the same Emperor the Letter written unto him by this Assembly of Prelates And therefore it is that in the Memoirs that Lewis the Deboâ—ur directed unto Jeremy Archbishop of Sens
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
the Friar Clarius that lived much about this time observes in the Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans that Fulbert Bishop of Chartres died Anno 1027. but he saith never a word of what is related by the English Historian although a Circumstance of this nature was too considerable to be passed over in silence And as it is evident that Berengarius did not change his Opinion in the time that William of Malmesbury doth assign it is no less plain as I think that he retained it until the last moment of his life Apud Guillâ—â—m Malmsb. ubi supra which he ended by a natural death Anno 1088. And after his death he was honoured with Epitaphs both by Hildebert Bishop of Mentz who speaks of him as advantagiously as one could do of a man exceedingly recommendable for his Vertue and Learning for the splendour of his Parts and for the purity of his Conversation and by Baldrick Abbot of Bourgueil Tom. 4. hist Franc. Quercetani and afterwards Bishop or rather Arch-Bishop of Doll for he and his Successors also enjoyed the Privileges of Arch-Bishop until Innocent the Third as their Predecessors had done since the middle of the IX Century to the prejudice of the Arch-Bishop of Tours neither the one nor the other speaking one word of his Conversion no more than the Friar Clarius who wrote his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans about the time of the death of Berengarius of whom he speaketh very honourably upon the Year 1083. as if he died in that year Berengarius saith he Doctor of Tours Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. an admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor flourished He composed the Prayer which begins O Jesus Christ just Judge and afterwards he ended his days faithful and truly Catholick This Epitaph is read on his Tomb it is the Epitaph of Hildebert of Mentz whereof he cites the two first Verses which contain in substance That the World shall always admire him that it admires at present and that Berengarius dies without dying to wit by the great Reputation which he had acquired In the same Century which the name of Berengarius had made so famous the Author of the Chronicle of St. Maixant speaking of De Cormarecensi Caenobio saith Tom. 2. Bibl. l'Abbe p. 212. That he saw a certain Friar of this Monastery called Literius a man of a wonderful Abstinence who for the space of ten years drank neither Wine nor Water but what he received in the Sacrifice that is to say in the Eucharist Judge Reader what was the Belief of this Writer who declares that they drank Wine and Water in the Participation of the Sacrament But having examined what passed in the West during the XI Century touching the Subject of the Sacrament we must endeavour to find what was believed concerning it in the Greek Church we will begin this Enquiry by Theophilact Arch-Bishop of Bulgaria who lived in this Century under the Dukes and under the Commenes Emperors of the East the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do both make pretensions unto him and think that he favours either of them Theophylact. in Matt. c. 26. The former ground themselves upon his declaring That our Saviour saying This is my Body sheweth that the Bread which is sanctified at the Altar is his real Body and not the Anti-type c. and that it is changed by an ineffable Operation although it appear unto us to be Bread for because that we are weak and that we have an aversion unto eating raw flesh and especially Man's flesh it seems to us to be but bread but it is really flesh Whereunto they add another passage of the same Author upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark where he saith almost the same thing observing That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body Id. in Joan. 6. And a third upon the Gospel of St. John which amounts unto the same thing not to mention what he saith again upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark That the Body of Jesus Christ is properly what is in the Golden Patten and the Blood that which is in the Cup. But the others that is to say the Protestants alledge that Theophilact hath explained himself very well in making this positive Declaration Id. in Mar. c. 14 God condescending unto our infirmities preserves the Species of Bread and Wine and doth change them into the vertue of his Body and Blood Which is exactly the Doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria who said 1 Apud Victorem in Marc. 14. manus That the Bread and Wine are changed into the efficacy of his Flesh or as Theodotus said before him 2 Apud Clement Alexan. p. 800. Into a spiritual Vertue So that when Theophilact said That the Sacrament is not the Antitype of the Body of Jesus Christ but his true Body and his Flesh it self they say that he understood that it was not a vain and empty Figure without any efficacy and vertue but not that he had any thoughts of absolutely denying that the Eucharist was an Antitype and Figure of the Body and Blood of our Saviour because then he should deny what his Predecessors had unanimously affirmed and that so indeed the Sacrament is truly the Body of Jesus Christ according to Theophilact not in substance but in vertue and efficacy because he declares that the Bread and Wine are changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord and that although our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body nevertheless his meaning was that his words should so be understood according to the Explication of Tertullian St. Austin Facundus and others who declare formally that these words This is my Body do signifie This is the Figure the Sign and the Sacrament of my Body But that the Reader may the better judge of what side to range Theophilact either on the Protestants or the Roman Catholicks it will be necessary to consider what the Belief of the Greek Church was touching the Sacrament in the XI Century for if the Belief of the Greeks was not conformable with that of the Latins in that Age Theophilact cannot reasonably be interpreted to favour the Real Presence unless that he differed absolutely from the Opinion generally received by all those of his Country in which sense his Testimony would not be very considerable Now I observe that at that time the Greeks believed for certain that the Communion broke the Fast and that what is received in the Eucharist goes down into the Belly and passeth into the Draft as to its matter which sheweth plainly that they believed it was true Bread It is what Cardinal Humbert who was sent unto them by Pope Leo the IX chargeth upon Nicetas Pectoratus Humb. tom 4. Bibl Pat. Edit ult pag. 245.
should be read 1106. because Bruno was not made Archbishop of Treves till after the year 1100. Bishop Usher makes mention of the Author of the Acts of Bruno who was present and is a Manuscript to be seen in England and he saith that this Author speaks of Assemblies which were made in the Diocess of Treves by those which denied the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Waldens t. 2. c. 90. It is about this time that Honorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Autun is said to flourish which Thomas Waldensis alledges against Wickliff as a Disciple and follower of the Heresie of Berengarius which he himself confesseth to agree with the Doctrine of Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance and great Adversary unto Paschas when he saith that Honorius est de secta panitarum Rabani that is to say of the Sect of those which believe with Rabanus That the Eucharist is bread in substance fit to nourish the body but the body of Jesus Christ in efficacy It is true Waldensis doth not particularly name Honorius but he means him so clearly by the entrance of his Treatise and by the passages he alledgeth and which is therein now to be seen that no body can doubt but that 't was of Honorius he spake Neither do I find that any are at variance hereupon The first testimony produced by Waldensis and which Wickliff alledged for the defence of his Opinion Honorius Augustod in gemma animae l. 1. c. â—6 is set down in these terms It is said that formerly the Priests received Flower from each House or Family which the Greeks do still practice and that of this Flower they made the Bread of our Lord which they offered for the People and after having consecrated it they distributed it unto them The second mentioned by Waldensis is borrowed of Rabanus Id. l. 1. c. 111. and is thus read The Sacrament which is received by the mouth is turned into the nourishment of the body but the vertue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is satisfied and by this vertue is acquired Eternal Life The same Author saith again Id. ib. c. 63. that the Host is broken Because the bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross that the Bishop bites part of it that he divides it into three parts Id. c. 64. that it is not received whole but broke into three bits Ibid. c. 85. and that when the Bread is put into the Wine it is represented that the Soul of our Lord returned into his body And he calls it Ibid. c. 63. to break the Body of our Lord when he observes That the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the body of our Lord and that he carries it to the Priests to break it unto the People All Men do confess that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot be broken and divided into parts of necessity he must then speak of the Sacrament which is called the Body of Jesus Christ not by reason of the accidents which is never qualified with this name by the Ancients but in regard of its substance therefore Honorius declareth plainly that it is Bread when he saith That the Consecrated bread is distributed unto the People and that the bread is put into the Wine And so far he favours the cause of the Protestants in following the Judgment of Berengarius and of Rabanus as is testified by Thomas Waldensis an Enemy both of the one and the other and by consequence of Honorius Nevertheless there be other places in the Treatise of this Author from whence the Roman Catholicks strive to draw advantage for example from these words The name of Mystery is used Ibid. c. 106. when one thing is seen and another thing is understood the Species of Bread and Wine is seen but it is believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ It is true that all Christians confess that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament after Consecration are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the Author not specifying if it be in substance as the Church of Rome doth teach or in vertue as the Protestants which are called Calvinists do say I do not think that either the one or the other can draw any advantage from these words But besides these there be yet others which seem to be more favourable unto the Hypothesis of the Latins we may put in this order what he saith Ibid. c. 34. That the bread is changed into Flesh and that the Wine turns into blood and elsewhere That as the World was made of nothing by the word of God Ibid. c. 105. so by the words of our Lord the Species of these things he means the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is truly changed into the body of Jesus Christ It must be confessed that had we only these two last passages of Honorius the Latin Church would undoubtedly have cause to boast over those which reject her belief but that which hinders that she cannot draw all the advantage from it she desires is that the Protestants rely in the first place upon the declaration of Thomas Waldensis who highly condemning the Opinion of Rabanus and of Berengarius as contrary unto the belief of the Latins doth nevertheless ingenuously confess that Honorius of Autun followed the Opinion of these two men whose Doctrine he condemns In the second place inasmuch as the first testimonies instanced in could receive no favourable interpretation for the Hypothesis of Roman Catholicks whereas the later whereof they pretend to take hold may conveniently be explained in a way which might no way prejudice the Doctrine of those called Calvinists who say that the conversion and the change spoken of by Honorius is not a change of substance but a change of efficacy and vertue inasmuch as the Bread and Wine do become by Sanctification the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Sacraments in their lawful Celebration accompanied with all the vertue and with all the efficacy of the Body and Blood so that for that reason it is said that they be changed into this efficacy and into this vertue according to the language of Theodotus of St. Cyril of Alexandria of Theophilact c. alledging to confirm their Interpretation Ibid. c. 106. what is said by the same Honorius That Jesus Christ changed the Bread and Wine into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil venerable Bede and Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mayans had said before him as hath been mentioned in some part of this History And that in speaking of dividing the Host into three parts Ibid. c. 64. he declares That that which is put into the Cup is the glorified Body of our Lord and that which the Priest eats is the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Church which yet is militant here on Earth
Encratites which are descended as the Antients believe from one Tatian who was Disciple unto Justin Martyr this man during the life of his excellent Master continued in the right way of the truth of the Gospel but after his death he departed from the simplicity which is in Jesus Christ being deceived by the wiles of the Devil And although Epiphanius makes a difference betwixt the Tatianites and the Encratites yet he owneth that these latter derived their Original from Tatian as well as the former only he thinks they added something unto the Heresie of the Tatianites but in fine these Encratites had an aversion against Marriage the flesh of Beasts and Wine as if they were things evil in themselves and in their Nature and from thence it was that they were called Encratites But because upon this principle of hating Wine as an evil thing they made use of fair Water in the Celebration of the Sacrament they were called by the name of Aquarians or Hydroparastates in fine all the Antients which have treated of this Heresie witness with one accord that they offered Water instead of Wine in their Mysteries and that it was with Water that they celebrated them which made Epiphanius say That their Mysteries were not Mysteries Epiph. haeres 47. but that they were made falsly in imitation of true ones and that our Saviour would reprove them for it at the last day because he said I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine and a long time before him Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. cap. 2. Clement of Alexandria opposed these same Hereticks by the example of Jesus Christ which used Wine both at his common meals and in his Eucharist and having proved both the one and the other he adds Let these things be firmly rooted in our minds against those which are called Encratites Chrysost hom 83. in Matth. S. Chrysostom also presseth this example of Jesus Christ against the same Hereticks and saith that in as much as our Saviour used Wine both in the Celebration of his Sacrament and after his Resurrection at a common Table It was to pluck up by the roots this pernicious Heresie As for S. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage and glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ he disputeth in his small Treatise of the Sacrament of the Cup which is his 63. Epistle unto Cecilius against some Christians of his time which used only Water in the celebrating of the Eucharist and for that reason may be called Aquarians But methinks it is evident enough in all his Treatise that these latter Aquarians were very different from the former for the former were wretched and wicked Hereticks which detested and abominated Wine as a wicked Creature and an evil production but as for those spoken of by S. Cyprian they had doubtless other sentiments and indeed he neither calls them Enemies nor Hereticks the former did celebrate their Mystery with Water because they abominated Wine but these did so for two reasons much different from the Encratites Cyprian Ep. â— 3. the first proceeded from the ignorance and simplicity of some of their Teachers Some saith S. Cyprian in the beginning of his Treatise either through ignorance or simplicity do not what Christ did when they consecrate the Cup of our Lord and distribute it unto the people and towards the end If any of our Predecessors have not observed or practised either through ignorance or folly what the Lord commanded us to do both by his precepts and example Id. ibid. the Lord by his goodness may pardon his ignorance but as for us we cannot be pardoned being informed and taught as we have been by the Lord to offer a Cup with Wine as our blessed Saviour offered Therefore in another part of his Epistle he saith that he cannot sufficiently admire whence the custom should come Id. ibid. That in some places was offered Water in the Cup of our Lord contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical discipline forasmuch as Water alone cannot represent the blood of Christ The second motive which caused those Christians to do so was the fear of persecution they feared that in their Assemblies which they made early in the morning should they have used Wine in the Eucharist the smell of the liquor might discover them and thereby might have exposed them unto the persecutions which Heathens made against Christians All the discipline saith S. Cyprian of Religion and of the truth is wholly overthrown Id. ibid. if what was commanded spiritually and faithfully be not observed if haply some be not afraid that it should be known that they participated of the blood of Jesus Christ by the scent of the Wine which they received in the Morning-Oblations and to the end it should not be thought that in these Morning-Assemblies they abstained offering Wine or drinking it through aversion as if it were an evil and abominable thing they made use of it in the Evening-Assemblies because not being obliged at that season to be present amongst the Unbelievers they feared not to be discovered by that means to be Christians and for persons that came from receiving the Sacrament as they thought they might have cause to believe if they had employed Wine in the celebration of the Sacrament in the Assemblies which met before day besides that there were none Fasting at night so that the scent of Wine could not so particularly be discerned at that season Id. ibid. Thus much St. Cyprian would intimate by these words Is it that any one can deceive himself with this thought that is that he shall imitate the example of Jesus Christ if he celebrate the Sacrament at Supper-time with the Cup mingled with Wine though in the morning he offers but Water only This holy Doctor condemns this practice and with great reason seeing it was from a fleshly and carnal motion which fearing the Cross and Sufferings suggested such thoughts and counsels into weak and timorous Christians which considered not that in acting after that manner they followed the Inspirations of the Devil which commonly sets on men in their weakest part and never slips any occasion to seize their hearts and to destroy them to render them companions of his pains and torments See here another instance to the same purpose The Devil not content to stir up the Eucratites in the second Century to change the Essence of the Sacrament by using of Water instead of Wine which they had in aversion and not content in the third with the simplicity timidity and weakness of some Catholick Christians and Orthodox in the main to give some attempt against this Sacrament of our Salvation he began anew in the fifth Century to surprise others through a pretext of sobriety for as sometimes men pass to vice by the way of virtue so it fell out that this pretext was made use of to deceive men and to plunge them in Error This also he did in respect of those of whom Gennadius Priest
greater value was chosen to make their Chalices but of greater and less price according to the substance and stock of each Church but at first in sundry places they were made of Glass or of Wood as will appear and to speak the truth if at Rome in the beginning of the III. Century they used Glass Chalices it is very probable they did so in many other places Now that they used such at Rome at that time may be gathered from some passages of Tertullian for answering an argument which the Catholicks drew from a picture they had in their Chalices and which represented the good Shepherd carying the lost Sheep upon his back Put in practice saith he the very Pictures of your Chalices Tertul. de pudic c. 7. Ibid. c. 10 and to mark that these Chalices were Glass he opposeth unto this Painting The writing of the Shepherd which cannot be blotted out Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse towards the end of the IV. Century and at the beginning of the V. made use of no other Chalices but of Glass S. Jerom who presseth him very much Hieron ep 4. extr saith amongst other things of him That nothing is richer than him which carries the Body of our Lord in a little wicker Basket and his blood in a Glass In the VI. Century Cyprian not the famous Bishop of Carthage which was dead three hundred years before but another Cyprian a French Man Vi◠〈◊〉 Arel Author of the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who died towards the middle of the VI. Century observing as an action worthy of commendation that he redeemed a great many Slaves with the Gold and Silver of the Church saying that a great many praised him for so doing but would not follow his example he adds The blood of Christ is it not in a Glass And although this Author saith there were many who would not imitate him in an Action which they could not but commend yet I cannot be perswaded but that there were to be found other good Bishops who considering as Exuperius of Tholouse and S. Caesarius of Arles that the riches of the Church are the Patrimony of the Poor did in suffering and calamitous times imploy all the Gold and Silver of their Churches either to sustain their Poor or redeem Captives and that they had rather make use of Chalices of Glass as those did than to be wanting in this necessary duty of Christian charity Greg. 1. dialog l. 1. c. 7. In the Dialogues of Gregory the first there is mention of one Donatus who by his Prayers mended a Glass Chalice which had been broke but let us hear what Cardinal Baronius saith upon this Subject Baron Martyr Rom. 7. Agust The Chalices of Glass and Plates or Patins of Glass were antiently made use of in Livine Service there is mention made of Plates of Glass in the Pontifical in the life of Pope Zephyrin of a Glass Chalice in the 4th Epistle of S. Jerom to Rusticus speaking of S. Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse and also our French Cyprian in the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who flourished in the time of Theodorick King of Italy Is not saith he the Blood of Christ kept in a Glass for it seemeth that Glass Chalices have been used ever since the Apostles days whence 't is that Mark the Heretick who lived presently after their days to imitate the Catholick Church using a Glass Chalice in his divine Service betwitched the people with certain impostures and by Sorcery making the Wine which looked white in the Glass to turn Red by his slights so that the Wine seemed to be changed into Blood but in the Council of Rheems held under Charles the great Glass Chalices were forbidden and that very reasonably because of the danger there was in that brittle stuff you have thereupon the Canon ut Calix de Consecrat distinct 1. as also the Chalices of wood are forbidden in the Canon Vasa in quibus in the same distinction Binius relates almost the very same thing upon the life of Pope Zephyrin What Baronius saith of the prohibiting of Glass Chalices in the Reign of Charlemain T. 1. Concil p. 96. in one of the Councils of Rheems he takes from the Canonist Gratian whose authority is not always to be allowed no more than the other Collectors of Canons for as Monsieur de Launoy a Doctor of Sorbon hath judiciously observed in his Treatise of the times antiently appointed for administring holy Baptism Cap. 9. p. 184. The Antient Collectors do change and cut off from the Canons of Councils what things they suppose either to be abolished and useless or different from the customs of their times They have saith he fitted the Antient Canons to the discipline of their own times Ibid. And Cardinal Bellarmine in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers In Grat. ad an 1145. saith in particular of Gratian That he had not well chosen the Authors from whence he had gathered his Decrees and he instances in some examples which he pretends to be so many mistakes in the Author and indeed to return to the prohibition of Glass Chalicesby a Council of Rheems we find no such matter if my memory fail not in any of the Councils held under Charlemain although we have a great number of them as for Wooden Chalices we have at this time the Canon whence Gratian took it it is the 18. of the council of Trybur assembled Anno 895. Tom. 7. Concil p. 151. That for the future no Priest dare presume in any wise to consecrate in Chalices of Wood the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. But the Council doth observe in the same Canon that Boniface Bishop of Mayence being asked if it were lawful to consecrate the Sacraments in Vessels of Wood he made this answer Heretofore Golden Priests made use of Wooden Chalices and now on the contrary Wooden Priests do use Golden Chalices But it is plainly evident by what hath been said that Chalices of Glass and of Wood were used in the Church for the space of eight or nine hundred years and what is said of Chalices may also be said of Plates or Patins whereupon we have said was put the Bread of the Sacrament they were at least broad round Vessels a little hollow which cannot be resembled to any thing better than Dishes which were greater or less according to the number of Communicants The Latin Church doth not suffer Consecration to be made in any thing but a Gold or Silver Chalice or at least of Pewter and a Council of Albi assembled Anno. 1254 commanded all Churches whose Rents amounted yearly unto fifteen livres French Money to have a Silver Chalice T. 2. Spâ—cil c. 12. p. 638. I deny not but in the four first Ages of Christianity several Churches had Silver Chalices and it may be also of Gold such as whereof in all likelihood those were spoken of by Optatus Bishop of
This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many O. He makes no mention then of the Divinity in shewing the Type of that Passion E. Not any O. But of the Body and Blood E. It is true O The body then was Crucified And venerable Bede Bede in Marc. c. 14. He himself broke the Bread which he presented unto his Disciples that he might shew the fraction of his Body Also it is without all doubt that Christians carefully observed this Ceremony for they consecrated a Loaf greater or less according to the number of Communicants which was divided into several Morsels to be distributed unto each Communicant all the Liturgies that are extant true or false testifie this fraction and all the holy Fathers confirm it Accordingly we read in the life of Pope Sergius who held the Chair towards the end of the Seventh Century That he ordained that at the breaking the Bread of the Lord T. 5. Concil p. 407. Extr. the people and Clergy should sing Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the World Have mercy upon us Hugh Maynard whom we mentioned before hath caused to be Printed at the end of the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory some antient Manuscripts which contain several Liturgies for the Celebration of the Eucharist and in all these Liturgies which are of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries the Fraction which we speak of is therein found In that of Ratold Abbot of Corby who lived at the end of the Tenth Century this Prayer is made when the Body is broken O Lord vouchsafe to send if it be thy Will Apperd ad lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 265. thy holy Angel upon this holy and immortal Mystery to wit upon thy Body and Blood for O Lord we break it and be pleased to bless it and vouchsafe to make us fit to handle it with pure hands and senses and to receive it worthily In another of these Manuscripts towards the year 1079. Ibid. p. 276. there is also mention made of the division of the Body of our Lord into several parts and in fine in a third of the year 1032. or thereabouts it is observed That whil'st the Bishop is making the Fraction In Notis p 24. he saith Lamb of God c. and that the Bread being broken he bites in Communicating in part of the Oblation There is frequent mention made of this Fraction in those antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny above-mentioned L. 1. c. 13. p. 58. l. 2. c. 30. p. 141. alibi The Interpreter of the Roman Order who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Century observes what we have already alledged of Pope Sergius And because there were some who were scrupulous because the Roman Order commanded to break the Bread of our Lord he reproaches them by the Authority of the Scriptures and of the Fathers Apud Cassan in litur c. 29. We are informed saith he that some persons of late times do find and think strange that the Roman Order enjoyns the Bread of our Lord to be broken as if they had not read or that they had forgot what is written in the Gospel That Jesus Christ took Bread That he blessed it and broke it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat c. and what is read in the Acts of the Apostles That the Primitive Church continued with one accord in the Doctrine and Fellowship of the Apostles and in breaking of Bread and watched in the Exercise of Prayer As for the holy Fathers he saith That forbearing at this time to speak of all others who celebrated the Divine Mysteries as they had been taught by the Apostles and the Evangelists he contents himself to instance in the example of that Woman mentioned by Gregory the First in his Dialogues who smiled when she heard Gregory call that Loaf of Bread which she her self had made the Body of Christ It is upon this custom of the breaking the Bread of the Sacrament that Humbert Cardinal of Blanch-Selva grounds the slander he makes against the Greeks in this same Eleventh Century in that they used Oblations which had been before consecrated during the Lent because that obliged them to separate the Benediction and breaking the Bread from the distribution of it And indeed during Lent they did not fully celebrate the Eucharist but on Saturday and Sunday and on that day they kept some of the consecrated Symboles to Communicate the other days of the Week and so they were constrained to do that at several times which our Saviour did at once when he celebrated his Sacrament Thereupon Humbert presseth his Enemy Nicetas Humbert contr Nicet t. 4. Bibl. Pat. part 2. p. 246. â—id p. 216. B. by the Example of the Son of God We read saith he that the Lord himself gave unto his Disciples not an imperfect but a perfect commemoration in giving unto them the Bread which he had broken and at the same Instant broken and distributed for he not only blessed it deferring till next day to break it neither contented he himself to break it but he distributed it presently after having broke it whence it is that the blessed Martyr Pope Alexander the Fifth after St Peter inserting the Passion of our Lord in the Canon of the Mass saith not as oft as ye do this but as often as ye do these things that is to say that ye bless that ye break and that ye distribute ye do it in remembrance of him because each of these three things the Blessing without the Distribution doth not perfectly represent the Commemoration of Jesus Christ no more than the distribution doth without the Benediction and the Breaking I say nothing here of the Decretal of Pope Alexander which is a forged and a counterfeit piece as are all the Decretals of the first Popes until Siricius it sufficeth that until the days of Humbert and also before it was owned to be true that so its authority might serve to prove the Ceremony of breaking the Bread as a thing essential in the Celebration of the Sacrament also we see that most Christian Communions observe it at this time not distributing the holy Bread unto the Communicants until it be broken in parcels to give a piece or morsel unto each one So it is practised by the Greeks the Moscovites the Russians and the Abassins for they make a Loaf of Bread greater or less either in breadth or thickness according to the number of Communicants so that having blessed and consecrated it they break it into little bits to distribute it unto those who approach unto the holy Table to participate of this Holy and Divine Sacrament From thence it is as St. Austin hath observed that in some places they called the Sacrament the Parcels that is to say the Pieces amongst the Greeks the Fragments that is to say the Portions and Pieces of the Eucharist broken and the holy parcels As for the Latin
of a Sacrament of Communion for the benefit of all Christians Therefore it is Constit Apostol l. 8. c. 13. that the Author of Apostolical Constitutions mentioning the Persons who ought to communicate and in what manner he comprehends generally all faithful Christians as well Clergy as People without distinguishing Age or Sex John Cochloeus writing against Musculus a Protestant Josse Clicthou upon the Canon of the Mass Apud Cass in Liturg. and Vitus Amerpachius all three of the Communion of Rome confess the truth of this Tradition which we have established and the two former confirm it by the Authority of Pope Calixtus which practice is at this time observed in other Christian Communions and which I make no doubt was alwayes observed in the West because at the time it ceased in the Latin Church that is to say in the Twelfth Century at soonest those who went out and departed from her observed it very Religiously never celebrating the Eucharist without Communicants until the last separation of Protestants whose practice also it is Having spoken of the Communion of aged persons we must treat of that of young Children according to the rule which was proposed St. Cyprian reports the story of a little Christian Girl Cypr. de laps p. 175. whose Nurse had carried her unto the Pagan Temple where they made her eat Bread steept in Wine both having been consecrated unto Idols and that afterwards as her turn came to Communicate in the Christian Church they had very much trouble to open the Childs Lips into whose mouth with much adoe they poured a little of the Sacrifice of the Cup but in vain Id. Ep. 59. The Sacrament saith he not enduring to abide in this polluted Mouth and Body and indeed she vomited what they had forced her to take The same may be collected from another place in his Works where he defines with his Brethren and fellow Bishops that nothing hinders the Baptizing of Infants presently after their Birth because that for the most part the participation of the Sacrament followed the reception of Baptism and to say the truth it seemeth that he explains himself sufficiently not to leave us the least doubt of it In the Apostolical constitution Const Apost l. 8. c. 13. Children are counted amongst those who ought to Communicate this custom then is very antient seeing we find it established in the third Century but if it is antient it was also of a large extent this custom having since continued in all Christian Climats and Countreys and is at this time practised in all the Churches of the Greeks the Russians or Moscovites the Armenians and Ethiopians and we do not find that those Christian Communions have ever laid it aside which doth fully prove what we said That this custom was soon spread into all parts of the Christian World But to speak particularly of the Latin Church we must as near as may be follow the steps of this antient practice and in the first place I will instance in what hath been said by the Jesuit Maldonat in his Commentaries upon St. John Maldon in c. 6. Joan. v. 53. I lay apart saith he the opinion of St. Austin and of Innocent the First which was believed and practised in the Church six hundred years That the Sacrament also was necessary for young Children at present the thing hath been cleared by the Church and the practice of several Ages and by a Decree of the Council of Trent that not only it is not necessary for them Ep. ad Syn. Mil. apud Aug. Ep. 93. but that also it is not permitted to give it unto them And indeed Innocent the First shews plainly that it was the practice of his time that is of the Fifth Century As for St. Austin his constant Doctrine in a great many passages of his Works is That the Eucharist is necessary unto young Children for obtaining eternal Life I shall content my self with two or three passages of this famous Doctor Aug. de pec mer. rem l. 1. c 20. Let us hear saith he the Lord saying of the Sacrament of the holy Table unto which no body approaches as they ought unless they are first Baptized If ye eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no Life in you What more do we look for what can be replied to this only that obstinacy knits its Sinews to resist the Force of this evident truth Else durst any one deny but that this Speech concerns little Children and that they can have life in themselves without the participation of this Body and of this Blood Id. ibid. 24. And in the same Book It is with great reason that the Christians of Africa call Baptism Salvation and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ Life whence is that as I think but from an antient and Apostolical Tradition by which the Churches of Christ hold for certain That no body can attain either unto the Kingdom of God or unto Salvation or eternal Life without Baptism and the participation of the Supper of our Lord. And writing against Julian the Pelagian Id. contr Jul. l. 2. c. 1. alibi What saith he would you have me do Is it that the Lord saying If ye eat not my Flesh c. I ought to say That young Children who dye without this Sacrament shall have Life The same thing may be justified by several other Doctors of the same time but seeing it is owned by both sides it would be needless It may be only observed that Maldonat set not his bounds right when he included this use or rather abuse in or about the six first Centuries for besides that there is mention made of Communicating Infants presently after Baptism in Gregory the First his Book of Sacraments Lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 73.74 Conc. Tol. 11. Can. 11. Vit. Leufr c. 17. in Chron. Insulae Lirin we have a Canon in the Eleventh Council of Toledo Anno 675. which plainly commands it In the beginning of the Eighth Century the Life of the Abbot Leufred affords an example of this custom for we therein read That Charles Martel having desired him by his Prayers to restore health unto his Son Griphon who was afflicted with a great Feaver amongst several things which he did 't is observed that he gave unto him the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord. Charlemain in a Treatise written by his order and in his name doth plainly shew that this was still practised in the West at the end of the Eighth Century De Imag. l. 2. c. 27. for he not only saith That there is no Salvation without participating of the Eucharist but he also mentioneth the Communion of little Children Capit. l. 1. c. 16. Suppl Conc. Gal. p. 183. c. 7. Ibid. p. 306. c. 8. whom he represents unto us fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of our Lord And in his Capitularies he commands That Priests
Christ where the Reader may observe if he please that the case is by way of permission and farther of a permission grounded not upon the authority of a Council but upon the necessity that is alledged of the fear or danger of effusion something of like nature is to be found in the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny which were written after the death of the Abbot Odilon who dyed about the middle of the XI Century but in such a manner as appears that this custom was peculiar to the Congregation of Cluny the other Churches distributing both Symbols severally L. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. spicil Vuto all those unto whom he gives the holy Body say these antient customs he first wets or steeps it in the Blood but in the Margent they make this observation Another Manuscript adds Although this be contrary to the practice of other Churches because some of our Novices are such slovens that should they receive the Blood by it self they would not fail of being guilty of some great neglect Non remaneret Which words Cassander alledged in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds for he saw the Manuscripts before the customs were Printed as they have been within this six or seven years past but it appears by the words above alledged that in most Churches the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were given apart and distinct from one another In the year 1095. Vrban the Second held a Council at Clermont in Auvergna that made a Decree which is variously reported Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals gives it us in these terms T. 11. ad an 1095. That no Body presume to Communicate at the Altar without receiving the Body apart and also the Blood by it self unless it be by necessity and with precaution This necessity regards the sick above-mentioned and this care or precaution refers in all likelihood to the danger of spilling which might happen more especially at great and festival Communions by reason of the great number of people that comunicates and doubtless it was upon such occasions that John Bishop of Auranch intended it should be permitted to give the Sacrament steeped unto the people if it were not better to refer unto the same subject that is to say unto sick bed-rid Persons both the necessity and precaution of the Canon in Baronius In a word Oderic Vital in his ninth Book of his Ecclesiastical History upon the year 1095. upon the relation of Maynard in his Notes upon the same Book of Sacraments of Gregory thus represents unto us the Canon Page 379. That the Body of the Lord be received separately and also the Blood of the Lord he speaks neither of necessity nor precaution and without that the Canon is clear and intelligible and without any difficulty it is no easiy matter to judge in what manner the Council exprest it self it only can be said that it seems to express it self as Oderic Vital saith if it be considered in the first place that 't was in this Council of Clermont the Croysade was granted for recovering the Holy Land Secondly that it appears by a Letter written from Antioch by the Adventurers four years after the Council that is to say in the year 1099. and directed unto Manasses Archbishop of Rheims that the Christians resolving to make a sally upon those which held them closely besieged in Antioch did first Communicate but under both Symbols distinctly These things being heard T. 7. Spicil p. 195. the Christians being purified by cenfessing their sins and strongly armed by receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord and being prepared for the combat they marched out of the gate Unto which may be added that a little before the Council of Clermont most Churches did Communicate as we have been informed by the antient customs of Cluny under both kinds distinctly But Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban Anno 1099. commands both Symbols to be distributed separately Pascal 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. part 1. p. 130. except it be unto young Children and such as are at the point of death for unto such he gives liberty they should be communicated with the holy Wine only because they cannot swallow down the Bread And about the same time the Micrologue observes that the Communion with the steeped Sacrament Cardinal Humbert against the Greeks t. 4. Bibl. patr part 2. p. 217. A. Microlog c. 18. is no lawful Communion and proves it by the authority of the Roman Order It appears also that about fifty years before this Council of Clermont the steeped Sacrament was not always given unto Persons ready to depart this life but the holy Bread and the sanctified Cup apart at least nothing hinders but it may so be gathered from the Chronicle of Fontanella otherwise St. Wandrill in Normandy for speaking of Gradulph one of its Abbots who dyed in the year 1047. C. 8. t. 3. Spicil p. 268. it saith That being at the point of death and having received the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord he dyed Nevertheless the best and most holy things absolutely degenerate from their institution let us see the manner that the Communion with the steeped Eucharist was introduced and established in several places but not universally We have a Letter of Ernulph or Arnulph or if you please of Arnold at first a Monk at S. Lueiens of Beauvais then at Canterbury in Lanfranck's time afterwards made a Prior by Anselm a little after Abbot of Burk and at last by Radulph Bishop of Rose now Rochester in England he died Anno 1124. T. 2. Spicil p. 432. in this Letter which he writes unto one Lambert who demanded wherefore the Sacrament was then given steept seeing our Saviour gave the Bread and Wine distinctly he approves this new manner of giving the Sacrament although he owns that Jesus Christ distributed it otherwise and he likes it for the danger of shedding especially upon Festival daies because of the great numbers of persons that then use to communicate also he touches the inconvenience might happen by reason of men that have long and great Beards representing that if at their Meals they wet their Whiskars in the Liquor before they receive it in their mouth it may be feared they do the same in the Consecrated Wine if they are admitted unto the Sacramental Cup which he accounts a great crime which he chargeth upon the Communicant and also him that celebrates besides to strengthen what he saith of the danger of effusion upon solemn Festival daies when great numbers of Men and Women must be communicated of all sorts and conditions he observes that he that officiates will be still in danger of spilling something out of the Sacred Cup let him take never so much care and caution in distributing it because he often runs the hazard of this effusion when he is about to drink of it himself which cannot be done as he
to take it when they pleas'd for besides that it was an abuse which indeed was tolerated along time in the Church but could be no prejudice unto the practice generally received it may be observed that those very persons which carried home with them the Bread of the Sacrament did it not in all likelihood until after they had eaten part of it in the Assembly and participated of the Cup of the Lord. Nor that there was given unto sick Folks at the point of Death the Eucharist steeped because it was a thing extraordinary and that beside it was shewn by this practice that both Symbols were believed to be necessary nor that the XI Council of Toledo permits the Cup only to be given unto those who are so weak that they are not able to swallow down the consecrated Bread unto whom Pope Paschal II. joins young Children because this sufferance is grounded upon invincible necessity as well as that which is practised by some Protestant Churches towards those who have naturally such an aversion for Wine that 't is not in their power to surmount in which cases she dispenseth with the participation of the Cup and is content to administer the Bread only After what hath been hitherto spoken of the Communion under both kinds I think it will be needless to add any more unto this History which if I mistake not I have written large enough to satisfie the curiosity of those who desire to be informed of what passed in the ancient Church in the practice of so important a matter as is that of the Communion of the holy Cup not but that a great number of other testimonies may be alledged for the establishment of this Tradition but when I consider that if the great number of passages doth not prejudice the matter which is examined yet it proves tedious unto the Reader when too large I shall forbear alledging any more to avoid tiring those who shall give themselves the trouble of reading this Treatise and I forbear the rather that if they are persons who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity they will know of themselves without my help that there be many others in the Works of Tertullian of S. Ambrose Gaudentius S. Jerome S. Austin besides those related by Gratian in his Decree of Gregory the First in the Roman Order in the Books of Images under the name of Charlemaine in the Writings of Rabanus of Paschase of Oecumenius Theophylact Fulbert of Chartres Humbert of Blanch-Selva of Lanfranc Guilmond Rupert de Duitz Alger S. Bernard Odo Bishop of Cambray of Lombard Master of the Sentences and elsewhere as for such as have not applied themselves to the reading the Holy Fathers they may sufficiently inform themselves of what I have written how Christians have from time to time governed themselves in the matter of communicating under both kinds Therefore I shall content my self in touching a circumstance which I had almost forgotten and which in all likelihood will not be displeasing unto any it concerns a Chalice of Saint Remy Archbishop of Rheims this Prelate who was so famous in our France especially after he had Baptized Clovis the first of our Kings who imbraced the Christian Religion this Prelate I say did Consecrate unto God a Cup to distribute the Communion unto the people upon which he caused three Latin Verses to be ingraved which are preserved unto our daies although the Chalice is not in being the Church of Rheims having been constrained to melt it and to pay it for their Ransom unto the Normans above 700. years ago and these Verses plainly shew that in S. Remy's time that is towards the end of the V. Century the people did not participate of the Bread of the Sacrament only but also of the Cup of Benediction Flodoard cites them in his History of the Church of Rheims and I 'll make no difficulty of representing them in this History in the same stile in which they were written Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Flodoard Histor Remens l. 1. c. 10. Injecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Remigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos Now I say to conclude this Chapter it appears plainly by all that hath been said that the Christian Church universally practised the Communion under both kinds separately the space of 1000. years that since that time they began in some places in the Latin Church to administer the Sacrament mixt or steeped from the Eucharist steeped they came in process of time to distribute the consecrated Bread only not in all places but in some Churches until that the Council of Constance in the Year 1415. commanded by a publick Decree the Communion to be given under one kind only which yet was not so generally obeyed but that we have produced since that time examples and instances of a contrary practice But in fine the Council of Trent made its last Essay in the manner as hath been above declared as for all the other Christian Churches which hold no commerce with the Latin they administer the Sacrament under both Symbols although it be with some little difference CHAP. XIII The Eucharist received with the hand BUT because it is not sufficient to know the things which were distributed unto Communicants if we do not at the same time know the manner they were received by Believers I think fit to imploy this Chapter in the inquiry of this Custom and Practice When Jesus Christ celebrated and instituted his first Sacrament he said unto his Disciples Take the Greek word used by him in this place imports to take with the hand or receive with the hand what is given accordingly the ancient Christians which succeeded the Age of Jesus Christ and his Apostles did in the very same manner and it is certain that all the Communicants generally received with the hand in the Church the Sacrament of the Eucharist so Tertullian teacheth us in his Treatise of Idolatry where shewing that it is not lawful for a Christian Workman to make Idols that is to say Images of false Gods he expresseth his anger against any amongst the Christians Tertul. de Idol c. 7. Who come saith he from making Idols to Church who lifteth up unto God the Father the hands which are the makers of Idols Id. de Coron c. 3. And in fine which stretcheth forth those hands to receive the Body of the Lord who gave Bodies unto Devils And elsewhere We receive the Eucharist from no other hand but from his who doth preside Id. de Orat. c. 14. And in his Book of Prayer Having saith he received the Body of the Lord and kept it Clement of Alexandria at the end of the Second Century wherein he lived teacheth us that there were certain Priests who did not distribute the Sacrament unto Communicants but permitted each one that approached unto the holy Table to take it Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 271. Apud Cassand in Liturg
c. 31. Some saith he having divided the Eucharist according to the usual manner suffered each one of the people to take part of it Cardinal Cajetan was of opinion that Jesus Christ did after the same manner and that the Primitive Church Religiously followed his example and it is at this time the manner of Communicating amongst the Protestants in Holland yet this is still receiving the Sacrament with the hand which was observed in S. Cyprians time Cyprian Ep. 56. that is to say in the Third Century as appears by these words Let us arm the right hand with the Spiritual Sword that it may couragiously reject wicked Sacrifices being mindful of the Eucharist and that which receives the Body of the Lord might afterwards imbrace Christ himself that hand which is to receive the price of immortal Crowns So it is that Mr. Rigaut hath in his Notes corrected this passage by the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican And again Id. de laps p. 175. He that is fallen threatens those which stand those which are wounded them which are not and the sacrilegious Person is offended at the Priests because he doth not presently receive the Body of Christ with defiled hands or that he drinks not the Blood of the Lord with an impure mouth And in another Treatise where he teacheth that the works of the flesh are overcome by means of patience Id. de bono patient p. 226. Let patience saith he be strong and well rooted in the heart that the sanctified Body and Temple of God defile not it self by Adultery and that the hand after having received the Eucharist defile not it self with the Sword and Blood-shedding Cornelius Bishop of Rome contemporary with St. Cyprian also sheweth plainly that it was so practised in the Church of Rome when writing unto Fabius Bishop of Antioch he tells him that Novatian the Heretick made those who came unto him to receive the Communion to swear that they would be of his party Apud Euseb hist l. 6. c. 43. Vales After he had made the Oblations saith he and that he had distributed and given unto every one part of the Sacrament he constrained these wretches to swear unto him instead of the benediction and Prayers taking with both his hands the hands of him who received and letting them not loose till they had ingaged unto him by Oath We have again in the same Eusebius another example of this use and custom about the same time which Cornelius wrote for we there find that Denys Bishop of Alexandria writing unto Sixtus Bishop of Rome speaks unto him of a Brother that is to say a Believer who had lived a great while in the Church after he had entred into its Communion and forsaken the Hereticks amongst whom he had been Baptized and amongst many things which he saith he observes this circumstance That he presented himself at the holy Table Ibid. l. 7. c. 3. that he had stretched out his hands to receive this holy nourishment that he had received it and that he had been a great while partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ It was unto this custom doubtless that Gregory Nazianzen had respect when he said of Julian the Apostate Greg. Nazian orat 1. in Jul. p. 70. He pollutes his hands to the end there should remain nothing of the unbloody Sacrifice whereby we communicate of Jesus Christ of his sufferings and of his Divinity The Abbot of Billy one of the Scholiasticks of Gregory subscribes thereunto and observes upon the place That almost all the Antients after Turtullian testifie that antiently the Eucharist was given into the peoples hand And in the funeral Oration of Gorgonia his Sister he sufficiently teacheth the same when he saith That her hand had hid some of the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Id. orat 11. p. 187. Jesus Christ St. Basil his intimate friend deposeth in favour of this same practice about the end of the V. Century Basil Ep. 289. t. 3. In the Church saith he the Priest gives one part that is of the Sacrament and he which receiveth it keeps it with all freedom and so bears it with his own hand to his mouth St. Cyril of Jerusalem suffers us not to make any question of it when he speaks of receiving the Body of Jesus Christ in the hollow of the hand and that he warns the Communicant Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. Ambros Hex l. 6. p. 103. t. 1. id de el. jejun c. 10. Chrysost ad Pop. Antioch Hom. 21. t. 1. p. 266. That he take care that he lose none of it and that not a crum of it fall or be lost And St. Ambrose doth he not say That the hand is that whereby we receive the heavenly Sacraments And elsewhere he declares that we receive the Sacraments at the Altar St. Chrysostom who dyed the in beginning of the V. Century gives us several proofs of this antient custom Consider saith he what you receive with the hand and be not so inconsiderate as to strike any Body and after having honoured it with so great a gift do not dishonour it in imploying it to strike consider what 't is you receive with the hand and keep it free from all covetousness c. Think that not only you receive it with the hand but also that you put it unto the mouth Id. Hom. de simult p. 285. And in the same Tome See here I preach I conjure I warn with a loud voice that he who hath an Enemy should not approach unto the Holy Table and that he should not receive the Body of Jesus Christ Id. in Seraph p. 891. And in the third Tome The Seraphin durst not touch it with his hand but with the Tongs and you you receive him with the hand It is unto this time must be referred what Sozomâ—n the Historian hath left us upon Record of the Woman which being of the Sect of Macedonius who denyed the Divinity of the holy Ghost went through complaisance to her Husband who had quitted this Sect by the powerful Sermons of St Chrysostom Sozom. hist l. 8. c. 5. unto the Church of the Catholicks and disposed her self to communicate with them but he saith That retaining what she had received she bowed her self as if she would have prayed and that at the same instant her maid who was there with her gave her privately what she had in her hand and that she had brought along with her but she had it no sooner between her teeth but it became a stone Unto the same purpose may be applyed what St. Apud Theodoret Hist l. 5. c. 17. Isid Pelus l. 5. Ep. ult Ambrose said unto the great Theodosius after the severe vengeance which he used against the inhabitants of Thessalonica and St. Isidore of Damiette reproacheth a Priest called Zosimus that Believers rather chose to abstain from the Communion than receive it from his
that example should inviolably be kept now it declares two several times That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Leaf and broken it in blessing it gave it by parcels unto each of his Disciples Yet I will not deny but that I have observed in the Seventh Century examples of the Sacrament being put into the mouth of Communicants but upon occasions that as I suppose are not to be insisted upon In the Appendix of the fifth Tome of de Achery's Collection is seen the life of S. Magnobode Bishop of Anger 's which is supposed to be written by one that lived at that time and as these sorts of Lives are full of Miracles which those should have done whose actions are to be written amongst several attributed unto S. Magnobode there is mention first made of a certain blind person that being drawn by the great reputation of this Bishop came unto him as he was celebrating Divine Service desiring him earnestly and with a loud voice to restore him his sight this Prelate being touched with his complaints prayed for his recovery and having ended the office of the Mass He put saith the Author into his mouth with the Benediction Vita Magnob c. 9. Append. t. 5. Spicileg p. 137. the perception of the holy Body Secondly there is mention of a young Maid of Quality at Rome who being for three years space exceedingly afflicted with a most grievous Feaver which all men thought incurable she with tears desired to be carried to the man of God Magnobode whose Miracles had already been noised abroad which her Parents resolved to do and carried her to Anger 's where they found him at the same Exercise that the blind man above mentioned had done whom he restored to sight so that understanding the cause of so great a Journey Ibid. c. 5. p. 141. He received them courteously and put into the little Maids mouth the Mystery or the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord which he handled with his holy hands It is evident if I mistake not that these two occasions were extraordinary either if the persons be considered on whom these two Miraculous Recoveries were made or if the exercise wherein they found this Prelate be considered so that there can no consequence be drawn for the practice of putting the Sacrament in the mouth of Communicants In the Life of S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon which is in the same Tome of Dom Luke de Achery's Collection and who lived also in the Seventh Century it appears that this Bishop forbids amongst other things to sing the Songs of Pagans and he gives this reason T. 7. Spiâ—â— 217. That it is not just they should proceed out of the mouth of Christians wherein is put the Sacrament of Christ But the Sacrament being there put either by him that celebrates or him that communicates and moreover the custom confirmed by the Decree of an universal Council in the year 691. requiring Communicants to receive it with the hand and that they should themselves put it in their mouth it cannot be reasonably thought these words of S. Eloy make any thing against the commonly received practice In fine at the end of the Seventh Century it was received with the hand in England which then related unto the Latin State wherein we travel for venerable Bede tells us of a certain man called Caedmon who having passed most of his life as a Secular and without holy Orders at last became a Frier at the request of an Abbess This man falling sick Bed Hist Angl. l. 4. c. 24. and finding his death at hand desired the Sacrament might be brought And having received it in his hand saith the Historian he asked if they were all in Charity with him Since that time there began to appear in the West but not suddenly some alteration in this antient custom but without abolishing it quite for in the Book of the Roman Order written as some imagine in the Ninth or the end of the Eighth Century or as others suppose in the Eleventh which I conceive to be the most likely in the Chapter of the Order of Procession if sometimes the Bishop please to celebrate Mass on Holy daies there it may be seen that the Priests and Deacons receive the Communion with the hand and the sub-Deacons with the mouth Ordo Rom. Bibl. Pat. t. 10. p. 10. ult edit That the Priests and Deacons in kissing the Bishop receive of him with their hands the Body of Christ but the sub-Deacons in kissing the Bishops hand let them receive from him the Body of Christ in their mouth And Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the Great alledges something of this Nature touching the Priests and Deacons relating to the Mass of Illyrica Pag. 383. written as Maynard conjectures a little before the beginning of the Eleventh Century that is towards the end of the Tenth he calls it the Mass of Illyria because it was taken out of the Palatinate Library Pag. 380. and published by Matthias Illyricus a Protestant Lutheran Of this Mass this Benedictine Frier cites these words Pag. 390. Then the Priests and Deacons receiving the Body in their hands it is said unto each of the Communicants Peace be with you But it must not be imagined that this manner of Communicating was peculiar unto Priests and Deacons to the utter exclusion of other Communicants at least in the Ninth Century for we have been informed by Reginon's Chronicle that in the year 869. Pope Adrian the Second at Rome it self gave the Communion unto King Lothair and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of our Lord Regin in Chron. ad an 869. which is also to be concluded of all those which attended him unto whom the Pope administred the Sacrament I shall then make no difficulty to believe that what the Roman Order speaks of sub-Deacons communicating with the mouth was done by reason of the solemnity of the day on these occasions to distinguish betwixt the sub-Deacons and the Priests and Deacons who are superiour unto them besides that this distinction began not to be made until before the Eleventh Century But in fine if we enter in the Tenth Century we shall find it something divided concerning this custom Ratherius Bishop of Verona died in the year 974. in what we have resting of his works there may be seen the two wayes of receiving the Sacrament with the hand and with the mouth in the second Sermon of Easter he speaks thus But O sadness T. 2. Spicileg p. 314. I have seen some sleight this Council and would to God it were not such as ought to give example unto others that they continually lay snares to destroy even him who puts the consecrated Bread in their mouths saying The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ profit you unto eternal life But in the following page see here what he saith Ibid. p. 315. If they had
the reading of Ecclesiastical Antiquity have doubtless found by Experience that sometimes one must travel very far and search many large Volumes before one finds what he looks for and I look upon these dry and barren Places to be like Wildernesses and sad unpleasant Deserts which Travellers are sometimes forc'd to pass over with much difficulty and trouble but they have also observed that sometimes are found without difficulty in the Works of the Ancient Fathers places so rich and abundant that I use to liken them unto those fat and fertile Soils which always answer the Husbandman's expectation and which with Interest restore the pains he with some little cost bestowed upon them We may in the number of these latter sort place those Passages where they have pleased themselves in meditating of the Mystery of the holy Sacrament for not content to have told us that its divine Author called the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood I find them ready to tell us that they were his Body broken and his Blood poured out and that as for them they always considered him at that moment not as sitting upon his Throne in Heaven but as hanging upon the Cross on Mount Calvary expiating the Sins of Mankind and for the Redemption of the World This was in all likelihood what St. Cyprian intended when he said Cypr. ep 63. That the Sacrifice which we offer is the Death of our Lord. And what St. Gregory of Nyss when he testifies That the Body of the Sacrifice is not fit to be eat if it be animated Greg Nys in Resur Dom. Orat. 1. August Psal 11. Hom. 2. Id. Quaest super Evang. l. 2. § 38. pag. 152. tom 4. Id. in Psal 110. that i◠if it be living Thence it is that St. Austin speaking of the Disciples of Jesus Christ saith That they suffered the same which those things did which they eat and he gives this Reason that the Lord gave them his Supper he gave them his Passion And again That now the Gentiles all the World over do very religiously receive the sweetness of the Sufferings of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood and that we are fed with the Cross of our Lord because we eat his Body Id. de Doctr. Christ l 3 c. 16 He also makes the eating of the Lord's Body consist in communicating of his Death and in profitably representing unto our Memories that his Flesh was broken and crucified for us St. Chrysostom always represents Christ as dead in the Sacrament * Chrysost◠Hom. 51. in Math. Jesus Christ represented himself sacrificed †Homil. 83. The Mystery that is to say the Sacrament is the Passion and the Cross And upon the Acts of the holy Apostles ‖ Hom. 2. Whilst saith he this Death is celebrated c. then is declared a tremendous Sacrament which is that God hath given himself for the World And upon the Epistle to the Romans Hom. 8. Adore upon this Table whereof we are all Partakers Jesus Christ which was crucified for us And upon the Epistle to the Ephesians Hom. 3. Whilest the Sacrifice is carnied out and that the Lamb Christ Jesus our Lord is slain Hom. 14. And upon the Epistle to the Hebrews Our Lord Jesus Christ is stretched out stain And unto the People of Antioch What do you O Man Tom. 1. Hom. 15. you swear by the holy Table where Jesus Christ lieth slain And in the third Book of Priesthood When you see our Lord sacrificed and dead Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacerdot the Priest sacrificing and praying and all those which are present died red with this precious Blood And in the Homily of the Treason of Judas Tom. 5. p. 464. Have respect for the matter or subject of the Oblation to Jesus Christ who is held forth slain And upon the Name of Church-yard Ida. 5. p 486. C We shall towards Evening see him which like a Lamb was crucified kill'd slain And again You forsake him seeing him put to death And in fine in the Homily touching the Eucharist Id t. 5 pag. 569 A B. in the Dedication or of Penance O wonderful you are not afraid the Mystical Table being made ready the Lamb of God being slain for you c. and the pure Blood being powred out of the Side into the Cup for your Sanctification We will add unto all this Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem who speak after this manner Hes ch in Le l. 1 c. 2. God made the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was not fit to be eaten before his Death I say he made it fit to be our Food after his Death for who is it that desired to eat the Flesh of God if he had not been crucified we should not eat the Sacrifice of his Body but now we eat the Flesh in taking the Memorial of his Passion Id l. 2. c. 6. And again The Cross hath made eatable by Men the Flesh of our Lord which was nailed upon it for if it had not been set upon the Cross we should not have communicated of the Body of Christ This was also Theodor. t. 3. ep 130. I suppose Theodoret's Meaning when he said Our Lord himself promised to give for the Ransom of the World not an invisible Nature but his Body The Bread saith he which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World And in the Distribution of the divine Mysteries in taking the Symbol he said This is my Body which is given for you or as the Apostle saith which is broken And also in giving the divine Mysteries after he had broken the Symbol and that he had divided it he adds This is my Body which is broken for you in Remission of Sins And again This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Id. ep 145. p. 1026. A Tom 4. Dial. 1. Cyril Hierof Myslag 5. And elsewhere he calls the Eucharist The Type of the Passion of our Saviour St. Cyril of Jerusalem considering before him what was done in his Time in the Celebration of the Sacrament saith among other Things that we therein offer unto God Jesus Christ dead for our Sins that is to say in as much as we pray him to accept in our discharge the Death which he suffered for us and in our room and stead And St. Fulgentius some time after Theodoret in one of the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian having repeated the Words of Institution of the Sacrament as St. Paul relates them he adds That the Sacrifice is offered to shew the Lord's Death ex lib 8. Fragm 28 and to make a Commemoration of him which laid down his Life for us Amalarius Fortunatus spake the same Language in the IX Century as shall be shew'd in its place In the mean while it is necessary to observe that all Christians confess that
in some sort they may bear the Name of a divine Substance whereas before Consecration they had only a Substance whose Qualities seemed but to nourish the Body and they find nothing therein more harsh than what is said by Ratran Bertram de corp fang Dom. Aug. annot in Job t. 4 ex c. 5. p. 394. Prosper ad Demetr That our Saviour did formerly in the Wilderness change the Manna and the Water of the Rock into his Flesh and Blood And St. Austin that Jesus Christ changeth us into his Body And in fine St. Prosper his Disciple speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Body of Sin is converted or changed into his Body Caesarius himself say they deserves that Right and invites us thus to understand him for in the first place he teacheth in the same Sermon that Jesus Christ intending to transport his Body into Heaven left us his Sacrament to have always his holy Sacrifice in Remembrance who suffered Death for the Expiation of our Sins Because saith he Id. ibid. he was to remove from our Sight the Body which he had taken and place it in Heaven it was requisite he should in that Day consecrate the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to the end that by the Mystery that is by the Sacrament should be honoured what was once offered for the price of our Redemption and that because the Redemption for the Salvation of Man-kind had a continual Progress the Oblation also of the Redemption should be perpetual and that this everlasting Sacrifice should always live and be remembred in the State of Grace Secondly he compares the Change which comes to the Sacramental Symbols unto that which befalls Men in Baptism to shew us that both the one and the other being of the same nature it can be only a change of Vertue and Quality The Man renewed saith he by the saving Mysteries Id. ibid. passeth into the Body of the Church by the Water of Baptism and by the Fire of the Holy Ghost he is made the Bread of the Eternal Body After which he adds Let no Body then doubt but the Original Creatures may pass into the Nature of the Body of our Lord seeing he perceives Man by the Art of heavenly Mercy is made the Body of Jesus Christ As they say the honour of Caesarius is no way to be faved nor any good sense be given his Words but in saying that he intends to shew that as Man regenerated by Baptism is not made the Body of Christ but Mystically and Morally so also the Bread of the Sacrament doth not pass into the Nature of his Body but Sacramentally and Virtually using also the Word Nature for Quality In the same sense as St. Macarius used it Macar Hom. 44. Greg. Nyss in Cant. Hom. 9. Id. Orat. 1. in Christ Resur Id. de Virgin c. ult when he said That the truly Faithful Soul must be changed from this vile Nature unto a Divine Nature to intimate a Divine Quality Gregory of Nyss That we are changed into a spiritual Nature that is to say into a spiritual Quality And again That the Humanity of Jesus Christ is passed into the Divine Nature to signify that it hath been made to participate of the virtue of the Divinity And in fine That we may pass from the Nature and Dignity of Men into the Nature and Dignity of Angels There 's nothing more frequent than these kind of Expressions in all the Monuments of Antiquity I will add unto all these Considerations that I could not find the Homily of Easter now in question amongst many Homilies of Caesarius In Mr. Colbets And St. Victors which I have lately seen in two Libraries which may make it be suspected that it is of some Author much younger than Caesarius In the sixt place the holy Fathers teach that Church Fasts are broken Tertul. de Orat. c. 14. by participating of the Eucharist as Tertullian teacheth Many do think saith he that on Station-days they stay'd there till three a Clock without eating we should not attend Prayers and Sacrifices that is to say the celebration of the Eucharist because that in receiving the Lord's Body the Fast of the Station should be broke I cannot conceive saith the Protestant that those who believed that this Body whereof they speak and which is received at the holy Table was the true and natural Body of Jesus Christ could have this strange Fancy that the Fast should be broken in taking into their Mouths and Stomacks the holy and incorruptible Body of our Lord and Saviour And I cannot imagine those People could be so ignorant to believe it nor Tertullian so patient to suffer such an Indignity without sharply reproving it as it deserved he was too vehement not to do it and if one were much less so than him it would be very hard not to be concerned that People that made Profession of Christian Religion should so outragiously treat the glorify'd Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. Let the Reader judg with an unbyassed Mind if he please and he must agree with me that the Latins act very well according to their Hypothesis when they say that they believe the true Body of Christ doth not break the Fast What we say of these first Christians will appear yet more plainly if we consider the Council given them by Tertullian in the same place which is to receive the Sacrament and keep it to take it at Evening when the Station is ended In receiving saith he the Body of the Lord and keeping it you will save both you will partake of the Sacrifice and do the Duty of the Day I conceive I have discovered Marks of this Belief in our France in the VIth Century and to the end those which read this Work may the better judg if I am deceived I 'le here insert the Passage at large it is taken out of the Life of St. Melain Bishop of Phemes and is also found in the Supplement of the Councils of France where we have an Account of an Assembly of Bishops held at Anger 's Anno 530. In supplem Concil Gallic p. 49 50. Almost at the same time saith the Author the Man of God St. Milain and the Elect of God Albin and St. Victor Launus and St. Marsus assembled in the City of Anger 's in the Basilisk of St. Mary Mother of God St. Milain by common consent of the rest celebrated Mass at the beginning of the Fast of Lent and having ended before they went away the blessed Priest gave them in Charity the holy Eucharist with God's Grace and his Benediction But Marsus preferring the Fast of the Day before his Charity and neglecting the Eucharist whereof he should have communicated let fall the Portion he had received of St. Milain into his Bosom Being then permitted to return to their Church and having saluted each other they by the Grace of God began their Journey they had sâ—â—â—â—ce gone ten
Ambr. de fide l. 1. c. 4. Id. in Psal 118. serm 12. Ibid. serm 13. No Body can be his own Image And elsewhere he opposeth the Image and the Sign unto the Substance It is the Image saith he and not the Truth And again These are Signs and not the Substance Gregory of Nazianzen in his Treatise of Faith against the Arrians whereof we have only Ruffin's Translation unjustly attributed to St. Ambrose Greg. Nazian de fid vel orat 49. p. 729. Id. orat 13. 37. Id. orat 36. as appears by St. Austin's 111th Letter The Resemblance saith he is one Thing and the Truth another for Man was also made after the Image and Likeness of God yet he is not God Accordingly he declares elsewhere that the Image never attains to the Original and that the nature of an Image consists in the representing of the Arch-type Gregory of Nyss Brother unto the great St. Basil spake the same Greg. Nâ—ss de anim refur Gaudent tr 2. in Exod. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 1. Theod in Dan. l. 2. c. 2. Claud. de stat anim l. 1. c. 5. The Image saith he would be no more an Image if it were quite the same with that whereof it is an Image It is in the same sense St. Gaudentius said That the Figure is not the Verity but the resemblance of the Verity And St. Austin in his Treatise of the Trinity What can be more absurd than to say that an Image is the Image of it self And Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel The Image hath the Features and not the Things themselves Claâ—dian Mammert Priest of Vienna One Thing saith he is the Truth and another Thing the Image of the Truth And we have already heard Maximius Scholar of the pretended Denis the Areopagite saying These things are Symbols Maxim in c. 3. Hieros Eccles but they are not the Substance There be some which treating of the Eucharist with regard to the Body of Jesus Christ have not forborn these kind of Expresons as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice If saith he it be the Image of the Body Synod Nic. 2. Act. 6. Niceph. de cherub c. 6. t. 4. Bibl. Patr. it cannot be the divine Body it self And Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople How is it that one and the same Thing is called the Body and the Image of Jesus Christ for that which is the Image of any one cannot be his Body and that which is the Body cannot be the Image because every Image is a thing different from that whereof it is an Image And we shall see in due Time that it was in the ninth Century the Doctrine taught by Ratran Bertram de corp sang Dom. That the Earnest and Image is Earnest and Image of something c. that is that they refer not unto themselves but unto another But what may some say is that all you have observed in travelling in the Dominions of Ecclesiastical Antiquity The Registers of that Kingdom do they contain no other Laws and have you found no other Maximes in its Records Is it possible that the wise and prudent Councellors who in the several Ages have had the Government and Conduct of it have agreed to speak so meanly of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and consider'd this great and sublime Mystery but as the Image the Figure the Type the Symbol of the Body and Blood of our Lord as if a Believer under the Gospel were to feed his Soul only with empty and vain Figures with Images without efficacy and with Sacraments without any virtue Reader have but a little patience and you shall see that the holy Fathers have not abandoned their Belief unto Scorn or Calumny and that they very prudently prevented the Reproaches which would have been made against them What likelihood is there that Persons of so much Light and Knowledg as the antient Doctors of the Church were should speak meanly of the venerable Mystery of the holy Sacrament they who so valued and commended and highly praised the holy Scriptures which St. Paul calls the Power of God unto Salvation unto those which believe Rom. â— 16 and who have consider'd it as the powerful and efficacious Instrument of the Conversion and Salvation of Men which made St. Justin Martyr writing against Tryphon the Jew to say Just Martyr contra Tryph. We have not believed vain Fables and Words which cannot profit but which are full of the Spirit of God and grow into Grace for as he observed a little before the Words of our Saviour have in them something which command a Respect and Fear and they are able to shame those which turn from the right way whereas those which exercise themselves therein find Comfort and Peace What appearance is there that these same Fathers which have given unto Baptism one of the Sacraments of the New Testament which the Apostle calls the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. Gal. 3. and wherein he assures that we put on Jesus Christ such great high and magnificent Commendations and Encomiums calling it the Remedy which drives away all Evils the Death of Sin the Chariot which carries to Heaven the Deluge of Sin the Scattering of Darkness the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven the Inlargement from Slavery the Breaking of Bonds the putting on of Incorruption Grace Salvation Life the Remedy the Antidote that which leads to Immortality the Water of Life the Waters which can extinguish the Fire to come and which bring Salvation the best and most excellent of the Gifts of God and several other Elogies of this Nature I say what likelihood is there that they should have had any meaner lower or less honourable thoughts of the holy Sacrament and that after the Apostle's Declaration 1 Cor. 10. That the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless are the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ that they should look only upon this Sacrament as an empty and bare Sign without any effect or virtue without raising their Contemplations any higher Alas God forbid we should ever do them the Injustice as to think so In short if they taught that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are Images and Figures they judged them not to be empty Figures which had no other use nor virtue but to set before our Eyes some form that may be like the Original whereof they are Figures like the Images and Pictures which are to be seen in Painters and Carvers Shops they have firmly believed that they are Signs instituted by God and consequently accompanied with his Grace and Benediction which makes them efficacious unto those which receive them worthily and that with holy dispositions draw near unto the Mystical Table And if I mistake not this is what St. Epiphanius means when speaking of this Sacrament he saith Epiph. in pan exposit fid That the Bread is the Food or
Nourishment which we there receive but that the virtue which is in it quickeneth us As if he should say that this quickening doth not proceed from the proper Substance of Bread but from the virtue and enlivening efficacy wherewith our Lord according to his Promise doth accompany the lawful use of his Sacrament What he adds of Baptism doth sufficiently inform us of his meaning when he saith That it is not the Water alone which cleanseth us but that by the Water it perfects our Salvation by the Faith and Energy by Hope and the perfection of the Mysteries and the Invocation of Sanctification St. Gregory of Nysse if I mistake not explains himself fuller when he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Greg. Nyss de B. pt Christ That being but common Things and of little worth before Consecration both the one and the other do operate excellently after Sanctification which is or comes from the Spirit It is in the same sense that St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch Victor MS. in c. 14. Marc. said That God having pitty of our Infirmities bestows or sends upon the Things presented or offered that is to say the Bread and Wine an enlivening virtue and doth change them into the efficacy of his Flesh It is this same power which St. Cyril in his Epistle to Caelosyrius calls the Virtue and Benediction Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Caeâ—â—â— t. 6. and the quickning Grace It is also the Doctrine of Theophylact as will appear when we examine the Belief of his Age which being beyond the ninth Century permits us not here to insert his Testimony but so it is that this virtue and efficacy whereof we speak Chrysost de Sacerd. l. 3. c. 4. t. 4. Id. de Coem Appel de resurrect Christ t. 5. Theod. Dial. 1. Gelas de duab nat is nothing else but the Grace mentioned by St. Chrysostom when he represents unto us the Priest praying that the Blessing might descend upon the Sacrifice that is to say upon the Sacrament And elsewhere he saith that it is the holy Ghost that gives this Grace and that without it the Mystical Body and Blood are not made And Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom witnesseth that our Saviour added Grace unto the Nature of the Bread and Wine It is also for the same reason that Pope Gelasius saith That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are Things divine and that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature Iâ—d Hispal orig 1.6 And St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil That thâ—s divine Virtue operates inwardly the Benefit of the Sacraments that is to say the Salvation which God communicates unto us by the Ministry of the Sacraments Therefore it is that Raban Arch-bishop of Mayans in the ninth Century will have it called the virtue of the Sacrament and the Nourishment of our Souls But in fine it is unto this efficacy and virtue that is to be attributed all the great Praises which the holy Fathers give unto the Sacrament in the same manner as is imputed unto the power which our Saviour gives unto the use of Baptism whereof the same Fathers have delighted themselves in honouring this Sacrament of our new Birth their design having been to raise and advance the Dignity of these Mysteries and the admirable effects they produce by the Grace Benediction and Vertue which God bestows on them for the Salvation of Men. And it is in relation to this Efficacy and Vertue whereof we have treated that the Fathers call the Eucharist The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying that the Bread and Wine pass into his Body and Blood that they change and are transelemented into his Body and Blood They also use other expressions which in effect amount to the same all which the Latins expound to their advantage and which they make the chief ground of their Belief But because these last Expressions at first sight seem inconsistent with what they said unto us before that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine Bread which is broken that nourishes the Body which is converted into our Substance Bread which is inamate that is consumed in the celebration of the Sacrament whose Substance remains and that passeth as to its material part by the sordid way of our ordinary and common Food that this Bread and this Wine are the Signs the Symbols the Types the Antitypes the Sacraments the Figures the Images the Resemblances and the Representations of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not vain Figures and empty and void Signs without any effect and vertue but Signs and Sacraments replenished as may be said with all the Vertue and all the Efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood of our Lord poured out who having instituted them to be the Instruments and Organs of our Salvation doth accompany their lawful use with his Blessing and Grace to bestow upon us the Merits of the enlivening Sacrifice of his Death which Merit ought never to be separated from his Body seeing it was by the sufferings of his broken Body and his Blood poured out that he merited for us this quickning and saving Vertue For this Reason I say it will be very necessary to clear up this Difficulty and to remove this seeming Contradiction I say seeming for I make no question but the Fathers themselves will sufficiently inform us of their Intention and that we shall find in their Works Lights by which we shall safely conduct the Reader to the clear and distinct knowledg of the belief of the antient Church upon this Article of our Salvation Those who are any thing verst in reading their Works doubtless do observe that when they say the Sacrament is Bread and Wine they never intimate that it is a figurative improper and equivocal Expression and that it must not be taken according to the Letter neither do they say that the Sacrament is called Bread and Wine altho it is not so after Consecration because it was so in effect and still retains the Accidents and Likeness For my part I ingeniously confess that I have never found such Cautions or Advertisements in their Works Nevertheless Men having much difficulty to believe those things which resist the Testimony of their Senses and the light of Reason and the Holy Fathers affirming frequently that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine if say the Protestants they believed it was not Bread nor Wine though they called it so but the very Body and Blood of Christ they should have been so kind nay 't would have been their Duty to have informed their Readers and Hearers that they might avoid this Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence see here already say they a very considerable Information and which will be more if it be considered that when on the other Hand they say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ c. They fail not to make
them carnally profiteth nothing at all by them It is carnal to be concerned how he came down from Heaven and to account him the Son of Joseph and how he will give us his Flesh to eat These Things I say are all carnal which ought to be understood mystically and spiritually Ibid. And how should they understand what it was to eat his Flesh They should have staid a convenient Time and not have gone away have enquired and not despaired the words which I have said unto you are Spirit and Life that is they be Divine and spiritual they have nothing of the Flesh nor no natural Consequence they are exempt from all these Necessities and above the Law of all things here below When he saith the Flesh profiteth nothing he speaks it not of his true Flesh but of those which understand the Things which are spoken in a carnal Manner And what is it to understand carnally It is barely to look upon the Things which are spoken without judging any farther For Things which are seen are not so to be judged of but to consider all the Mysteries with the Eye of the Understanding And again Those that is the Jews understood carnally and with human Thoughts and these that is the Apostles spiritually and by Faith therefore Jesus Christ said The Words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit Do not think that my Doctrine is subject to the Consequence and Necessity of things spiritual things will not suffer to be subjected unto earthly Laws St. Austin is so copious and abundant upon this Subject that I should fear tiring the Reader if I should undertake to report all that he saith It shall then suffice not to weary you with a long Chain of Passages to make choice of some of the clearest and to this purpose I 'le begin with the famous Testimony which is seen in the third Book of Christian Doctrine Aug. de Doctrin Christ l. 3. c. 16. If it be a Command that forbids any Crime or Wickedness or that commands any Charity or Utility the Proposition is not figurative but if it seems to command any Crime or Wickedness or that it forbids any Utility or Good it is figurative If saith Jesus Christ you eat not the Flesh of the Son of God and drink not his Blood you have no Life in you He seems to command some Wickedness or a Crime it is therefore a Figure which commads us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and profitably to remember that his Flesh was crucified and broken for us Id. de verb. Dâ—m Serm. 33. tr 25. in Joan. Id. in Joan. tract 26. Id. tract 1. â—n Ep. Joan. Unto this excellent Passage I 'le add these Advertisements which he gives us Prepare not the Mouth but the Heart wherefore do you prepare the Teeth and the Belly believe and you have eaten him And what he saith elsewhere to believe in him is to eat the living Bread he that believes in him eats he is invisibly fatned because he is invisibly regenerated And again Id. in Joan. tract 26. They have shed the Blood of Jesus Christ when they persecuted him and they drank it when they believed And again This is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that whosoever eateth thereof should not die that is to be understood as to the Vertue of the Sacrament Ibid. and not as to the visible Sacrament it is to be understood of him that eateth inwardly not outwardly which eats in his Heart and not grinds with the Teeth Again This then is to eat this Meat Id. in Psal 98. and to drink this Drink to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in them And in fine upon the 98th Psalm understand spiritually what I have said unto you you shall not eat this Body which you see and shall not drink the Blood which they will shed that will crucifie me I have given you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood will quicken you and if it be necessary to be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly Fulgent Serm. de dupl Nativ This was also the Mind of St. Fulgentius younger than St. Austin but an African as well as him and moreover a great Follower of his Doctrine to the end saith he that Man might eat the Bread of Angels the Creator of Angels was made Man feeding both the one and the other and yet remaining intire O how excellent is this Bread which feedeth Angels by the Sight to the end they may be satisfied with him in his Kingdom and which feedeth us by Faith so that we should not faint by the Way Unto these two Africans we may join a third Facund l. 12. c. 1. to wit Facundus Wherefore should he have asked them if they also would forsake him if they had understood what he had said spiritually for in understanding the Mystery they could not have been offended and would not have departed from him But they were asked to the end they should answer That although they had not understood what had been said they might be kept in aw by the Authority of their good Master and that in them he might give us a wholesom Example of Humility and Piety that where Knowledg is wanting we should give place unto Authority In fine St. Peter so answers unto our Saviour's Question that he saith not that he will not depart because he understood the Mystery but because that it self which had been said by such a Master appertained doubtless unto eternal Life For he saith Lord to whom shall we go thou hast the Words of eternal Life and we have believed and known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God Whereas if he had understood this Mystery he would rather have said Lord we have no need to depart because we believe that it is by believing in thy Body and Blood that we must be saved So that we must not wonder if Philo of Carpace or some other under his Name requires for this Manducation the Lips of Thoughts and the Teeth of Meditations if he esteems it a Divine Banquet If we were permitted to carry on this Tradition we might continue the Proofs until the Separation of the Waldenses and Albigenses Tom. 1. Eâ—â—â— Pat. p. 229. but not to infringe the Rule which we have set we will say no more now deferring to produce the other Testimonies each in the Age wherein they lived After having examined what the Holy Fathers believed of the eating the Flesh of Jesus Christ we must enquire what was their Opinion touching the Communion of the Hypocrites and the Wicked that is if they have judged that wicked Men did in reality eat the Body of Christ or its Sacrament only Origen in Matth. cap. 15. Origen first demands Audience and thus declareth himself No wicked Person saith he can eat the Word it self which was made Flesh for if it were possible for him
that continues wicked to eat the Word made Flesh which is the living Word and Bread it would not have been written whosoever eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Id. Homil. 3. in Matth. And again The Good eat the Bread which came down from Heaven but the Wicked eat a dead Bread which is Death Ratherus Bishop of Verona hath transmitted unto us a Passage of Zeno Bishop of the same Place and one of his Predecessors which some make Contemporary with Origen and Martyr of Jesus Christ Zeno Veronens apud Rath t. 2. Spiciâ—eg Dach p. 181. under the Emperor Gallienus he cites it out of Zeno's Sermon touching the Patriarch Juda and his Daughter-in-law Thamar The Sermon is indeed Printed but the Passage whereof wespeak is not now to be seen in it it shall be here inserted and the Reader may see that he was of Origen's Opinion The Devil saith he is the Father of all wicked Livers and 't is much to be feared that he in whom the Devil inhabits by these three Sins Pride Hypocrisie and Luxury doth not eat the Body of Jesus Christ nor drink his Blood although he seems to communicate with Believers Our Saviour saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him which may be thus construed he that dwelleth in me and I in him eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood for I cannot see how the Devil can reside in him in whom God liveth Hier in cap. 66. Esa and which liveth in God but he dwelleth in him that is empty and darkned by Hypocrisie or Pride and defiled by Luxury St. Jerom also speaks the same Language All those saith he which love their Pleasures more than God sanctified outwardly in Gardens and Doors but not in Body nor Mind do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ nor drink his Blood of which himself saith Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Life eternal because they cannot enter into the Mysteries of Truth and at the same time eat the Meats of Impiety It is the constant Doctrine of St. August de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Id. ibid. Augustin which he establisheth in several Places It must not be imagined saith he that a Man which doth not belong to the Body of Jesus Christ should eat the Body of Christ And again Let it not be said that those do eat the Body of Jesus Christ because they are not numbred amongst the Members of Christ For not to say any thing else they cannot at once be the Members of Jesus Christ and the Members of an Harlot And in fine himself saying Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him doth shew what it is to eat the Body of Christ and to drink his Blood not in Sacrament only but in Truth for it is to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in him It is as if he had said Let not him which dwelleth not in me and in whom I do not dwell think or imagine that he eateth my Flesh or drinketh my Blood Id. Tract 26. in Joan. p. 94. 6. And elsewhere speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is received saith he at the Lord's Table by some unto Life and by some others unto Death but the thing it self whereof it is a Sacrament is Life unto all Men and is not unto Destruction unto any which participate of him Id. ibid. And a little after He that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not eateth not spiritually his Flesh and drinketh not his Blood although he grindeth visibly with his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Damnation the Sacrament of so great a Thing Prosper sent 339. August de verb. Apost serm 2. c. 1. by presuming to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ being unclean St. Prosper allegeth this Passage in stronger Terms and such that in his Time it was read without the Word spiritually for he saith only of the Wicked That he eateth not the Flesh of Jesus Christ But let us again hear the same St. Austin faying Id. Tract 27. in Joan. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ shall be Life unto every one if what be received visibly in Sacrament is eaten and drank spiritually in the Truth it self therefore he exhorteth Believers not to eat the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament only as the Wicked do Philo Carp t. â—1 Bibl. Pat. p. 228. in Cant. Let us then conclude the Examination of this second Tradition by the Words of Philo of Carpace That it is only unto those which are pure of Heart that this pleasant Food this heavenly Bread that this supersubstantial Drink is given until we arrive at the Place where it shall be shewn that it was also the Belief of the Greek Church in the XIth Century What remains to be treated of in this Chapter is the Question of Jesus Christs Presence upon Earth to wit if besides the Presence of his Divinity whereby he is always present with the Church Militant he is also really and effectually present by his Humanity Having applied my self with some diligence in inquiring into the Belief of the Holy Fathers upon this Article of our Faith I have found that when they explain how our Saviour is present and absent unto his Church they always touch the presence of his Divinity but they never say any thing of the Presence of his Humanity or if they do it is but absolutely to exclude it when at the same Time they establish the other for the Comfort of Believers Origen in Mat. tract 33. according to which Origen endeavouring to reconcile the Passages of Scripture which say That Jesus Christ shall be alway with us with others which say that he will go and depart he teacheth us that he is with us and will not depart as to the Nature of his Divinity but that he will depart and retire himself from us Id. ibid. according to the Oeconomy and Dispensation of the Body which he had taken that he departeth from us as Man but that he is every where present according to the Nature of his Divinity And a little under It is not the Man that is to say the human Nature which is every where where two or three are gathered together in his Name neither is it the Man that is to say the human Nature neither which is with us until the end of the World nor it is not the human Nature that is present with Believers wheresoever they are assembled but it is the Divine Vertue which was in Jesus Christ And St. Cyril Hierosol catech illum 14. extr Cyril of Jerusalem he saith he who is sitting there above is also here present with us he beholdeth the Strength and Order of the Faith of each one for because he is now
and consider with himself with what Doctrine they best agree either with that which teacheth that what is therein seen and touched are meer Accidents or with that which holds that they are true Substances of Bread and Wine CHAP. VI. Other Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences made by Protestants ALthough we have hitherto represented several Things which have been believed and practised in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity yet it is not all which I observed during the Time of my residing in that Country I will then continue the History of my Travels not to conceal any Thing from the Publick of the Laws and Customs of that spacious Empire upon the Point which we have undertaken to examine For it would not be just after having had Communication of their Records and Registers wherein all that relates unto this august Sacrament is faithfully contained that I should omit any Thing that I have there found not to fail then of my Duty nor the fidelity due to the Quality which I have taken I say that besides the Things which I have already observed I find that about two hundred Years after the first Beginning of this great Empire those which had the Direction and Government of it applied their Thoughts very much in giving divers mystical Significations unto the holy Sacrament and that those which followed them applied themselves thereunto also for they thought that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body composed of several Grains and the Wine a Liquor pressed from several Grapes they very well represented the Body of the Church composed of several Believers united into one Society It is the Doctrine of Theophilus of Antioch of St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom St. Austin St. Isidor of Sevil of Bede Wallafridus Strabo of Raban and others but he Testimony of the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian shall suffice in a Thing which is not contested Cyprian â—p 76. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread which is made of several Grains of Wheat he would shew the faithful People which he carried in himself in as much as it is but one People and when he called his Blood Wine made of several Grapes pressed together and made one he also signified this faithful People composed of several Persons united into one Body The Foundation of this mystical Signification can be nothing else if the Protestant be believed but the Nature and the Substance of these two Symbols unto which the holy Fathers have given this Signification after the Consecration which hath rendred them fit for this Use In fine going to represent the Unity of Believers which are sundry Persons really subsisting but united into one Body by the Bonds of the same Spirit I do not see saith he but that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament whereof the one is moulded of sundry Grains the other prest from several Grapes may be proper to represent this Unity at least that the Substance of several Grains of Wheat and of several Grapes may continue moulded and mixt together See there after what manner he understands this constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers Moreover he desires to be suffered to add that what confirms him in this Opinion is That if any other Sense be given unto this Doctrine of the ancient Fathers this Inconvenience will scarce be avoided to wit that one shall be forced to say of the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ This Bread composed of sundry Grains represents unto us the Church composed of sundry Believers which Thing truly Christian Ears would scarce be able to endure Besides we have observed in the first Chapter of the first Part that the ancient Church was wont to mingle Water with the Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament and that in the beginning of the third Century there was a Mystery sought for in this Mixture The Reader may please to view the Place where even those of the holy Fathers are named which have so spoken it being needless here to repeat what hath been there mentioned but only to make some few Reflections which we were not there permitted to do and which nevertheless may serve very much to clear up the Intention of these holy Doctors The first is That they have given two several Significations unto the Water and the Wine saying That the Water represents the faithful People and the Wine the Blood of Jesus Christ For I cannot conceive that these two Usages could take place if both these Things did not remain distinct the one from the other because each of them hath a several Object to represent so that the one of them cannot represent the Object which the other doth signifie Secondly they have established betwixt the Wine and the Blood of Jesus Christ the same Relation which they have established betwixt the Water and the faithful People it not being to be seen that they have given any more Vertue unto the Wine to signifie the Blood of the Son of God than they have given to the Water to represent the Christian People and without giving notice that the Wine is the Blood of Jesus Christ in a more particular manner than the Water is the faithful People On the contrary they have spoken so equally of them both in regard of the two Significations which they attributed unto them that it is impossible to discover the least difference In fine the holy Fathers declare That the Wine and Water mingled together signifie the Union of Jesus Christ and Believers which they could not discern but in the Thoughts of the Union of these two Elements I speak of the Water and Wine which subsisted firm and indissoble and the Firmness of the Union of these two Things could not subsist if their Nature and the Truth of their Being did not subsist also And to say the Truth as far as I can judge these good Doctors have not made this Signification which they gave to the Wine and Water to depend barely upon their mingling only but principally of the Subsistance of this Mixture which was absolutely necessary that it might represent the Truth and Solidity of the spiritual Union of Jesus Christ and his People There is an admirable fine Passage of St. Cyprian upon this Subject but which I shall dispense my self from inserting here because 't is to be seen at large in the Place above-mention'd Whilst I shall join unto this mystical Signification two others which we have touched in the same Place in the first Part. By the one the Wine and Water mingled in the consecrated Cup were to represent the Water and Blood which run down the Side of our Lord Jesus at the time of his Passion and by the other the Union of the Eternal Word with the Humanity But all these mystical Significations are destroyed if the Nature and Substance of Things are abolished in the which they had their only Foundation After this manner the Protestant doth reason upon these Observations The Hereticks
disputing formerly against the Catholicks and Orthodox would oblige the Catholicks to prove their Doctrine and Belief in so many express Words In the Dialogue against Arrius Sabellius and Photinus under the Name of St. Athanasius Vigil l. 1. contra Arr. c. l. 1. c. 23. ult Eâ—it p. 140. but whose true Author is Vigilius of Tapsus an African Bishop The Arrian demands of the Orthodox that he will shew him in the Scriptures the Word Homousion which signifies of one Substance or that he may read it properly that is to say in so many Syllables or that he should cease making use of it It is also the Proceedings of the Arrians against the true Athanasius in his Treatise of the Synods of Arimini and Seleutia Athanas de Synod Arim. pag. 911. Id. ibid. p. 913. Id. de decret Syn. Nicaen p. 270. But the Holy Fathers laughed at this ridiculous and impertinent Method It matters not said St. Athanasius if any make use of Terms not contained in the Holy Scriptures provided his Thoughts are Orthodox And elsewhere he saith That although these Words are not found in the Scriptures it sufficeth they contain a Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures And Vigilius Homousion Vigil ubi supra cap. 26. p. 143. That it must be collected from the Authority of Scripture by a reasonable consequence and that it is not just to quarrel about a Name which may be firmly established by a great many Testimonies It is so several other Doctors have done and indeed they did wisely for there is nothing more unreasonable than to reduce Man to the Degree of Beasts in depriving him of the Use of Reasoning whereby he draws certain Conclusions from necessary Principles No body then ought to wonder if besides the direct Doctrine of the Fathers upon the Point of the Eucharist I here insert the indirect which consists in necessary Inductions because the Part of an Historian which I assume in this Work doth oblige me faithfully to represent unto the Reader the Inductions which others are wont to draw from their Testimonies for the better understanding their Doctrine leaving it unto the Liberty of every one to judge of their Value or Weakness I will therefore continue these Sorts of Proofs already begun in this Chapter What hath been already said containing the direct Proofs of their Belief with the Consequences which are inseparable from it Athenag de Resurrect mort ad ealcem oper Just p. 46. Athenagoras in his Treatise of the Resurrection of the Dead saith something if I mistake not worthy of Consideration Neither the Blood nor Phlegm nor Choller nor Spirits that is to say as well Vital as Animal shall be raised with our Bodies in the blessed Resurrection being no longer necessary unto the Life which we shall then live If the quickned Body of Jesus Christ be the Model and Pattern of the Resurrection of Believers as all Christians Universally agree Athenagoras say they could not believe that the Bodies of Believers after the Resurrection should have no Blood but that he believed also that the glorified Body of Christ had none also and if he believed it had none how could it be thought that he believed that it should be drank in the Eucharist but figuratively because we there make a Commemoration of that Blood which he shed upon the Cross for the Expiation of our Sins A Commemoration which we could not make as St. Paul commands us unless we participate of the Fruits and Benefits of his bitter Death A Participation which as the Protestants say is the Effect of the spiritual and mystical Eating or if you will Drinking Hieron Ep. 61. c. 8 9 c. 1.2 but also at the same time a real and true Eating which is done by our Faith The same may be said by Origen as appears by St. Jerom's sixty first Letter unto Pammachius touching the Errors of John Bishop of Jerusalem and it may be he proceeded farther at least he was not only suspected but taxed with it Moreover in the fifth Century it was not fully determin'd if the Body of our Lord in the State of Glory wherein it is Aug. Epist 146. ad Cons init had Blood For we find by one of the Letters of St. Austin which one Consentius wrote unto him to be inform'd if the Body of Christ now hath Blood and Bones This Consentius was not an Ordinary Believer or common Christian he seems to be a Bishop or at least a Priest worthy of St. Austin's Respect and Friendship for in the Beginning of the Letter he gives him the Title of most dear or most beloved And elsewhere he saith unto him That he is beloved in the Bowels of Jesus Christ I freely confess Ep. 222. saith the Protestant I cannot read these Words without thinking of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament for it is not to be conceived that one of the Conducters of the Christian Churches should propose unto the great St. Austin so ridiculous and impertinent a Question if it was believed in his Time of the Sacrament as is now believed by the Roman Catholicks In fine if it was the Belief of the fifth Century I cannot see how that Man can be excus'd of Folly and Extravagance Nevertheless on the other hand St. Austin deals by him in such a manner which suffers us not to judge so disadvantagiously of him What shall we then say Continues he to excuse the Simplicity of this Man and to give some Colour to his Demand Had he never participated of the Eucharist had he never approached unto the holy Table and had he never drank of the Cup of our Redemption Wherefore then doth he ask of St. Austin to know if the glorified Body of our Lord hath Blood if it were true that the Church at that time held for an Article of Faith That it was drank really and truly every time as they communicated of the holy Cup Or wherefore doth not St. Austin refer him back unto the Sacrament the only Consideration whereof might have satisfied Consentius if the Belief of the Latins had been the Belief of that Age. Let us proceed St. Austin proves unto his Friend by the Words of the Scriptures That the Body of Jesus Christ hath yet now Flesh and Bones but because in the Scripture he cites there is no mention of Blood he leaves this Point in the Terms Consentius left it that is to say in suspense saying That because Jesus Christ only said That he had Flesh and Bones without adding Blood we should not also extend our Question any farther nor add that of his Blood unto the other of his Flesh and Bones Fearing saith he there should come some other more inquisiâ—ive Disputer which taking occasion from the Blood should press us in saying If he hath Blood why not then Spleen why not Choller and Melancholly the four Humours which compose the Nature of the Body
condemns by one of its Canons which is the 18th in the Code of Canons of the Church of Africa as we already observed in our first Part the Custom of putting the Eucharist in the Mouth of the Dead Cod. can Eccles Afric Justel c. 18. It hath been resolved saith the Council that the Eucharist should not be given unto the Bodies of the Dead for it is written Take and eat Now dead Bodies can neither take nor eat A Defence which the Council of the East was obliged to renew in the year 691. but in the same Terms of that of Carthage it is something in condemning this Abuse But certainly say some if the Church of the Vth and VIIth Century believed that it is the real Body of the Son of God it was too slightly condemned This Profanation deserved a ruder Censure and deserved a much stricter Prohibition The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled Anno 675. censured those which offered Milk instead of Wine for the holy Sacrament and see here the Terms that it useth Council Bracar 3. c. 2 â— 4. Council p. 833. Let them forbear then to offer Milk at the Sacrifice because the manifest and clear Example of the Truth of the Gospel appears plainly to our Eyes which admits not of offering any thing but Bread and Wine The Protestants think that the Censure of the Council had been better applied if it had been represented unto those which dared to offer Milk instead of Wine that it was not Milk but Wine which was to be converted into the proper Substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ and that it is very likely that if the Fathers had believed this substantial Conversion they would not have failed to have done so because the Occasion invited them thereunto The XVIth Council of Toledo assembled the Year of our Lord 693. do censure another Abuse which is That some Priests bethought themselves of offering for the Communion little Crusts of Bread which they raised round from Loaves intended for their own use instead of offering of whole Loaves The Council-reproves this Liberty whereunto it opposeth the Example of Jesus Christ who took an intire Loaf but it said not unto those People that they were to blame slightly to offer bits of Bread without considering that the Bread of the Eucharist is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ which nevertheless might have been of great weight unto them On the contrary it commands to offer midling Loaves fearing if they were too big the over-plus which remained after the Communion might by its Grossness and Quantity incommode the Stomach of them which eat it which as 't is supposed drew them quite from any Thought of Reality and conducted them unto the Consideration of the Sacrament In fine when Ratherius Bishop of Verona prohibits at the End of the Xth Century committing the Eucharist unto Lay-persons to be carried unto sick Folks he doth not shew in censuring this Abuse that there is any Crime in putting into prophane Hands the real Body of our Saviour there being none but the Persons which he hath consecrated unto his own Service which ought to enjoy this Priviledge which in all probability he would not have failed to do had he been thoroughly perswaded of the Truth of the real Presence he only commands T. 2. Spicil Dacher p. 261. That none presume to give the Eucharist unto any Lay-man or Woman to be carried unto the Sick But 't is not yet time to end these Proofs the Instructions which the Holy Fathers gave their Neophytes and new Baptised will very likely afford us others For although they never spake against their Judgment not even in their Homilies and popular Sermons where according to the Circumstance of the Times they used some Restriction of not giving the Eucharist the Name of Bread and Wine thinking there might be present some Catechumeny and Persons not initiated which might hear them and in whom the Names of Bread and Wine might have created too low and mean Thoughts of the Excellency of our Mysteries Nevertheless because it is supposed that they have expressed themselves clearer in instructing these young Plants but newly grafted into the mystical Stock of the Church by holy Baptism let us see what Succour we can draw from these sorts of Catechisms wherein to give their Neophytes a great Idea of the Sacrament they forbear not using strong and elevated Expressions but yet in such a manner as they plainly discover in what Way they are to be understood For instance Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. p. 244 246. St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus speaketh unto his Catechumeny newly Baptised In coming to the Sacrament come not with Hands stretched out nor with the Fingers open but laying your right Hand in the left as being to receive the King and hallowing the Palm of the Hand receive the Body of Jesus Christ in saying Amen And having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood not in stretching out the Hands but in bowing by an Act which shews a kind of Adoration or Veneration and of Worship saying Amen sanctifie your selves in receiving the Blood of Christ. Se here a fair and great Idea of the Sacrament but that his Neophyte should carry his Thoughts no farther than he ought he explains unto him in the same place that he speaks of a Body of Jesus Christ of which he may lose some Part of which a Crumb may fall to the Ground and of a Blood whereof a Moisture and Humidity rests upon the Lips and wherewith one may wet the the Eyes Ibid. the Face and other Organs of the Body Having then saith he with assurance sanctified your Eyes by the touch of the sacred Body receive it taking heed thou lose none of it for what you lose of it is as if you should lose one of your Members Tell me if any one should give you Lingots of Gold would you not keep them with all manner of Diligence taking care not to lose any Part of them and not to suffer Damage And should you not take care that there fall not any Crumb of this which is more precious than Gold and than Pearls And afterwards passing to the consideration of the Blood whereof he exhorted him to participate with profound Respect he teacheth him of what Blood he should understand it when he adds Ibid. And as the Moisture and Humidity is yet upon the Lips touching with your Hand the Eyes the Face and other Organs of the Senses sanctifie them and having attended the Prayers give Thanks unto God for that he hath rendred you worthy to participate of these great Mysteries Hitherto our Neophyte hath not been ill instructed but let us again hear how he spake unto him in the foregoing Catechism Id. Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. Ibid. Jesus Christ affirming and saying of the Bread This is my Body who is it that can yet make any doubt of
with the Hand although the Church of Rome her self practised it so formerly for several Ages From whence again could proceed this Change but from the Change of Doctrine whilst it was believed that what was received at the mystical Table was true Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine which the Consecration had separated from the common Use they had in Nature to apply them unto a holy and religious Use in Grace Communicants were permitted to receive the Sacrament in their Hands But when they taught that it was the real Body of Jesus Christ they began to put it into the Mouth of such as presented themselves at the Communion judging their Hands were not worthy to receive the Flesh it self of their Saviour and fearing that some by Neglect should let fall to the Ground this pretious Body an Inconvenience which their Forefathers never thought of or if they did think of it they did not so much fear it though otherwise they were as circumspect in the Celebration of this Divine Sacrament so far as to take Care with incomparable Exactness that none of it should fall to the Ground Let every body judge the Reason of so notable a Difference But if the Sacrament was put into the Hand of Communicants they were wont also for a long time to carry it home along with them to their Houses At present amongst the Latins it would be a criminal Action Father Petau tells us and held for a Prophanation of this Sacrament As for my part I cannot blame this Severity of the Latin Church because she believes that it is the adorable Body of the Son of God whereunto is owing Soveraign Respect What shall we then say unto the ancient Fathers which permitted it and which believed not as St. Basil tells us that this Custom was not worthy of Blame We cannot but know that their Zeal was greater than ours and their Piety more ardent than what appears in us at this time How then have they so long time tolerated this Practice in the Church and even in that of Rome as St. Jerom hath made appear From whence the Protestant concludes That one cannot reasonably forbear attributing the Reason of this Toleration to any thing but the Difference of their Doctrine and to say that their Belief upon this Point being quite contrary they made no Scruple of suffering what the Latins would not suffer at present for all the World And as they suffered Communicants to carry the Sacrament to their Houses to keep and take it when they pleased they also suffered them to carry it in their Travels and Journeys even by Sea where they made no Difficulty of celebrating and participating of it when Occasion required as the Example of Maximinian Bishop of Syracusa and his Companions do testifie for being in Danger of suffering Shipwrack they received it is said the Body and Blood of their Redeemer But in the Latin Church it is practised quite contrary at this time it not being permitted to celebrate the whole Mass neither at the Sea nor upon Rivers but only to read the Epistle and Gospel to say the Lords Prayer and give the Benediction In a Word to say that which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeny that is to say unto that Part called the Canon Thom Valdens Guilhelm Duranâ— apud Cassand in Liturg. c. 34. Cassand ib. Whence it is Cassander makes this Observation drawn from a Book of the Order of the Mass according to the Use of the Church of Rome This dry Mass that is to say without Consecration and Communion is also called Naval because it is judged it can only be said after that manner in an unsteady place and where there is motion as at Sea and upon Rivers in which places it is believed that an intire Mass cannot be said Pope Gregory the first nevertheless blamed not what was done by Maximinian and his Companions when he relates the History of it in his Dialogues no more than St. Ambrose doth the Action of his Brother Satyrus All which again gives Ground to believe that in all likelihood they had not then that Opinion of the Sacrament which Roman Catholicks now have for they would not have failed to have taken the same Caution Anciently in the Church the Communion was freely sent unto sick Folks by Lay-persons by Boys Men or Women which continued in the West until the IXth and Xth Centuries What Appearance is there they would so long have tolerated this Custem if the Belief of those times had been the same of that of the Latin Church at present it is thought they would have been more reserved and that they would not have so slightly entrusted the Body of Jesus Christ unto all Sorts of Persons indifferently But besides all these Customs which we have instanced and from whence we have drawn the necessary Inferences there be yet others which we already examined in the first Part the Consequences whereof we are also obliged to shew The ancient Christians made no Difficulty to imploy the Sacrament to make Plaisters as St. Austin hath assured us every body knows that to make a Plaister sometimes Drugs are used that must be bruised and pounded in a Mortar sometimes Roots are used that must be boiled and which by means of certain Liquors are reduced into the consistence of an Oyntment or thick matter and such as may conveniently be spread upon a Linen-cloth or upon Flax afterwards to apply it unto the distemper'd part which wants Ease Was there ever any Christian that believed such a Sort of Medicine could be made of the proper and natural Body of Jesus Christ that it could be beat and pounded in a Mortar or boiled with Liquor or in a Word reduced in the State which they are wont to do those Things which are requisite to make Plaisters or if any were so extravagant to believe it or so wicked and senseless to attempt it had it been possible to be done all others would they not have exclaimed against such a Person would they not have esteemed him monstrous and worthy enduring the greatest of all Punishments Nevertheless there hath been found those which made Plaisters of the Eucharist and which far from being blamed have been praised and commended by pious and devout Persons fearing God witness that Mother mentioned by St. Austin Seeing then that a Plaister cannot be made of the true Body of Jesus Christ it necessarily follows that where there was one made it was of the Substance of the Symbols and that the Christians that did so were perswaded that it was not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but a Substance of Bread and Wine In the ancient Church the Sacrament was buried with the Dead as there is no Christian but knows that Christ died that he was buried and rose again the third Day neither is there any but do know that he dieth no more and that he shall no more be buried Those then which heretofore buried the
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
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
of Jesus Christ which passeth into the substance of our Body and Soul without being consumed corrupted or passing into the Draft Ah God forbid but passing into our Substance for our Preservation All Christians confess that this cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ as neither can it be said of bare Accidents it must then be understood of the Substance of Bread which is called the Body of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it From thence it is the same Damascen compares the Change which befalls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that which happens unto the Water of Baptism As in Baptism saith he because Men are wont to wash themselves with Water Id. Ibid. and to anoint them with Oyl God hath joyned unto the Water and Oyl the Grace of the Holy Spirit and hath made it the Washing of Regeneration so also in like manner they being accustomed to eat Bread and to drink Wine and Water he hath joyned them unto his Divinity and hath made them his Body and Blood His Similitude would not be just if the substance of the Symbols did not remain in the Eucharist as well as in Baptism He useth also another which farther illustrates the nature of this Change Ibid. Esay saith he saw a Coal now a Coal is not meer Wood but it is joyned with Fire so the Bread of the Sacrament is not bare Bread but it is joyned to the Divinity and the Body united to the Divinity is not one and the same Nature but the Nature of the Body is one and that of the Divinity united unto it is another Every body may easily understand that the Coal united to the Fire keeps its substance although that by a kind of Change it becomes red and like Fire Therefore by the sense of the Comparison it must needs be that the Bread of the Eucharist doth keep its substance although it be in some sort changed by its being joyned to the Divinity and that so the Change which comes to the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament according to Damascen is quite different from that which is taught by the Latin Church and I think it cannot be any way questioned after what is above said Now if I be asked what was the Belief of Damascen for if it be not the Belief of Roman Catholicks it should in all likelihood be that of Protestants I answer sincerely that as far as I can judge it is not the Belief neither of the one or the other but a particular Opinion of this Friar who believed that the Bread and Wine by the coming of the Holy Ghost were in some sort united to the Divinity which took them unto it self for he useth the term of Assumption as it took the Humane Nature of our Saviour and that by means of this Union to the Divinity they became one and the same Body and not several as he explained himself in the first passage an Unity which depends upon this known Axiom That the things united unto a third are united amongst themselves Methinks the Author declares his meaning plainly enough when having made himself this Question How is it that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. and the Wine and Water his Blood He answers The Holy Spirit comes and changes these things in a manner that surpasseth expression and thought The Bread and Wine are taken which is just the term used by the Fathers to represent the Assumption of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ by the Divinity The Sentiments of Damascen will appear yet plainer if we consider what he saith in his Letter unto Zachary Bishop of Doare and in the little Chapter which follows to wit That the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by way of Augmentation or Increase which befalls the Body of Jesus Christ Thus he establisheth the Subsistence of these two Elements and their joyning unto the natural Body of Jesus Christ but so strict an Union that they make in the shallow Conceit of this Writer but one single Body with the true Body of Jesus Christ Moreover he assures that the incorruptible Body of our Saviour that is to say his glorified Body hath no Blood a Doctrine with which it is impossible to reconcile the Belief of Transubstantiation As to what Damascen saith That the Fathers have given to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the names of Figures and Signs before Consecration and not after he apparently deceives himself for do but read what we have alledged in the third Chapter of this second Part where we have established this Tradition by a very great number of testimonies of this holy Doctors The Abbot of Billy a very Learned Man and well read in Ecclesiastical Antiquity could not suffer this presumption of Damascen's without reproving him Billius in Orat. 11. Greg. Naz. p. 632. by as it were giving him the lye Damascen saith he denies that the Bread and Wine are called Figures after Consecration by St. Basil which is evidently false as plainly appears by several places in the Apostolical Constitutions of St. Clement of Gregory Nazianzen and other Authors Bessar Card. de Sacram. Eucharist t. 6. Bibl. patr p. 470. Edit ult Bessareon a Greek by Nation Bishop of Nice and one of those which assisted at the Council of Florence in behalf of the Greek Nation but corrupted by the Latins who honoured him with a Cardinals Cap excuseth Damascen and endeavours to give a good sense to his words By the Figure saith he whereof he speaks in this place he means a shadow which is nothing else but a Figure simply signifying another subject having not at all any force nor power to act or operate like the Sacraments of the Old Testament which were the Figures of the Sacraments of the New But this Explication which is not wholly to be rejected doth not hinder but that the Censure of the Abbot of Billy was very Judicious In fine About the same time Damascen denied it Stephen Stylite no less zealous than him for the defence of Images confessed it when he said to the Emperour Constantine which commanded them to be taken out of Churches Will you also banish out of the Church the Signs or Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Vita Stephan apud Surcum ad 28 Novem. cap. 36. seeing that is an Image and a true Figure But let us yet make some progress in the East and West to know what was the Language and Doctrine of the Church in the Eighth Century As for what concerns the West Bede in Luc. cap. 22. Id. in Psal 3. Id. in Hemil. de Sanct. in Epiph. Idem in Psal 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern l. 2. c. 2. t. 4. if we enquire of venerable Bede he will tell us That the Lord gave us the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that
were written the Books of Images which bear the name of this Emperor because in all likelihood they were written by his order rather than by his Pen. In one of these Books is censured the word Image or likeness as those of Nice had censured it in those of Constantinople I will not now examine if there was any thing of surprise in this Censure that is if it was done with an intent of directing it against Nice and not against those of Constantinople for although it is most certain that the principal design of the Council of Francfort was to oppose that of Nice against whom those of the West were no less incensed than those of Nice had been against them of Constantinople I will make no censure upon the matter not to give occasion unto any uncharitable Reader of censuring me It shall suffice to cite the words of the Book Carol. Magnus de imag l. 4. c. 14. that all the World may see what was the thoughts of the Author in censuring the word Image The Mystery saith he of the Body and Blood of Christ ought not now to be called Image but Verity not Shadow but Substance not the Type of things to come but what had been figured by Types the Day-light is already come and Shadows are gone away now Jesus Christ the end of the Law in righteousness unto all believers is come he hath already fulfilled the Law He that was in the valley of the shadow of Death hath seen a great Light already the Vail is fallen from the Face of Moses and the vail of the Temple which is rent hath discovered unto us all things that were hid and unknown now the true Melchisedek to wit Jesus Christ the righteous King the King of Peace hath bestowed upon us not the Sacrifices of Beasts but the Sacrament of his Body and Blood It is no hard matter to guess at the scope of these words and to see that they do not tend to the condemning the word Image taking it for a holy Sign instituted of God not only to signifie and represent but also effectually to communicate Jesus Christ unto our Souls dead for our sins their intent is only to reprove this term as it was taken for a legal Shadow or for a prefiguration of Christ to come therefore to shew that the Sacrament was not of the Nature of Types and Figures of the Law which did only represent without communicating the thing represented it is spoken in opposition unto the Sacrifices of Beasts that our Saviour hath left us not his Body but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood but a Sacrament so efficacious and Divine that the faithful Soul never participates of it but that it really and truly communicates of the thing it self whereas the Types of the Law did only prefigure it therefore it is that the Author said a little before Ibid. speaking of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord That believers do receive it every day in the Sacrament And in another Book he declares Lib. 2. c. 25. That it is the Mediator of God and Men which by the Ministry of the Priest and the Innovation of the name of God doth make the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which he hath left us for a Commemoration of his Death and of our Salvation And again The Apostle St. Paul Ibid. that chosen Vessel considering that the Body and Blood of our Lord should not only be equal unto all other Sacraments but also preferable unto any he saith Let every one examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. He testifies That what is eaten at the Holy Table is Bread and in saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be preferred almost before all others he shews plainly that he did not believe it was the very Body of our Saviour for these words would have been unworthy a Christian if they had been spoken of the proper Flesh of the Son of God But what need there any other explanation than that which is given us by Charlemain himself when writing unto Alcuin his Tutor De ration Septuages ad Alcuin he saith That our Saviour Supping with his Disciples broke Bread and also gave them the Cup for a Figure of his Body and Blood and gave them a great Sacrament for our profit Thus it is that several explain it But as to Alcuin let us see what he will furnish us for the better understanding the History of this Age and if the Tutor will accord with his Schollar I will not insist upon the Treatise of Divine Offices which go in his name because the Learned do confess that 't is not his it shall suffice to relate what is written by the late Andrew du Chesne the last of which hath set his hand unto the Edition of his works We do not saith he want sufficient conjectures to shew that this Treatise is not Alcuin's Gallia Braccata Andr. Quercetan praefat ad Alcuin c. 17. for the Author whoever it was doth testifie that he is of Gall Narboness and an ancient Copy by the help whereof we have recovered twelve whole Chapters Attributes the question of the Feasts of Saints tacked unto the 18th Chapter unto the Friar Elpris who according to Trythemius flourished in the year 1040. And in fine in this Treatise there is mention of the Institution of the Feast of All-Saints the first of November Nevertheless it is easily found by Sigebert and others that it was not begun to be celebrated that day in France and Germany till a good while after the Decease of Alcuin that is Anno 835. and Alcuin died Anno 804. Neither will I infist upon a Confession of Faith which Father Chifflet hath published in the name of the famous Alcuin because it is no less Fathered upon this excellent Master of Charlemain than the Book of Divine Offices And that it is most certain it was taken out of the Books of Anselm's Meditations and unadvisedly crowded into the Works of St. Austin Now Anselm lived towards the end of the XI Century and the beginning of the XII And I could easily here insert all the evident proofs of Forgery which the piece it self doth furnish but because it is so apparent a truth and that moreover I find it hath already been done I will proceed to the consideration of what is found in the genuine works of Alcuin touching the subject in hand In one of his Letters he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that they be consecrated in Corpus Sanguinem Christi into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ But let us hear the Explication he gives unto us of these words in the same place Alcuin Ep. 59. The Sanctification saith he of this Mystery doth presage the effect of our Salvation The faithful people is understood by the Water and by the Grains of Wheat whereof the Flower is taken to
may happen in going about to adjust some ancient expressions with his new Opinion to make his disguise succeed the better He proceeded by way of Explication it shall suffice to say that it seems it may be so gathered from the words of his Letter unto Frudegard Although saith he I have writ nothing in this Book Pasch ep ad Frude p. 1â—25 which I have dedicated unto a certain young Man which might be worthy the Reader nevertheless as I am informed I have excited several persons to the understanding of this Mystery Thence it is that in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord he speaks of his Explication as of an admirable thing and whereof sufficient heed had not yet been taken Id de corp sang Dom. c. 1. To the end saith he I might yet say something more admirable But the chief is to know wherein his opinion did consist Those that will a little consider his Writings may observe he taught That what is received in the Sacrament is the same Flesh of that which was born of the Virgin Mary Id ibid. and which suffered Death for us Although saith he the Figure of Bread and Wine doth remain yet you must absolutely believe that after Consecration it is nothing but the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Truth it self said unto his Disciples It is my Flesh for the Life of the World and to say something more admirable It is no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered upon the Cross and which is raised out of the Sepulchre So it is that he explains himself also again in the 4th Chapter of the same Book and several times in his Letter unto Frudegard It is the testimony that an Anonymus Author gives us which Father Cellot hath published Aut Anonym l. de Euchar. apud Cellot in append histor Gostech op 7. and which was one of his Adherents Paschas saith he establisheth under the name of St. Ambrose That what is received at the Altar is no other Flesh than that born of the Virgin Mary which suffered on the Cross which was raised out of the Grave and is at present offered for the Life of the World Against which Rabanus in his Letter to the Abbot Egilon sufficiently doth argue In fine we shall be informed by Rabanus and by Ratramn that it was the Opinion of Paschas and that nothing should be wanting to the establishing of his Opinion he wrote two Books of the Virgins being delivered of Child which Books had always gone in the name of Ildefons Archbishop of Tolledo T. 1. Spicileg praes ad Ratiam and are at this time under that name in the last Edition of the Library of the holy Fathers But Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath informed us by the help of Manuscripts that Paschas was the true Author of them In these two Books he teacheth that the blessed Virgin was Delivered after an extraordinary and miraculous manner and that Jesus Christ was not born after the common course of Nature but that he came out of the Womb of this blessed Maid without any opening and not as Tertullian saith in some of his Writings Lege patefacti Corporis But as Bertram or Ratramn refuted the ground of the Doctrine of Paschas so he also refuted this progress of it by a little Treatise he wrote on purpose on the Birth of Jesus Christ wherein several times he qualifies with the name of Heresie the Opinion which he refutes whereas I do not find that he ever gave this name unto what his Adversary had taught of the Sacrament which gives me occasion to make this conjecture which I freely submit unto the Reader 's Judgment to wit That Paschas having proceeded in what he wrote of the Sacrament by way of Explication and as one that did seek for the true knowledge of this Mystery His Adversaries did not call this Doctrine Heresie how erroneous soever they knew him to be in other ther things because in the Church it was not the custom to call any single error Heresie unless it was attended with Obstinacy But Ratramn having seen the Books of the Virgins Delivery which were written after what he had taught of the Sacrament and as he drew near his Death Ratram de nativit Christ c. 4.5.9 t. 1. Specileg or as he saith himself in the Preface of Dom Luke d'Achery Multo jam senio confectus And having thereby judged That he was not now a man that desired to be instructed but was strongly confirmed in the Opinion he had taught and which he endeavoured to support by establishing the consequences which might best suit with his Principles he made no scruple to render this of which we speak odious in calling it Heresie but after all whatever my conjecture may be Paschas de corp sang Dom. c. 14. it is certain that Paschas omitted nothing that might set off his Opinion not Visions it self and Apparitions of Jesus Christ during the Celebration of the Sacrament not fearing to be jeered that he was the first that bethought himself of speaking of these kinds of Apparitions unknown unto Christians for above 800. years seeing that in effect there is no certain Author found that hath made any mention of them yet that hindred not but Cardinal Bellarmine and Father Sirmond consider'd him as the first that cleared and explained the Mystery of the Sacrament Bellarm. de script Eccles This Author saith Bellarmine was the first that wrote seriously and amply of the truth of the body and blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist And Sirmond Sirmond in vita Paschas operibus ciupraeâ—ixa He first of all so explained the true sense of the Catholick Church that he open'd the way unto all others that have since written of the same matter But so it is that if the belief of Paschas was the Ancient Belief of the Church he deserv'd to be loaden with blessings and thanks for having so happily laboured for the Instruction and Edification of Christians and in all likelihood no body would have dared to contradict or oppose the Doctrine which he published or if any one undertook so to do he should make himself the Object of hatred and aversion unto all the World It is then requisite to know how men carryed it towards him after that he had published his Opinion If we enquire of himself he will inform us that he was accused of departing from the common Belief and of having rashly spread abroad the thoughts of a young head for see here how he writes unto his intimate Friend Frudegard Pasch Ep. ad Frudegard pag. 1632. You have saith he at the end of this little Book the Sentences of Catholick Fathers succinctly noted by which you may see that it was not out of a hasty fit that I formerly meditated these things in my younger days but that I
on Paschas his side I know not precisely the time that he lived although it is very probable it was either at the latter end of the IX Century or it may be in the X. but I know he was not a stout Champion and that his Courage was not able to restore Paschas his Party if they had the fortune to be worsted Unto this day the name and quality of this Proselite is not known as also it is not known who or what Frudegard was if it be not inferred by Paschas calling him Brother and Fellow-Soldier that he was either a Friar or Abbot of some Monastery As for Hinâ—mar Arch-Bishop of Rheims incomparably better known than our Anonymous and more famous than Frudegard by his Dignity and Writings I find my self a little at a loss for when I consider that he saith with St. Cyprian and St. Austin 1 Hinem. de proedest c. 3. epilogi c. 1. That our Saviour recommended his Body and Blood in things that are reduced into one 2 Id. ibid. de cavend viriis c. 12. ad Hincm Laud. c. 48. That he reserves with St. Austin and St. Prosper the eating of the Flesh of Christ for Believers only 3 Id de non trina deitate c. 17. That he declares with the former that the Mystery of Bread passeth into a Sacrament 4 Id. de caven vit c. 11. And that he acknowledgeth with others That our Saviour hath left us the Sacrament as a Pledge of his Love and as a Memorial of his Person and of his Death as a Man travelling into a far Country should leave a Pledge unto his Friend I cannot tell if I should make him a Friend of Paschas whose Doctrine doth not agree well with what we have now mentioned But when on the other hand I find in his Writings some things which seem to favour the same Paschas I cannot tell how to make him his Adversary Id. de cavend vit c. 12. For example what he saith That Jesus Christ is every day consecrated upon his Table that he sanctifies his Sacrament and that he makes himself Id. de pradest â— 31. And that he observes that Prudens Bishop of Trois and John Scot or of Scotland or rather of Ireland said That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real body and blood of our Lord but only the memorial of his true body and blood Let the Reader then place Hincmar either amongst the Enemies of Paschas or amongst his Friends for my part I am very apt to believe that he was of his favourers I mean that he followed his Opinion in the point of the Eucharist which yet I do not affirm as a thing indubitable and which may not be questioned I will only say that I do not find that he was of any extraordinary esteem for if we believe Father Sirmond who otherwise was no Enemy unto him Archbishop Hincmar was wont to be deceived himself Sirm. de duob Dionys c. 4. Mauguin Hist Chron. p. 442. Apolog. pour les Saints Peres l. 5. p. 3. c. 5. and to deceive others If we believe Monsieur the President Mauguin he calls him a Deceiver and a Dissembler And if we will give Credit unto the description that is made of him in the Apologies of the holy Fathers Defenders of Free Will we shall find him to be both violent and ignorant a Deceiver scandalous and malicious a Calumniator and a Man full of Vanity These are the Colours wherein he is displayed in that excellent Work besides several others which I pass over in silence So that if Hincmar was such a person as these Gentlemen describe him to be I do not think he would render the Party very considerable in which side soever he is placed yet he cannot be denied the Knowledge of the ancient Canons if I mistake not wherein he was better skill'd than in that which is dogmatical and relating unto Divinity In the main see here two Followers of Paschas one of which to wit the Anonymous declares himself directly for him and the other I mean Hincmar though he makes not so formal a Declaration doth nevertheless in all probability follow his steps But in fine they are the only two which I can find to be of the Belief of Paschas in the IX Century if it were true that the Anonimous wrote in that Century whereas if he wrote after as Father Cellot inclines to think he did all the strength of this Friar and afterwards Abbot of Corby will consist in himself and Hincmar in the uncertainty we are in whether St. Austin or Paschas prevailed over Frudegard As for the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles which some attribute unto Haymon Bishop of Alberstadt others unto Remy Arch-bishop of Lyons and others in fine with greater probability unto Remy Friar of Auxerr I do not think he ought to be reckoned amongst the Friends nor Enemies of Paschas He did like those that seeing a Kingdom divided into two Factions take part with neither but think of making a third Party for he would neither follow the Party of Paschas nor the Belief of those which argued against him but would establish in the West as far as I can find the Opinion that Damascen had broached in the East of the Union of the Bread of the Sacrament with the Divinity to make by means of this Union one sole Body with the true Body of our Saviour as we have shewed in speaking of Damascen And this is the reason that we here place Remy of Auxerr although he lived not according to all Circumstances but at the end of the IX Century and to say the truth because he had a middle Opinion betwixt that of Paschas and that of his Adversaries we cannot appoint him a fitter place than this to the end that as he disturbed not the Depositions of Paschas his Friends neither should he trouble the Testimony of his Adversaries That the Opinion of Remy is such as we say I hope the Candid Reader will believe it to be so when he shall see what we here produce of his Commentaries upon the 10th and 11th Chapters of the First to the Corinthians and of his Exposition of the Cannon of the Mass ' The Flesh saith he which the Word took in the Womb of the Virgin into the Unity of his Person Remig. Altiss comment in â— ad Corin. c. 10. and the Bread which is Consecrated in the Church are one Body of Jesus Christ for as this Flesh is the Body of Jesus Christ so also this Bread passeth into the Body of Jesus Christ and they be not two Bodies but one Body for the fulness of the Godhead which was in that Body filleth also this Bread and the same Godhead of the Son which is in them filleth the Body of Jesus Christ which is Consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the World and causeth that it is one sole Body of
time of Charles the Bald by whose Command he wrote it Father Cellot the Jesuit never made any difficulty of this matter freely attributing unto Ratramn the little Treatise whereof we speak and proving by a long Dispute that he was the Fore-runner of Berengarius and of Calvin and that he openly taught that the Eucharist is not the real Body of Jesus Christ which he confirms by the Authority of persons most learned in the Communion of the Latins Allain Despans de Saints du Perron Clement the Eighth which all have had this same Opinion of Bertram and of his Book He observes that Cardinal Bellarmin doth rank him amongst those which have disputed whether the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus Christ and that it was justly put in the Index of prohibited Books according to the intention of the Council of Trent As for Sixtus de Sienna he found it so contrary unto the Belief of the Latin Church that he took it to be some of the Works of Oecolompadius which the Protestants published in the name of Ratramn It is commonly said that second thoughts are better than the first but Monsieur de Marca seems to go about to give the Lie unto this Maxim by his Conduct for in this French Treatise of the Eucharist a little before mentioned and which he had composed before what we but now examined of his he very judiciously attributes unto Bertram this little Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and saith That he was consulted on this matter by Charles the Bald This is that whereto he should have held and not to change his Opinion without any solid Ground And it ought not to be said with some that Bertram who was a Friar in an Abby whereof Paschas was Abbot durst not therefore write against him for in the first place who told those persons that Bertram was yet a Friar in the Monastery of Gorby when he wrote against Paschas when probably he was Abbot of Orbais and no way depending upon Paschas And for my part I find much more likelihood of the last than of the former In the second place Wherefore is it that Ratramn should not dare to write against what Paschas writ touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist seeing he feared not in other things directly to oppose one of the necessary Consequences of Paschas his Opinion and plainly to call it Heresie as we have fully made it appear in the 13th Chapter of the second Part of this History It may then boldly and without danger be affirmed after the testimony of so many Learned Men of the Communion of Rome that Ratramn was an Adversary unto Paschas But to make this truth appear in its full lustre it is requisite to alledge some passages of this small Treatise after having shewed that all therein amounted to prove two things one is That the Mystery of the Eucharist is a Figure and not the thing it self and the other That 't is not the same Body which is born of the Virgin Mary as Paschas did teach it was In fine having first of all said unto Charles the Bald Bertram de corp sanguin Dom. That there being nothing better becoming his Royal Wisdom then to have a Catholick Opinion of the sacred Mysteries and not to suffer that his Subjects should be of different Judgments touching the Body of Jesus Christ wherein we know is the Abridgment of Christian Religion he proposed two questions wherein the King desired to be resolved 1. Whether the body and blood of Jesus Christ which Christians do receive with the mouth be made in mystery or in reality And 2. Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin that suffered dyed rose again ascended into Heaven and is set down at the right hand of God the Father Paschas taught That it was the same Flesh as was born of the holy Virgin and his Adversaries on the contrary That it was the Figure and the Sacrament and not the real Flesh If then Ratramn taught That the Eucharist is the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and not the very Flesh it self of necessity it must be concluded that he directly opposed the Opinion of Paschas according to the Declaration made us by the Anonymous Author Id. Ibid. As to what regards the first question see here how it is resolved I demand saith he of those that will not here admit of a Figure and that will have all to be taken simply and in reality I say I would ask of them to what purpose was the change made that it should no longer be Bread and Wine as it was before but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for according to the bodily appearance and the visible form of things the Bread and Wine have no change in them and if they have suffered no change then they be nothing else but what they were before And a little after Ibid. there offers here a question which is made by several saying That these things are made in Figure and not in reality and so saying they shew themselves contrary to the Writings of the Holy Fathers And after having alledged two passages of St. Austin one of the third Book of Christian Doctrine and the other of the Epistle unto Boniface he concludes We find that St. Austin saith Ibid. That the Sacraments are other things than that whereof they be Sacraments the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Blood which flowed out of his Side are the things but the Mysteries of these things are the Sacraments of this Body and of this Blood which are celebrated in remembrance of the Death of our Saviour not only once a year at the Solemnity of Easter but also every day And although there is but one Body wherein our Saviour suffered and one Blood which he shed for the sins of the World nevertheless the Sacraments take the name of the things whereof they be Sacraments and are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by reason of the resemblance they have with the things which they represent as the Death and Resurrection of our Lord which are celebrated yearly on certain days although he suffered and rose but once in himself Those days cannot be brought back again seeing they are past but the days whereon the Commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour is made are called by their names because of the resemblance they have with those whereon our Saviour suffered and rose again In like manner we say our Saviour is sacrificed when the Sacraments of his Passion is celebrated although he suffered but once in himself for the Salvation of the World He saith moreover Ibid. that those which believe the reality make a true confession when they say That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they deny what they seem to affirm and that they themselves destroy what they believe for when they
have insisted already had found something amiss in the Service of the Church of Lyons which so offended Agobard that he wrote a Book on purpose against the four Books of Amalarius touching Ecclesiastical things And he writes it with so high a resentment that Father Chifflet could have wished he had wrote with more moderation And that he had dipt his pen Ep. ad Baluzium Agobardo praefixa after the example of his Predecessors in the Blood of Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot truly meek and humble in Spirit It is then very probable that in the humour Agobard was against Amalarius he suffer'd nothing to pass unreproved except what he thought not fit to be censured and which he approved of himself And indeed by reading his Book it will plainly appear with what exactness he examines all that dropt from the Pen of his Adversary Now 't is most certain he censured not any of the passages which we alledged for proving that Amalarius was contrary to the Opinion of Paschas can it be believed this Man so full of anger and revenge and who wrote not his Book but to censure those of Amalarius and yet touched not any of the testimonies whereof we speak if the belief of Amalarius had not been the belief of the Church or if Agobard had not been of the same Opinion he was on the subject of the Eucharist how could it possible be but that he would have censur'd what Amalarius said How could he have slipt so fair an occasion to have discredited his Adversary as a Man that prevaricated from the belief of the Church upon one of the Capital Articles of our Religion but further he alledges these words of Amalarius which we before cited The Bread set upon the Altar represents the Body of our Saviour spread upon the Cross the Wine and Water in the Cup do shew the Sacraments which did flow from the side of our Saviour upon the Cross Agobard advers Annal. cap. 21. p. 119. but he doth not there apply one word of censure What can be inferr'd from this conduct but that they were both agreed upon this point Now if from the consideration of his silence we proceed to that of his words it is said we shall be confirmed in the belief of what hath been said for he testifies Ibid. c. 13. p. 115. That as there is but one Altar of the Church so also there is one bread of the Body of Jesus Christ and one sole Cup of his Blood He distinguisheth the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup from his Blood as he distinguisheth the Altar from the Church where it is Moreover he declares Ibid. That the Church consecrating by these words he speaks of all the words of Institution according to the Tradition of the Apostles the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord he saith expresly that our Saviour said unto his Disciples Take and Eat you all of this Words which the Deacon Florus borrowed of him with those that follow as we observed not long ago to prove that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread This is what was said of Agobard We have already mentioned in the 7th Chapter of this second Part an Assembly of Bishops of the Diocesses of Roan and of Rhemis at Cressy which furnished us with a Declaration of their belief but because they wrote in this same Century the History whereof we examine it is just that we should here insert their testimony David Blundel in his Exposition of the Eucharist said in Chap. 18. That he separated not from Ratramn and John surnamed Erigenius the greatest part of the Bishops assembled at Cressy anno 858. with out signifying the place where they had given marks of their belief therefore some have thought he had read it in some Manuscripts Nevertheless it is certain that he had a regard unto what we have alledged and unto what we will produce a second time yet in referring the Reader unto the 7th Chapter to ponder the occasion and the words which be these Concil Carisiac t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 129. Extr. It would be an abominable thing if the hand which makes by prayer and the sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that it should after promotion unto Episcopacy meddle in any secular Oath whatever it did before Ordination The Chronicle of Mouson which is in one of the Tomes of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery makes mention of one Arnulph and represents him unto us as a Martyr He died as near as can be judged about the end of the IX Century And as he was at the point of death he said unto those that were present Favour me by your compassionate piety and help Chron. Mosomens t. 7. Spicil pag. 627. that I may receive from the hands of the Priests the Eucharist of the Communion of our Saviour He desires to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which truly communicates unto the faithful and penitent Soul Jesus Christ our Lord which he plainly distinguisheth from his Sacrament as the thing whereof we communicate from the Instrument by means whereby we do thereof participate He did not then believe with Paschas that the Eucharist was the real Flesh of Jesus Christ It is the Inference that many do make In the last Chapter of the first part we treated of the Custom of mingling the consecrated Wine with Ink and at the end of the 8th Chapter of the Second Part we shew'd the Inferences which is said are lawfully made from it But because of the Examples of this practice which we have alledged there is one of the Year 844. we will make no difficulty of joyning this Testimony unto the former yet it shall be only in the nature of a Historian which relates what passed at Tholouse betwixt King Charles the Bald and Bernard Count of Barcelonia whom this Prince had sent for under pretence of being reconciled unto him but indeed with design to kill him See here what the Historian saith Odo Ariâ—ertus inedit in notis Baluz ad Agobard pag. 129. The Peace having been concluded and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count with the Blood of the Eucharist Count Bernard came from Barcelonia unto Tholouse and cast himself at the King's feet in the Monastery of St. Saturnine near Tholouse The King taking him with the left hand as it were to lift him up he stabb'd his Dagger into his side with the other hand and cruelly murthered him not without being blamed for having violated Faith and Religion nor without suspition of Parricide because it was generally thought Charles was Son to Bernard also he resembled him very much about the mouth Nature publishing thereby the Mothers Adultery After so cruel a death the King descending from his Throne reeking in blood kicking the body with his foot said thus
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
to be guilty of some great neglect Secondly It was the custom in this Monastery not to keep any part of the Communion until the next day but they caused to be eaten at the same time all that remained which say some would not have been done if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Jesus Christ because they just before received it in Communicating which makes them easily believe that the abolishing of this Custom Ibid. l. â—â— 13. p. 58. which was not observed when the Friar Ulrick wrote did follow the change of belief Formerly saith he there was such care taken that after all had Communicated the very Priests and Priors which had brought whereof to Communicate did with a great deal of respect and caution Eat all that remained of the Eucharist without keeping any part of it until next day of which Custom nevertheless little heed is taken here at present but all is kept that remains after the Communion In the third place we therein find that the day before the Preparation that is to say on Holy Thursday Ibid. p. 58. There was so much of the Sacrament kept as needed for to Communicate them all Ibid. l. 2. c. 30 p. 140. that it was broken and distributed as they could conveniently take it And elsewhere The Cup is carefully rubbed without fearing there should remain any part of the Wine and of the Water and being Consecrated that it might be lost They believed then that the Wine and Water did still subsist after Consecration Ibid. p. 141. for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be lost And again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one half he Communicates himself and with the rest he Communicates the Deacon Ibid. p. 145. Many think it cannot be so spoken of the glorious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then again When the Priest hath broken the Host he puts part of it into the Cup according to the custom and two parts upon the Patten and he covers both with the Corporal but first of all he carefully rubs the outside of the Challice and shakes it with the same Fingers wherewith he touched it fearing lest that in performing the fraction there might not remain some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be spoken of the real Body of the Son of God And in another place Ibid. p. 148. it is prescribed what ought to be done If it so happens that there remains ever so little of the Body of Christ which is expounded to be a very little crum and as it may be said indivisible part like to an Atom In fine treating of the Communicating sick Folks Ibid. l. 3. c. 28. it is observed That the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broken and that the Priest holds upon the Cup the portion that he should bring Now let any body judge if a part of the real Body of Christ can be separated from the whole and be carried into some other place and that after all that hath been alledged of these Ancient Customs it ought not to be concluded that this famous Congregation was not always of the belief it is at this time in the point of the Sacrament and that during the X. Century they embraced not the Opinion of Paschas This is the Inference which persons draw from these Customs But it is not yet time to have done with this Age we must first take a view of Italy and of Rome it self to be informed of Ratherius Bishop of Verona who departed this Life in the year 974. what the belief of the Church was in Italy in his time touching the Eucharist I do not intend here to write the History of this Prelate nor the Vicissitudes which happened him during his life for of a Friar that he was in the Monastery of Lobes he became Bishop of Verona from whence some time after he was expell'd and made Bishop of Liege but for three years only and then he lost this Dignity Those which desire to be particularly informed of his Adventures and of the Reputation which he had acquired by his Learning although it may be he cannot be wholly excused of inconstancy in his conduct may read the Preface of the Second Tome of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery from whom we take what shall be alledged I will not insist upon his speaking Ratherius Veron Serm. 2 de Pasch p. 314 315. t. 2. Spicil Serm. 3. p. 317. alibi Id. Serm. 1. de quadrag p. 282 of giving the holy Bread of presenting the morsel of receiving the holy things and the gift of so great a Sacrament although these expressions are not much after the practise of the present Latin Church no more than when he saith That he which observeth the Fast of Holy Thursday suppeth with our Saviour that is to say that he receives the Sacraments of his Body and Blood which were instituted on that day I will insist upon one part of his works wherein he plainly sheweth as is pretended that the Doctrine of the real Presence was not yet received in his time in the Church that is to say after his promotion unto the Diocess of Verona whereof he had been twice dispossessed for he wrote what we are about to alledge whilst he was Bishop This Ratherius having cited a passage of Zeno of Verona which restrains the eating of the Flesh of Christ unto believers only Id. de contempt canon part â— p. 181. as hath been shewed he adds As to the Corporal Substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that it is I that do now state the question I must therefore answer and I thereunto willingly agree for because unto him that receiveth worthily it is true Flesh although it is seen that the Bread is the same it was before and also true Blood although the Wine is seen to be what it was I confess I cannot think nor say what it is unto him which receiveth unworthily that is to say unto him which dwelleth not in God By the Doctrine of the real Presence what is received at the Holy Table is the real Body of Jesus Christ unto the good and to the wicked there is no examining if the proper Body of the Son of God be received worthily or unworthily they only say that if this Doctrine had been in vogue in Ratherius his time he would not have been to seek to know what it was the wicked did receive in the Communion because he could not but have known that it is the real Body of Jesus Christ nevertheless he declares positively that he is throughly persuaded that the Corporal substance which is received in the Sacrament is unto Believers the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and truly with great reason because then the Sacrament is accompanied with all the Vertue and Efficacy of this holy Flesh and of this precious
Blood which is inseparable from their Vertue and Efficacy But as to him which Communicates unworthily he cannot say nor so much as imagine what it is He knew very well it was the substance of Bread and Wine for he saith That it is seen that the Bread and Wine are the same they were before But because the Consecration makes them to be the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Sacraments which become unto Believers after the manner as we have shewed this Body and this Blood He cannot conceive what they become unto the wicked that is to say How one and the same Sacrament is unto some the Body and Blood of Christ and unto others a bare Sacrament only Nevertheless had it then been believed in Italy as it is now believed he could not have doubted but that it was both unto the one and the others the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although it produced not in all the same effect by reason of the variety of dispositions Ratherius was settled as it were at the Gates of Rome as it may be said It is not likely then that the Church of Rome had as yet embraced the Opinion of Paschas who taught that the Sacrament was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary for Ratherius could not then be ignorant of it and not being ignorant he would not have put himself the question which he did and had not yielded in answering of it And as to what is said by the same Ratherius in reproving the Excess and Debauchery of some of his Priests Id. Synodica ad Presbyt p. 259. That there are some that spewed before the Altar of our Lord upon the Flesh and Blood it self of the Lamb. It may easily be seen that it is an earnest expression to aggravate the sin of those of whom he speaks and that the Body of our Lord being secured from these indignities by the Confession of all Christians it must necessarily be understood of the Sacrament which takes the name of the thing which it signifies and the violation whereof reflects upon him which instituted it This is what several infer from the words of Ratherius I will not fear to joyn unto Ratherius another Witness which was also a Bishop in Italy and which is lately given unto the publick It is Atto the second of that name Bishop of Verceil Atto in capir c. 7 8 9. t. 8. Spicileg p. 4 5 Anno 945. I will not stand upon his prohibiting his Priests from saying private Masses nor in that he commands to handle decently the Bread the Wine and Water without which Masses cannot be said I will only observe what he requires Ib. c. 86. p. 31. That he which honoureth not by Fasting and Abstinence the day of the Passion of our Lord that is to say Good Friday may be deprived of the Joy of Easter and that he may not receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The occasion say some required That he should not have said the Sacrament but the Body and Blood if he had believed that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ for the punishment had been the greater and by consequence the fitter to have retained the others in their Dury And in one of his Letters unto the Priests of his Diocess going about to disswade them from Fornication and to invite them unto Chastity and Continence he represents unto them amongst other things what they do in the Celebration of the Eucharist There 's no body add they but may easily understand but that it was the proper place to alledge the priviledge they had of making and giving unto Communicants the real Body of Jesus Christ and that there is no Bishop in the Latin Church but would have done so in such an occasion But as for Atto he speaks only of the Sacrament because in all likelihood he believed not as the Latins do at this time for then he would not have failed to have spoken as they do Id. Epist ad Presby t. p. 126 What saith he is this wicked presumption that he which knoweth that he is still wallowing in his sins should undertake to make or to give unto others the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Of all that I have hither to spoken of the X. Century it is concluded that the Opinion of Paschas had not obtained a full Victory in that Age. But that of his Adversaries the marks whereof was found in England Apud Usserium de success statu Eccles Christian c. 3. p. 79 80. in France in the Country of Liege and in Italy which was doubtless the meaning of Wickliff when he assured That there was practised in the Church a thousand years together the true Doctrine of the Sacrament and that they began to err in this point in the year 1000. which I refer to the judgment of the Readers CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the XI Century THe Opinion of Paschas not making the progress it desired in the IX and X. Centuries it found more favour in the XI and spread farther therefore it was established by publick Authority but not without difficulty and opposition For I do not believe that the Author of the Life of St. Genulph who lived in all likelihood at the beginning of the XI Century and which was published by John a Bosco a Cellestin Friar was of this Opinion Lib. 1. c. 6. when he wrote of St. Genulph That from the day of his Ordination he passed the rest of his Life without drinking any Wine excepting that which he took in the Celebration of the Divine Sacrament It cannot be so spoke and believe that what is contained in the Challice is the real Blood of Jesus Christ Lutherick Arch-Bishop of Sans who died in the Year 1032. as the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans Tom. 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 742. hath observed could not possibly be of Paschas his Opinion because we read this of him in the Life of Pope John the Seventeenth or according unto others the Nineteenth In the time of this Pope Concil t. 7. p. 206. Leutherius Arch-bishop of Sans sowed the Seed and beginning of the Heresies of Berengarius Whence it is that Helgald in the Life of King Robert writes That his Doctrien increased in the World In epitome vitae Roberti regis Crescebat saith he in seculo notwithstanding the Threats this Prince made of deposing him from his Dignity if he should continue to teach it All those which were contrary to the Opinion of Paschas joyning together to defend their Faith Fulbert Bishop of Chartres who had been consecrated by Lutherick had a great kindness for him as he testifies in one of his Letters The Question is to know what his Opinion was touching the Eucharist If what he saith of the eating of the Flesh of Christ be considered which he
represents unto us to be purely spiritual Ep. 23. wherein he alledges the words of St. Austin It is a Figure which commands us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and to represent unto our minds sweetly and usefully that his Body was crucified and broken for us Ep. 1. ad Adeod t. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 438. A. B Post poeniten mulierum p. 521. E. for I do not regard the Addition that some unadvised hand hath thereunto annexed will the Heretick say And these others of the same Saint Him that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not doth not indeed eat his Flesh although he eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his Damnation Ibid. p. 522. B. Unto which words in all appearance Berengarius had regard when he said in his Letter unto Richard If the thing were so how should the Doctrine of the Eucharist come to my knowledge which is in the Writings of Bishop Fulbert of glorious Memory Tom 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 510. and which some esteem to be of this Bishop but it is of St. Austin If it be farther considered that he declares that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven and that he hath left us the Sacrament Ep. 1. ad Adcodat p. 437. C. as a Pledge of his Presence that he speaks of what we receive in the Sacrament as of a thing which is broken into very small bits and whereof a little portion is received and that he distinguisheth as Ratramn did Id. Epist 2. p. 440 441. and in the same words the Sacrament which he calls the body of Christ from his true Body If I say all these things be well considered it must presently be concluded that he was contrary unto Paschas Yet nevertheless I would not affirm that he exactly followed the Opinion of his Adversaries not because he speaks of the Transfusion and Change of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ for besides that Id. Ep. 1. p 437 438. he calls this Change a Change of Dignity that is to say of Quality which the Ancients often design by the name of Substance as hath been shewn he compares the Change which happens in the Eucharist unto that which came unto the Manna in the Wilderness and unto that which comes unto Men in Baptism and that he testifies That there is also a Transfusion of Believers into the Body of Jesus Christ Ibid. But I judge so because he seems to me to have embraced the Opinion of Remy of Auxerr which was the same of John Damascen who taught not that the substance of the Symbols was abolished but that they were united unto the Divinity to make one Body with the Natural Body of Jesus Christ as hath been fully shewed And that these were the thoughts of Fulbert it appears if I mistake not by what he saith That the Pledge which our Saviour hath left us is not the Symbol of an empty Mystery but the true Body of Jesus Christ Compaginante Spiritu Sancto Id. ibid. p. 437. or as Remy speaks Conjungente that is to say that the Holy Spirit unites joyns and knits the Sacrament unto the true Body of Jesus Christ in uniting it unto the Divinity Let the Reader judge if I use any violence unto the words of Fulbert and if I vary from his meaning About the time that Fulbert of Chartres flourished Bernon Abbot of Augy wrote his Treatise of things which concerned the Mass to wit about the Year 1030. and Fulbert died in 1027. In this Treatise he speaks of Making and confecrating the Body and Blood of the Lord Cap. 1. 2. t. 10 Bibl. Pat. but the real Body say some and the proper Blood of our Saviour not being possible to be made because it was made a thousand years before Bernon wrote nor be sanctified because it was always holy it must of necessity be understood of the Sacrament Cap. 1. And he shews it plainly when he said That this Body of Jesus Christ is broken Which cannot be understood of his true Body which is not subject unto this Accident and that moreover he declares Cap. 5. That we are refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup in Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Opinion of Paschas establishing it self by degrees Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and Berengarius born at Tours but Arch-Deacon and Treasurer of the Church of Anger 's a Dignity which in former times was not conferred but upon persons of Worth and Learning Bruno I say and Berengarius not enduring that the Opinion of Paschas which they looked upon as an Innovation of the ancient Faith should get possession of the minds of the people opposed it publickly teaching that the Bread and Wine did not lose their substance by Consecration to become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but they only became by the Blessing of Sanctification the Sacrament of this Body and Blood The truth is Bruno suffering himself to be overcome with fear became silent a little after for say some it often happens upon these occasions that Men hearken to the Counsels of the Flesh rather than unto those of the Spirit But as for Berengarius he had more strength and courage and opposed himself with more Resolution and Vigour unto the setling of the Doctrine which Paschas begun to teach in the IX Century but without any great success until the XI wherein it also found a great many Opposers I am not ignorant that some Enemies of Berengarius have endeavoured to slander him to render his Belief the more odious but the truth is he was reputed to be a very learned Man grounded in Philosophy and the knowledge of the Liberal Arts and moreover of a holy and unblameable Life A fragment of the History of France from the time of King Robert Tom 4. Histor Franc. de scripror Eccles Platina in Joan. 15. Sabellic Enead 9. l. 2. Chron. tit 16. c. 1. § 20 unto the death of Philip saith That his name was famous amongst the Professors of Divine Philosophy Sigebert saith That he was illustrious for the Knowledge of the Liberal Arts and of Logick Platina and Sabellicus reckon him amongst those which rendred themselves famous by their Piety and Learning Bergomas in the Suppliment of Chronicles upon the Year 1049. observes That he passed a long time in the Judgment of Men to be eminent in Learning and in Holiness Therefore the Arch-Bishop Antonine declares Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. That he was very learned And the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans gives him these two Epithets of Admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor But in fine the Belief which he maintained upon the Subject of the Eucharist and which was directly contrary unto that of Paschas found the people so disposed to entertain it or rather to declare openly for it so that in all
Decission of Popes and their Councils in favour of the Doctrine of Paschas separated themselves openly from their Communion and gave their Reasons for so doing in a Book which they published to that purpose in the vulgar Tongue wherein they made this Declaration of their Faith touching the Eucharist Hist de Albigensis de Paul Perrin l. 3. c. 4. The eating of the Sacramental Bread is the eating of the Body of Jesus Christ figuratively Jesus Christ having said As often as you do this do it in remembrance of me This Book as is observed by him that inserted it wholly in his History of the Albigensis and the Waldensis was taken from a Manuscript wherein was contained several Sermons of the Barbes so it was that those people called their Pastors it is dated in the Year 1120. which I find nothing strange when I consider that in the Year 1119. Pope Calixtus the Second assembled a Council at Tholouse in his own presence wherein certain Hereticks were condemned who rejected the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say which in all likelihood did not believe what the Latin Church believed We are obliged for the Canons of this Council unto Monsieur Baluze who hath inserted them wholly in a Book of Monsieur de Marca's touching the Liberties of the Gallican Church In the third of these Canons this Ordinance is made Apud Marc. de Concord l. 8. c. 18. p. 344. We expel out of the Church as Hereticks and condemn those who making a shew of piety do not approve the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord c. We command all Secular Powers to punish them and we bind with the same Bond of Excommunication those which shall protect them until such time as they shall repent This Canon as far as I see concerns only these Albigensis who not approving the Doctrine of the Latin Church upon the point of the Eucharist separated themselves from their Communion after it had condemned the Doctrine taught by Berengarius and established that of Paschas in the XI Century although it had not admitted thereof before And what confirms me in this Opinion is what I find in the Chronicle of St. Tron in the Country of Liege touching Radolph Abbot of that Monastery and besides Author of the Chronicle viz. That being gone to Rome in Pope Honorius the Second his time who was advanced to this Dignity in the Year 1125. and held the Chair five years he had a design to travel into another Country which he doth not name but that he was informed that it was infected with the Heresie of the Sacramentarians that is to say the Doctrine which was condemned in the person of Berengarius It adds Moreover Tom. 7. Spicil d'Ach. p. 493. he understood that the Country towards which he had a design to travel in going farther it was infected with the old Heresie of the Body and Blood of our Lord. This Radolph was Abbot of Tron Anno 1108. and he wrote his Chronicle about the Year 1125. There was then at that time a Country wherein Profession was made of a Belief contrary unto that of the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament and because this Abbot had received and approved the Decisions of Leo Victor Nicholas and of Gregory against Berengarius and against his Doctrine he calls the other Opinion Heresie and not only Heresie but the old Heresie this is the very term he useth which sheweth that the Belief which he condemns was no new Invention according to the Judgment of this Author but that it had of a long time been much spoken of and that it was publickly professed by great numbers of people especially in the Country mentioned by him which in all probability was the Country of Languedock wherein the followers of Berengarius spread and published abroad his Doctrine immediately after his death not valuing the Prohibitions and Decrees of the Councils of Verceil of Rome and of Tours On the contrary seeing they authorized and passed into an Article of Faith an Opinion which they esteemed to be Novel and contrary unto the ancient Doctrine of Christians they separated and broke off from the Latin Church in whose Communion they had lived till that time These people had for their chief Conducter Peter de Bruis who after having defended and maintained this Faith and Doctrine having preached and published it for the space of twenty years in Languedock in Gascoygne and elsewhere was at last Martyred and burnt at St. Giles in Languedock by the care and diligence of the Latin Church preferring rather to suffer death and to seal with his Blood the Doctrine which he had taught and which infinite numbers of people openly professed than to return unto the Communion which he had forsaken After Peter de Bruis succeeded Henry who with some others defended the Faith of these Churches which after his Name were called Henritians as they had been also called Petrobusians from the Name of his Predecessor It is true that those which had caused Peter de Bruis to be burnt found means also to suppress Henry by Order of Pope Eugenius for Cardinal Alberick Vita S. Bernardi l. 3. c. 5. Bishop of Osty his Legat having got him into his power order'd matters so that he was never heard of after neither could it be heard of what manner of death he died but we know very well that Pope Eugenius being informed of the great progress made by Henry after the death of Peter de Bruis whose Martyrdom did only increase and heighten his Zeal for the Defence of the Faith we know I say that the Pope sent Alberick his Legat who with Gaufrid Bishop of Chartres St. Bernard Abbot of Clervaux who was at that time in great esteem with some others Baron ad An. 1147. who went towards Tholouse to pluck up these Thorns as Cardinal Baronius saith St. Bernard wrote beforehand unto Alphonsus Count of St. Giles in Languedock who favoured Henry with his Protection notwithstanding the violent death which Peter de Bruis had suffered Bernard Ep. 240. In this Letter St. Bernard saith several things against the Doctrine and the Conversation of Henry who from a Friar that he was had embraced the Opinion and Party of Peter his Colleague less modest therein than Peter de Cluny his Contemporary and also a great Enemy of the Albigensis Contr. Petrobrus against whom he wrote under the name of Petrobusians for he declares that he will suspend his Judgment of what was reported of Henry until he was more certainly informed of it So that I cannot tell if it might not be applied unto St. Bernard In Frideric l. 1. c. 47. in this occasion what was said by Otto de Frisinge That by a mildness which was natural unto him he became in a manner over credulous In fine St. Bernard being come to Tholouse Vita Bernard l. 3. c. 5 6. he bestirred himself with much
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
unto whom with thy Father and thy good holy and quickning Spirit appertains the Glory both now and for ever Amen As for what regards the Latin Church it is no less difficult precisely to determine the time when Perfume was first offered in the Celebration of the Sacrament It may very well be inferred from what hath been alledged of St. Austin that this practice was not received in his days in the West at least in the Church of Africa I say not in the Church of Africa for I find in the Life of Boniface the first Contemporary with St. Austin this Ordinance That no Woman or Nun In lib. Pontific t 1. Concil p. 884. should touch nor wash the sacred Corporal nor cause to be burnt any Incense in the Church saving the Deacons only I know the Pontifical Book from whence this Life is taken is a Book upon which no solid foundation can be laid those which have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity make no esteem of it And the Impostor that forged the Decretals of the first Popes hath made Soter to make a Decrete in the II. Century like unto that of Boniface in the V. but for all that I would not so absolutely deny the truth of the Ordinance of Boniface as I would that of Soter for although the Pontifical Book is not always to be believed nevertheless it cannot be said as positively as of the Decretal of Soter that it is forged There is but one thing that sticks with me and is the reason that I cannot give credit to the Decrete which is to be seen in the Life of Boniface It is that in all the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the First nor in those of Ecclesiastical Offices of St. Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil there is no mention at all made to the best of my remembrance touching the Oblation of Perfume It is not so of the Book called The Roman Order wherein there is express mention made of it as also in Amalarius Fortunatus who lived in the IX Century but as for the Roman Order all are not agreed of its age most thinking it was written towards the end of the VIII Century and some in the XI After all in admitting the Decrete of Pope Boniface the First it will follow that the use of Perfume and Incense in the Worship and Service of Religion was not received by the Latins before the V. Century if it be certain that it was then it self received In a Book which treateth of Divine Offices which Melchior Historpius caused to be printed together with the Roman Order there is several Prayers for consecrating and blessing the Censer and the Incense of each it will suffice to relate one I say in the first place for the Censer in blessing whereof this Prayer is made unto God Tom. 10. Bibl. Pat. O Lord God who at the time that the Children of Israel were devoured by fire by reason of their Rebellion thou wert pleased to hear the prayers of thy High Priest Aaron standing betwixt the Dead and the Living and offering thee Incense and saving the people out of the midst of the fire bless we pray thee this Censer and grant that as often as we therein offer Incense unto thee we may become a Temple of a sweet savour acceptable unto thy Christ And for the Perfume and Incense Ibid. O Almighty Lord God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob send upon this Creature of Perfume and of Incense the strength and vertue of thy savour to the end it may serve for a protection and defence unto thy Servants to hinder the Enemy from entring into their hearts and there fix his abode and residence through Jesus Christ our Lord Amen And in the Pontifical Pontific Rom. par 2. fol. 136. 2 Venise 1582. O Lord God Almighty in whose presence doth stand with trembling the Army of holy Angels whose service is wholly spiritual and full of zeal be pleased to behold bless and sanctifie this Incense and Perfume to the end that all the failures the infirmities and all the stratagems of the Enemy smelling its savour may fly away and depart from thy Creatures which thou hast ransomed with the precious Blood of thy Son never to be wounded by the biting of the wicked Serpent through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen But because that which is called the Apostles fourth Canon joyns unto Incense the Oyl for the Lights or Lamps at the time of celebrating the Sacrament it will not be amiss to enquire into the first Original of this Custom as we have done into that of Incense To this purpose the Reader need not expect that we should treat of the primitive Christians making use of Lamps and Candles in their Assemblies because every body knows they did not use them for Ceremony but through pure necessity being forced to assemble in the night and early before day-light for fear of Persecution From thence did proceed the unjust slanders wherewith they were charged in Minucius Foelix of causing the Lights to be extinguished the more greedily to satisfie their Lusts and sensual Appetites Neither will I speak of the Wax Candles and Flambeaus which were used on Easter Eve nor stand to shew when their use began not only on this occasion but also in Feasts and Funerals as well as unto the honour of Images These things may probably be answered at some more convenient time for the present we must limit our selves within the matter which concerns the Sacrament whereof we write the History and by consequence only consider the use of the light of Lamps and Candles in that which relates unto the Worship and Service of God Tertullian accounted it as a great Superstition in the Gentiles for using Candles and Flambeaus in the day time and saith Christians do not so Apolog. c. 35. We saith he do not burn day-light with Candles and Flambeaus And he saith so upon account of what was acted by the Pagans upon Holy Days and publick Rejoycings particularly unto the honour of the Emperors But elsewhere he speaketh in a manner which giveth plainly to understand that the Christians of his time did not at all admit for Ceremony the use of Candles Flambeaus or other Lights in the Worship of their Religion so that if they made use of any it was only during their Nocturnal Assemblies their Enemies not suffering them to meet together in the day time Let them saith he every day light Flambeaus he speaks of what was done in the Temples of Idols which are absolutely in darkness De Idol c. 15. Let them which are threatned with eternal fire fasten Lawrels at their doors that they might afterwards burn them for these tokens of darkness and these fore-runners of pains and punishments become them very well Could a Christian have spoke after this manner against a Heathen Superstition if in his Religion he had practised the use of Lights and Flambeaus He would have spoke in another manner and
Century heartily desired Lib. 3. de divin office in praefat It would suffice saith he without Singers without Readers and without all the other things practised in the celebration of the Sacrament that the Bishop or Priest should pronounce the blessing to consecrate the Bread and Wine to the end the People should be nourished for the salvation of their Souls as the Apostles did at the first beginning of Christianity By which words he sheweth that he found the celebration of this Mystery too much clogg'd with Ceremonies as also St. Austin found that all the Christian Religion was 500 years before Amalarius for he complains That Religion is burdened with heavy yokes Ep. 119. c. 19. so that the state of the Jews is more supportable But now it is time to consider the preparations of the Communicant having examined those of him which Celebrates CHAP. II. Of the Dispositions necessary for the Communion And first Of the Inclinations of the devout Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ WHen our blessed Saviour did distribute the Bread and Wine of his Eucharist to his Apostles he said unto them Do this in remembrance of me which his Apostle doth extend to the Commemoration of his Death and of his Sufferings a Remembrance which draweth after it all the good and holy dispositions which the Communicant should have towards God and Jesus Christ And these Inclinations proceed from several Idea's which this saving remembrance doth stir up in our Souls at the time in which we do prepare our selves for the participation of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For although the Sacrament was instituted principally for remembring the death of our Saviour nevertheless because his Death is inseparable from his Incarnation Resurrection and Ascension so it is that we approach unto the holy Communion after having meditated on all these great and sublime Mysteries every one of which produceth in our Souls dispositions somewhat different as having divers objects and several encouragements the which nevertheless are all heavenly and all divine and all which do tend unto one mark and unto one end which is the Glory of God and of Jesus Christ and the eternal Salvation of our Souls And to say the truth this Sacrament cannot represent unto our eyes all these great and wonderful objects but that it opens unto us at the same time a wide Field for our Meditation to enlarge upon from the Incarnation of the eternal Word even unto his second coming to Judgment and we cannot finish this glorious course without having all the dispositions which God requires and all the preparations which he desires of us This will plainly appear if we do severally reflect upon all the Idea's which the remembrance of our Saviour and of his Sufferings do present unto our Souls and what the Fathers have said upon each of them and if we also feel the divine motions which will necessarily flow from the Christian Soul For example The holy Fathers have considered the Eucharist as a Memorial a Symbol an Image and a Sacrament of the Incarnation or as the Doctors of the Greek Church speak of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that is to say of that free and merciful dispensation which inclined him to take our Nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin Mary by the miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost which is what St. Justin Martyr would say when he observed Contr. Try phon p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance in that he was made Man for those which should believe in him It was also the thoughts of Eusebius Demonstr l. 8. a Genesi That Jesus Christ gave unto his Apostles the Symbols of his divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the Image of his true Body And it cannot be any way doubted but it was on this same consideration that Pope Gelasius said De duabus in Christo natur That we do celebrate in the Action of the Mysteries the Image and resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that we must believe of our Lord Jesus Christ that it self which we profess in his Image which we there celebrate and there receive that is to say that we should be persuaded of the truth of his Flesh and Blood the Symbols and Sacraments whereof we do receive at the holy Table It is just what St. Leo intended to express by these words which were addressed unto the Eutychians You should communicate at the holy Table in such a manner Serm. 6. de jejun 7. mensis pag. 86. that you may not in the least doubt of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It is whereunto also attendeth all the passages of the Fathers which prove either against the Eutychians or against the Docetes and the Putatifs the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ by the Eucharist as the existence of a thing is proved by the Image and by the Figure which represents it Dialog 2. p. 84. because according to Theoderet's saying There must be an Arch-type of the Image because the Painers which imitate Nature do represent the Images of things which are seen From whence he draws this Conclusion If the divine Mysteries are the Figure of a true Body then the Body of our Lord is now also a true Body not changed into the nature of the Divinity but filled with the divine Glory A Reasoning for the most part like unto that of Tertullian against Marcian for having expounded these words This is my Body by these others That is to say Lib. 4. advers Marcion c. 40. the Figure of my Body he adds That it would not have been a Figure if there had not been the truth of a Body or a true Body And indeed this Idea of the Incarnation of our Lord was in such a manner imprinted in the minds of Communicants that the last Prayer of St. Basil's Liturgy begins thus O Jesus Christ our God Bibl. Patr. t. 2. Graeco-Lat we have accomplished and finished according to our power the Sacrament of thine Oeconomy and Dispensation This Meditation which representeth unto us the horrour of sin the sad condition we were in the fearful Gulph wherein we have precipitated our selves the Love of the Father the tender Charity of the Son the admirable work of our Redemption the great Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh fills us full of Gratitude unto God And if unto the Idea of his Conception and Birth we joyn that of his Life therein to contemplate the purity of his Innocence the glory of his Miracles the splendor of his Vertues the efficacy of his Doctrine and the shame of his Sufferings we shall therein find so great joy so great comfort and so great pleasure in the contemplation of this divine Scene that we shall be insensibly transformed into the same Image from Glory unto Glory to speak with St. Paul that is to say
It is evident that this respect and veneration hath reference unto the Body of Jesus Christ as the Adoration of the Wise men had which adored him when they saw him in the Manger at Bethlehem as Communicants adore him when they see him not in himself but in his Sacrament whereof he grants them the favour to participate All the World doth confess that Jesus Christ is not any more visible unto the Eyes of Men since his Ascension into Heaven I think that it is so also are to be understood the Adorations spoken of in a Liturgy which is attributed unto St. Chrysostom but cannot be his the Author being much younger than him There be some also which attribute it unto John the Second called the Mute Patriarch of the same Church but about 200 years after St. Chrysostom and yet neither is it very certain that it is of this John To conclude the Copies are very different for in that amongst the works of St. Chrysostom there is no mention made of Adoring but once when the Gospel is carried and when 't is lifted up because then the Choir saith Tom. 4. p. 9â—3 Come let us Worship and kneel down before Jesus Christ excepting that the Priest and Deacon bow the Head in several places in the Liturgy before and after the Consecration and that the People are once warned to bow the Head to give thanks unto God In liturg c. 7. Cassander represents another unto us in his Liturgies of the version of Leo Tuscus wherein there is no mention of Adoration but is not so of two others which we have one in the Library of the Holy Fathers and the other in the Ritual of the Greeks by James Goar of the Order of Preaching Friars for in both these there is frequent mention made of Adoring It is true these sorts of Adorations are there practised before the Consecration and after which plainly sheweth they were addressed unto God and unto Jesus Christ because the Bread and Wine by the Doctrine it self of the Church of Rome are not to be adored until after Consecration The thing will appear yet plainer if we consider the prayers which be there made when they dispose themselves unto the Communion Tom. 4. obser Clarysâ—st p. 618.8 〈◊〉 Pat. t. 2. Gree-Latiâ— p. â—1 Lord Jesus saith the Priest behold us from thy holy habitation and from the Throne of thy Glory and come sanctifie us thou who art in the Heavens sitting with thy Father and art here present with us in an invisible manner be pleased to give us by thy powerful hand thy pure and unspotted Body and thy precious Blood and by us unto all the People This prayer as every body sees hath for its Object Jesus Christ Reigning in Heaven and present unto his faithful Communicants by his Eternal Divinity and by the participation of his Grace Besides that Erasmus whose Translation comes nearer the Greek then that which is in the Library of the Holy Fathers and which we have followed because it is better liked by some Roman Catholick Doctors hath Translated these words Ibid. Be pleased by thy powerful hand to give us thy pure and immaculate Body and thy precious Blood In like manner when the Priest the Deacon and the People do Worship it is in saying three times Lord or as it is in the Ritual of the Greeks O God have mercy upon me who am a sinner which words do shew that this Adoration doth address it self unto God only who is therein expresly mentioned I say the same of the prayer which the Priest makes in taking the holy Bread when bowing his Head before the holy Table he saith I confess that thou art the Christ Ibid. p 32. the Son of the living God which didst come into the World to save sinners whereof I am chief c. After which he beseecheth him that he will vouchsafe to enter into his Soul filled with Passions and into his Body polluted with sin It cannot then be questioned but this prayer hath reference unto Jesus Christ and not unto the Sacrament which cannot enter into our Souls whereas our Saviour doth therein enter and into our Bodies also by the vertue of his Grace and by the efficacy of his holy Spirit for the sanctifying of them both of which Sanctification dependeth their Salvation and their Life As for the Deacons adoring when he cometh unto the Communion of the Cup in saying Ibid p. 8â—3 I come unto the King Immortal it can admit of no other Interpretation for I do not here examine what was the belief of the Ancient Church upon the point of the Sacrament I only inquire what the Ancients have said of the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Act of communicating not to confound the Adoration of the Master with the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore unto all the passages which have been alledged I will yet add two others unto which if I mistake not the same Explication ought to be given The first is taken from a fragment of the life of Luke the Anchorite who lived in the X. Century wherein is read these words You should sing Psalms which are suitable unto this Mystery In auctar Francis Combef t. 2. p. 986. and according to the Greek Typical Psalms and which do represent it Or the Hymn called Trysagion with the Symbol of the Creed then you shall three times bow the Knees and joyning the hands you shall with the mouth participate of the precious body of Jesus Christ our God It is easie to see that these three Genuflections have relation unto him to whom the Trysagion was sung that is to say unto God the Father Son and Holy Ghost of whom they begged Grace to communicate worthily I place in the same rank the History of St. Theoctista who having lived 35 years in a wilderness in the Isle of Paros desired a Huntsman whom she met by accident that he would the year following bring her the Sacrament Apud Metaphrast in vit S. Theoctist c. 13. which the Huntsman having done the Saint cast her self upon the ground received the Divine Gift and wetting the ground with her tears she said Lord now let thy Servant depart in peace because mine eyes have seen the Saviour which thou hast given us or as Cardinal du Perron hath translated Because mine eyes have seen thy healthiness After what way soever these words are taken nothing else can lawfully be gathered but that this Maid being transported with a holy joy in that God was pleased to give her the benefit of participating of this Divine Mystery of the enjoyment whereof she had been so long deprived she profoundly humbles her self in his presence in rendring thanks for procuring her so great a benefit and so sweet and solid a Consolation not to speak of Cardinal Baronius his often undervaluing Metaphrastus who relates the life of this Saint But besides this first consideration we must make a second which
which said That Jesus Christ was but a meer Man The others That he had only a shadow of a Body They pretend I say that the silence of the Fathers upon the subject of the Adoration of the Sacraments in disputing against these Hereticks is an evident proof that it was not adored in the Ancient Church because if it had been adored they would have urged this Adoration both against the one and the other because one adores not the Body of a common Man nor an imaginary Body and which hath nothing of a true Body but a deceitful appearance It is also what is farther inferred by some amongst them from the silence of the same Fathers in their Disputes against the Aquarians which celebrated the Eucharist with Water only saying They could not dispence themselves from alledging this act of Adoration to represent unto them that the Consecration not being to be performed with Water only they would be guilty of the crime of Idolatry to adore common Water as if it had been the Blood of Jesus Christ whatever intention they might have had otherwise They say the same of the Canon made by the third Council of Braga Anno 675. against those which Consecrated Milk instead of Wine in the Holy Cup the Fathers satisfying themselves in saying that the Institution of our Lord admitted not to celebrate with Milk nevertheless say the Protestants if the Church had practised the Adoration of the Eucharist had not that been the fit time to have spoken of it and to have shewed That those which did celebrate the Sacrament with Milk caused the Church to be guilty of Idolatry because the People adoring the Cup could not in effect adore any thing but Milk How comes it to pass say they again that this publick Service of Religion this Adoration of the Sacrament was never alledged to overthrow Nestorias who said in speaking of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ That he could not adore him which had been an Infant of two Months old and which had sucked the Breasts As for the Greek Church I cannot tell how after all that hath been said at the end of the XII Chapter of the Second Part it can be thought the Greeks adore the Sacrament It is true that all things which we therein observed do not well agree as many say with this act of Adoration no more than the reproach made by Arcudius a Greek Latinised against the Greeks whereof we made mention in the same place when he saith That they give but little or no honour unto the Sacrament As for Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica who wrote in the XIV Century he saith only That believers willing to shew their Devotion and their Faith adore bless and celebrate as God that is to say in the Act of communicating Jesus Christ who is understood in his gifts Nevertheless certain words of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia are cited who was a Prelate at Venice about 45 years ago the which do formally lay down the Adoration we treat of But the Protestants answer thereunto that besides that the Greeks do several things which as hath been shewed agree not with this Adoration There never hath been in the Greek Church any Decree made for the adoring of the Eucharist neither doth there appear any in their publick Books of Religion They say moreover That there is no certainty that the words cited under the name of Gabriel of Philadelphia are his because the Greek hath never been cited And that if it were true that they had been spoke by this Prelate it were not to be thought strange that a Greek living amongst the Latins should be prevailed upon by the ordinary practice of those which adore the Sacrament with the Worship of Latry but that his example and testimony conclude nothing touching the body of the Greek Church In fine Anthony Cancus a Patrician of Venice Archbishop of Corfou answering unto Pope Gregory the XIII which had commanded him particularly to inform him of the differences betwixt the Greek and Latin Church observes expresly in his History of the Heresies of the Modern Greeks the Manuscript whereof is to be seen in the Kings Library that there is no Christian Communion which renders less reverence less honour nor less Worship unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist than the Greeks do He also adds that having taxed them with the little respect they give unto the Sacrament that they answered him That there was no command which required this Adoration From whence he takes occasion to compare them unto Oecolampadius who plainly taught that the Sacrament should not be adored with the Worship of Latry Let the Reader judge of this dispute for it is not my business to decide it Therefore from the consideration of the Greek Church I pass unto that of Ethiopia or the Abyssins in the which according to the testimony of Francis Alvarez a Priest of Portugal and an Eye-witness In his Voyage into Fthiopia cap. 11. all the People as well Men as Women go unto the Communion with their hands lift up and open and during the whole Office and all the time of the Communion every one is standing Damian a Goes p. 507. the which is confirmed by Zaga Zabo an Abyssin who in the Explication of their Faith translated by Damian Goes observes that in saying their Mass they do not shew the Sacrament of the Eucharist as he saw that it was usually practised amongst the Latins The which doth shew how little credit is to be given unto a Liturgy of the Abyssins which is put into Latin in the Library of the Holy Fathers without mentioning from whence it was taken or who it is that translated it and in the which there is mention made both of the Elevation and Adoration of the Sacrament the which is directly contrary unto the Deposition of these two infallible Witnesses whose testimonies we just now received and the one of which to wit Alvarez expresly observes that the Abyssins do not lift up the Sacrament in the Celebration of their Eucharist which is the cause as the other saith that the Sacrament is not shewed unto the People as it is amongst the Latins And in the West it self there hath always been People which have celebrated the Sacrament without adoring or lifting it up as we have shewed at large in the first Part of this Historical Treatise because before the Introduction of the Elevation or Adoration of it in the Latin Church Berengarius with his followers were grown very eminent who were immediately followed by the Albigensis and Waldensis which spread themselves in France Italy England in Bohemia and elsewhere and all those celebrated the Eucharist without lifting up or adoring the Sacrament which practice was followed by the Taborites of Bohemia at the beginning of the XV. Century and the which is also practised by Protestants which are in very great numbers in all parts of Europe In fine to conclude this Chapter and at the same
figuratively and on the contrary that they spake literally and properly when they affirmed that it is Bread and Wine Now the Reader will perceive in perusing this Treatise what manner of speaking these Holy Doctors have used herein for it is enough for me here to propose unto him the means of right understanding them The fourth rule to be observed for the right understanding their testimonies is not to make them clash one against another nor to imbroil them in contradictions for it must be supposed that they were prudent and judicious enough not to contradict themselves and to keep themselves from a reproach which would have been cast on them had that befaln them There are two things in their works relating to the matter we treat of which should be carefully distinguished but in such sort as to take them always in good Sense I mean the ground of their Doctrine and its consequences And indeed the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers having had its consequences as the greatest number of Doctrines have had it is evident that of two explications which may be given unto it there is but one that is true that which shall make a contradiction betwixt the Doctrine and its consequences and the consequences and the Doctrine is false and contrary to their Intention whereas that that reconciles both is lawful and genuine for their Doctrine must be considered with its consequences as a Body whereof all the parts should have a dependance the one to the other and all tend to the same end as so many lines to the center I have examined a great many of these consequences in this History to the end that those who read it may judge if they agree with the foundation of the Doctrine and if the Doctrine and its consequences do favour the substantial change for if the consequences favour this change it will be a great presumption that the Doctrine doth not disfavour it although it should not so positively establish it as the Latins have done But also if all these consequences are directly opposite unto the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it will be a manifest proof that the ground of the Doctrine is no less opposite unto it and that the Antients have not received this Doctrine into the Object of their Faith and that they made it not an Article of their Belief This fourth rule shall be strengthened with a fifth which appears no less important unto me and which only demands that doubtful and uncertain passages ought to be explained by certain passages and the obscure by the clear and manifest ones This is a Maxim of Tertullian's which I 'll not alledge in this place because it is alledged in the Body of the Work but after all there 's nothing more just and reasonable It often befals most Authors to deliver themselves more happily at one time than at another though they treat of the same Subject it happens unto some through neglect or not having well digested their thoughts it being impossible to express themselves clearly on a Subject if the mind have only confused notions of it others do so for reason which may here be said particularly of the Fathers of the Church when they treat of the Sacraments principally of that of the Eucharist for there were certain Times and Places when they explained not themselves so clearly as at other times although they never said any thing contrary to their Sentiments the discipline of their times not suffering them to do otherwise But however the matter hapned it seems very just and equal when the mind of an Author would be known upon a matter which he hath treated in divers Places in some places clearer than at others to have recourse unto those Places wherein he hath most clearly explained himself and by those to interpret the others wherein he expressed himself more obscurely either through inadvertency or for reason more darkly and ambiguously this kind of proceeding is natural unto all Mankind and reason shews 't is the safest way can be taken in these occasions I will not fear to say that 't is the only means to terminate the Disputes and Controversies of Religion because they all arising from the several interpretations given unto passages of the Holy Scriptures and of those of the antient Doctors of the Church they might be easily reconciled if Men would agree that the most clear and intelligible should serve as a Commentary unto the more difficult and obscure Unto all these rules I will add a sixth which shall be the last The Fathers being on this occasion to be considered as witnesses examin'd to learn of them what was the belief of the antient Church touching the Sacrament there 's no question to be made but that the greater number ought to be preferr'd before the less and that the lesser number ought to submit unto the greater things being otherwise alike I mean both the one and the other being of equal Authority and their Testimony alike worthy of belief for instance if eight or ten amongst them should unanimously depose that the substance of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is abolished by the Consecration and that there remain only the accidents and appearance which subsist miraculously without any Subject and that there was but one that said to the contrary It is not to be doubted but the testimony of the Ten ought to be preferr'd before one single Person because every one of the Ten is as credible in his particular as he that is alone of his own Opinion and that there is much more likelihood that one single Person may be mistaken in relating the belief of the Church than ten Persons that agree in their Testimonies But by the same reason if Ten be found that testifie that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and that on the contrary one single Person shall say it is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ we are obliged to confess that the belief for the which the ten Persons do declare hath been the true Belief of the antient Church and that the sentiments of this single Person is a particular Opinion which ought to be rejected or at the least if possible endeavour to recover him unto the general Opinion believed amongst the Christians of his time by giving unto his words a more mild Explication and the most favourable Construction that may be I think no Body can reasonably condemn the Means which I have proposed the practice whereof may conduce very much to the right understanding of the Holy Fathers provided we observe them sincerely and no other end be proposed in explaining their Testimonies but what I have had in reporting them in this Treatise that is a love of the Truth Tertul. de Virgin veland c. 1. Against which no prescription can be made neither by length of time by the credit of Persons nor by the Priviledges of Countreys To conclude the Reader may be pleased
Mischief befall thee who didst defile the Bed of my Father and of my Lord. This Testimony is so much the more authentick as that it is grounded upon the mixture which was made of the consecrated Wine with Ink an action which the Christians of those times blamed not yet it is evident that they would not have failed to condemn it as a great Crime if they had believed that it was the real Blood of their Saviour It is after this manner they interpret the thought of this Historian CHAP. XIV A Continuation of the History of the IX Century wherein the Dignities and Promotion of Heribold is discoursed of ALthough the Testimony of good men ought alike to be considered and admitted of nevertheless it must be granted that there be some persons that give greater credit unto that which they affirm their extraordinary Merit or the degree they are in above others rendring it more authentick or more worthy to be believed which is most especially done in matters of Religion in regard whereof there are sometimes persons to be found whose Depositions turn the Balance and do much support the Opinion in whose favour they declare I judge that Heribald or Heribold was of this number and quality therefore we have reserved a whole Chapter for him to examine in the first place the Dignities which he enjoyed in the Church and then his Belief upon the point of the Sacrament As to the first Head Heribald or Heribold for the Writers of that Age give him indifferently that Name was a Bishop a Dignity which every body knows is very considerable and in fine Messieurs de St. Gall. Christ t. 2. p. 269. Martha reckon him to be the 36th Bishop of the Church of Auxerr and do observe that he was a person of good Quality and very much esteemed by King Charles the Bald in whose Reign he flourished There is not any question to be made but his proper Merits were the Foundation of his Credit with this Prince Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 19. 37. Whence it is that Loup Abbot of Ferriers calls him Most Excellent Prelate and speaks of him as of a Man endowed with a sublime and divine Spirit But besides the Dignity of Bishop it may be collected by the 37th Letter which Loup writ unto him that he was also Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald. It is the Induction which is made by Monsieur Baluze unto whom we are beholden for the last Edition of the Works of Loup Abbot of Ferriers and certainly he doth it with great reason for by only carefully observing this Letter one may perceive the marks of this Dignity in the person of Heribold In the first place Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 37. Loup represents him unto us as being intrusted with multiplicity of Affairs that employ him continually from which he wishes him some ease that he might have some time to spend in reading St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Prophets whereof he sent him a Copy before he had read it himself I know that the Charge of Pastor and Bishop is attended with much trouble when it is faithfully and conscientiously discharged Nevertheless that continual attendance and multiplicity of business spoken of by Loup cannot be attributed unto the Office of a Bishop And what puts the thing out of question is that he calls this sort of business Publick Affairs that is to say great and important Business in a word which the chief Chaplains were wont to determine in the Princes Palace as we shall see and as Monsieur Baluze has observed in his Notes upon his Letters Secondly Loup intimates this Dignity by these words Officii clarissimus gradus which imports an illustrious Degree and something that is sublime and eminent In fine he congratulates him with the many Honours conferred upon him Vos convenientibus cumulatos congratulor honoribus All which things tend only to design this eminent Dignity And if we had not this Letter of the Abbot de Ferriers we could not doubt but Heribold was Principal Chaplain because the History of the Bishops of Auxerr which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father Labbe saith so in plain terms and speaks of him as of an eloquent wise and circumspect person abounding in Vertues and full of Probity It was this Heribold which assisted at the Council of Tours Anno 849. But because it is not sufficient to know that Heribold was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald unless we know wherein this high Office consisted I hope the Reader will not be offended if I here make some little Digression to shew what the Dignity of Arch Chaplain was Under the second Race of our Kings there were two Palatine Offices that is to say of the Palace and of the King's Houshold which were the two chiefest Offices of the Crown The one of which took cognizance of all things relating to spiritual matters and the other of all things relating unto temporal matters The first was called Principal Chaplain Arch Palatine Chief Chaplain Prelate of the Sacred Palace and the other was called Count of the Palace very different from those Counts which were sent into the Provinces to administer Justice Unto each of whose Jurisdiction there was commonly assigned the Extent of a Bishop's Diocess I speak on purpose of the second Race of our Kings because I find indeed there were Counts of the Palace under the first Race Hignon in not ad lib. 1. Marculf p. 288. by what the late Monsieur Bignon said in his Notes upon Marculf where he instanceth an Example after what manner the Kings of the first Race did judge affairs wherein mention is made of Andobella Count of the Palace and of Clothair Son of Clovis the Second and Grandson of Dagobert But as for Principal Chaplain I find not any until the second Race Now the better to know what was the power and privileges of these two Dignities we must consider what Adelard near Relation of Charlemains and Abbot of Gorby doth inform us in one of Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims his Letters for he writes that the Office of Principal Chaplain and that of Count of the Palace Hincmar Ep. 3 c. 19. Edi. Mog were the two Principal Offices of the Kings Houshold That the former that is to say the Apocrisary who was called the Chief Chaplain or Governour of the Palace had the charge and took an account of all Ecclesiastical matters and of all Church Officers and the Count of the Palace of all secular causes and things so that neither Ecclesiastical nor secular persons were permitted to trouble the King about their affairs until they had first advised with these Officers to see if their business merited to be mentioned unto the Prince but if it was a business whereof the King should take present cognizance they disposed the King to hear them honourably patiently and favourably according to each persons quality And speaking again of Ecclesiastical judgments which