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
which is of a vast extent hath constantly unto this day observed and retained this practice James Goar of the Order of Preaching Friers who hath left us the Euchology or Ritual of the Greeks with Notes of a very sound judgment takes much pains in explaining the manner of Consecration practised by the Greek Church endeavouring to give it a sense which may not be contrary to the Latin Church he cites these words of the Liturgy which goes under St. Chrysostom's name 〈◊〉 p â—7 We also offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody Sacrifice and we beseech thee that thou wouldest send thy holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts offered make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ Upon these words and particularly upon the last Goar makes a very long observation Not. in Euchol p. 140 141. num 138 139. in the first place he observes upon these words send thy holy Spirit That there is a very great difference betwixt the new Editions of this Liturgy of St. Chrysostom's and the antient Manuscripts That some of the late Greeks have from hence drawn some kind of shew of support for their ill opinion touching Consecration Secondly upon these words make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ That Chrysostom who is the Author of the Liturgy could not believe that Consecration was made by Prayers as some Greeks have vainly supposed seeing saith he he attributes elsewhere unto the words of Christ the vertue of changing the Elements that is the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood That nevertheless these Prayers used by the Greeks were a Stone of stumbling and 't was by these Prayers not rightly understood that Cabasilas Simeon of Thessalonica Mark of Ephesus Gabriel of Philadelphia and some others have been deceived and have cast the ignorant into Error and 't is not to be denied but the most part of the Greeks have written darkly and dubiously and that gave way unto Error in minds that were unstedfast And in fine hath commended Arcudius and Bessarion both Greeks Latinized the latter of which was present at the Council of Florence under Eugenius the Fourth and was gained by the Latins and the other wrote a great while afterwards of the agreement betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching the matter of the Sacraments Goar then having praised them as two persons who by their skill and pains removed all the difficulties which were found about the words and form of Consecration adds That to the end we should not labour in doing what was already done what remains is that if any farther light can be given unto other mens labours we should endeavour to do it by new inventions But that it self shews plainly that the Greeks did consecrate otherwise than the Latins Besides the Reader may easily perceive both by what we have said and by the proceeding of Bessarion Arcudius and Goar what is the manner of the Consecration of the Symboles amongst the Greeks it is true that Arcudius used all his endeavours to conform the opinion of the Greeks unto that of the Latins giving for this purpose unto the Liturgies which go in the name of St. Mark St. Clement St. James St. Basil and St. Chrysostom L. 3. de concord cap. 25. ad 33. the most favourable construction he could contrive because they attribute all the Consecration unto Prayers and doth blame Cabasilas Mark of Ephesus Simeon of Thessalonica Gabriel of Philadelphia Samonas Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople because they taught that the Consecration of Symboles was made by Prayers But this proceeding sufficiently doth shew that the Greek Church never owned any other form of Consecration But to return unto James Goar In Euchol p. 140 141. he saith one thing which ought not to be past over in silence which is That the Greeks which assisted at the Council of Florence agreed that it was unto the words of Jesus Christ that the force and vertue of Consecration ought to be attributed and to confirm what he saith he alledges the Answer they made unto Pope Eugenius which stuck in suspense because they added unto the words of Jesus Christ certain Prayers to demand the Consecration as if it had not been otherwise compleat the Answer I say which was made him in the behalf of the whole Nation by the Bishops of Russia of Nice of Trebizond and of Mitylene as we read in the eighth Tome and 25th Session of the Council of Florence in which Answer Goar still finds some difficulty But if the learned Goar had seen before publishing his Euchology the true History of the Council of Florence by Sylvester Sguropulus great Ecclesiastick of the Church of Constantinople and one of the five Counsellors of the Patriarch and by consequence of the chiefest of the Assembly of the Greeks he would not have said that the four Bishops above-mentioned had answered Pope Eugenius in behalf of the whole Nation Hist Conc. Florent sect 10. c. 1. p. 278. for the truth is the Greek Emperor having at last agreed with the Latins upon four Articles without the knowledge and consent of those of his Nation except it were some few that had been gained by the Court of Rome the Latins demanded of the Greeks they should expunge out of their Rituals and Books of Divine Service this third Benediction in celebrating of the unbloody Sacrifice or in the invocating of the Holy Ghost which the Priest is wont to pronounce saying That these words Take eat this is my Body and drink you all did consecrate the Bread and the Cup and that the Greeks erred very much in using of Prayers and invoking the Holy Ghost after pronouncing the words of our Lord. Whereupon there were several contests between the Emperor of Constantinople and the Latins Ibid. p. 278 279. who said unto them If you would believe as the great St. Basil and the great St. Chrysostom taught thus to consecrate and sanctifie the Divine Oblations you would find in all the Eastern Churches above two thousand Liturgies which thus decide the matter After which the Historian observes That soon after by order of the Pope and the Emperor all the Greeks met at the Popes Palace excepting Mark of Ephesus the most zealous of the whole Nation and that the Question being again re-assum'd there were several debates upon it the Latins using all their endeavours to make the Greeks embrace their Opinions and that the Bishops of Russia and of Nice in behalf of the latter proposed a middle opinion which pleased neither Party which obliged the Emperor to command Mark of Ephesus to set down something in writing touching this Question which he did and he therein shewed that the Holy Fathers taught to consecrate the Divine Oblations Ibid. as saith he all our Priests do consecrate In the Eighth Chapter of the same Section the same Historian who was always present writes That after the signing of the Decree of the union the Emperor sent several
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
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
Perfidious Stercoranist saith he you believe that the participation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour breaks the Fast of Love and Ecclesiastical Abstinences believing absolutely that the Heavenly Food as well as the Earthly is sent out backwards by the stinking and sordid ejection of the belly Alger confirms the testimony of Humbert Algerus de Sacram l. 2. c. 1. t. 6 Bibl. Pat. p. 320. and declares positively That the Greeks are of the Opinion of those which he calls Stercoranists that is to say of those which hold that the substance of Bread doth remain after Consecration and that in regard of the substance of it it is subject unto the same fate of our common food which was exactly the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas and afterwards of Berengarius and his followers Cellot in append Miscel opusc 7. p. 5â— Father Cellot in his Notes upon an Anonymous Treatise in the Appendix of his History of Gotteschal confirms the same thing saying That the Error of the Greeks consists in their saying That the Ecclesiastical Fast is broken by receiving of the Eucharist and that they believe the Sacrament is digested and that it is evacuated like saith he unto the Stercoranists which we have in detestation The same Cardinal de Blanch-Selva Humbertus ubi supra p. 247. also reproacheth them that they take not heed of the Crums of the holy Bread which fall to the ground either in breaking or receiving of it whereunto he adds Some amongst you do eat the remainder of the Oblation like common bread sometimes even unto excess and if they cannot eat all they bury it or cast it into a Well All which things do not well accord with the Doctrine nor with the practice of the Latins But this is not yet all we have to say of the Belief of the Greek Church in the XI Century In the Memorials of Sigismund Liber touching the affairs of Muscovy Printed at Basil Anno 1571. there is a Letter of one John Metropolitan of Russia unto the Archbishop of Rome written as near as I can judge in this Century or it may be afterwards for he makes some mention of the contention betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching leavened or unleavened Bread In this Letter he very amply declares that what our Lord gave his Disciples was Bread Sigismund liber râ—rum Moscovit p. 32. He did not give them Wafers saith he but bread when he said See the Bread which I give unto you Leo Allatius in his Diatribe of the Simeons makes mention of one Simeon prefect of the Monastery of St. Mamant in Xerocerco who flourished in the middle of the XI Century in great reputation of Holiness and Learning He was indeed accused of holding some errors concerning the Vision of God in this Life and of the Union of Believers with him but that hindred not but that he was followed by most of the Greeks the errors now spoken of did not regard the Sacrament and had no relation unto the Eucharist Therefore although he had some Enemies yet neither he nor his followers were ever taxed to have erred in the matter of the Sacrament This Simeon at the time that the Doctrine of Berengarius was Condemned at Verceil taught in the East That the Sacrament was one thing and that the Body of Christ was another thing and that those which participated unworthily of the Sacrament could not receive the Body of the Son of God In fine Allatius making up the accompt of the works of this Simeon Allatius de Simeonibus p. 163. speaks of a certain Hymn the title whereof was That whosoever liveth without the knowledge of God is dead in the midst of those which live in the knowledge of him and that those which participate unworthily of the Mysteries cannot receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It were to be wished that Allatius had given us the whole Hymn as well as the Argument but however this Argument contains a Doctrine manifestly contrary unto that of the Latins in favour of whom by consequence it is very unlike that Theophylact should declare seeing he was of the Greek Church and lived in the XI Century at which time the Greeks believed and taught what is above written yet let every body judge sincerely and freely without any other interest than that of truth which I endeavour to represent in this History which informs us that it was in this Age that they begun to introduce the Communion under one kind and to change the form of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Churches of the West as hath been discoursed at large in the First Part. CHAP. XVIII A Continuation of the History of the Eucharist or the State of the XII and XIII Centuries THe Opinion of Paschas having been in fine publickly Authorised in the XI Century there needs no farther enquiry be made to know if it obtain'd the Victory over its Adversaries the thing being without any difficulty the establishing of this Doctrine being a manifest condemnation of that which was opposite unto it it will suffice then to understand what were the consequences and to what effect so many Decrees in favour of the Opinion of Paschas and contrary unto that of which Berengarius and his followers so stoutly maintained did work upon the minds of men for during all the XI Century the minds of Men were divided and notwithstanding the decisions of several Councils there was in all parts infinite numbers of People which made open profession of the Doctrine which Berengarius taught and which was exactly that of the Adversaries of Paschas therefore the very Enemies of Berengarius told us in the foregoing Chapter That all France Italy and England was full of his Doctrine In fine the party which rejected the Determination of Gregory the VII against Berengarius was so considerable that Urban the Second was constrained to condemn anew the Opinion of Berengarius in another Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. Berthold ad aunum 1095. as Bertholdus has observed in his Appendix unto Herman Contract for relating all things that were translated in this Council of Plaisance which was celebrated in his time he saith amongst other things that the Doctrine of Berengarius was there again condemned after having been so several times before But as the former Determinations could not impose silence upon the Disciples of Berengarius I mean those which embraced the same Doctrine which obliged Urban to condemn them again in the year 1095. seven years after the Decease of Berengarius so also the condemnation of Urban the Second had not power sufficient to silence them seeing that in the beginning of the XII Century Bruno Archbishop of Treves expell'd great numbers of them out of his Diocess as is testified by Monsieur de Thou in the Epistle Dedicatory of his History It is true that instead of the year 1060. whereto he assigns the action of this Prelate it
being taken from the Offerings which Christians offered upon the Table in the Church at the usual times that they assembled unto the Communion as we shall make appear in the Fourth Chapter which will plainly evidence That these Offerings were of the very same kind of Bread as that which was used in the ordinary actions of Life and if in process of time there ensued any alteration it was not in respect of the nature or quality of Bread as if that of common use was leavened and that of the Eucharist unleavened seeing it was but one and the same sort of Bread all the difference consisted first in that the Bread of the Eucharist was to be of a round form secondly about the seventh Century they began to prepare it expresly and on purpose for the celebrating of the Sacrament as appears by the sixth Canon of the sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled Anno 693. which we will cite at large in the following Chapter by some words of Cardinal Humbert T. 4. Bibl. paâ— part 2. p. 212. l. 3 c. 33. t. 4. Spicil which wrote in the Eleventh Century and of the ancient customs of the Monastry of Cluny written in the same Century whereto there were many Ceremonies multiplied for the preparing the Bread of the Sacrament whereas there was none at all at first because it was not made of set purpose but with the common Bread and even when it was begun to be made of purpose we do not find there was any great Ceremony used about it In fine it was thought good in process of time to make upon the Bread the sign of the Cross unto which Custom Father Sirmond doth apply the third Canon of the second Council of Tours Sirmond de Azymo c. 4 assembled Anno 567. and the first of the fifth Council of Arles held in the year 554. although to my seeming there is nothing very clear in these two Canons for authorising this Custom Also the same Sirmond doth confess in the same place That the Interpretation which he giveth unto the Council of Tours which is the plainest of the two alledged by him is not allowed by all and indeed it is not very likely that the Christians of the West which began not to prepare the Bread of the Sacrament separately from ordinary Bread until about the seventh or eighth Century should have marked it before that time with the sign of the Cross But so it is for certain that the use of leavened Bread in the Eucharist continued still in the Latin Church in the time of Gregory the first Vit. Greg. l. 2. c. 41. as the History of that Woman doth import who admired that this Pope should call the Body of the Lord a Loaf which she knew very well she had made with her own hands And this custom continued not only in Gregory's time but also a good part of the Ninth Century at which time a great difference having broke out betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches we do not find that amongst sundry reproaches and some of them either very light or it may be unjust made by the Greeks against the Latins that they have in any manner touched the question of leavened or unleavened Bread which they would not have omitted if the Latins had used unleavened Bread in their Eucharist as they failed not to condemn this practice in the Eleventh Century at which time this contention was managed with greater heat on both sides a manifest sign that the Latin Church did not begin to use unleavened Bread in the celebration of her Sacrament but in that space of time which passed betwixt the Ninth and the Eleventh Century Sirmond de Azymo Father Sirmond hath at large justified this truth and after his manner confirmed it with such clear and strong reasons and particularly those above-mentioned that nothing can be added unto what he hath said having very solidly refuted what Cardinal Baronius alledged against it and shewn that Hugo Tuscus and Rupert de Duitz were deceived when they imagined as well as Baronius that the Latin Church had always used unleavened Bread in the Eucharist Hist Concil Florent Sguropuli Sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278. In the Council of Florance held under Pope Eugenius the Fourth where was made by Interest of State and Policy a seeming accord betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches it was concluded as to what concerned leavened or unleavened Bread That each Church should retain its own custom viz. That the Eastern Church should make their Eucharist with leavened Bread and the Western with unleavened Bread so that the one should not be obliged to follow the use and custom of the other Raban de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 14. Nevertheless I cannot pass by what Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence wrote in the Ninth Century That unleavened Bread should be sanctified and Wine mingled with Water to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he proves by the authority of the Book of Leviticus and by the Example of Jesus Christ which used unleavened Bread in the Institution of his Sacrament But it must either be said That this Opinion was a particular Opinion of his own or that he intended only it should be so used the Thursday before Easter exactly to imitate the practice of our Saviour or in fine what I believe to be more probable That this custom began to be introduced into the Diocese of that Prelate if it were not safer to say That this long Observation of unleavened Bread was added unto Rabanus his works which I dare not affirm not being on the place to compare the Printed Copies with the Manuscripts CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed from whence were taken the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and what was the form of the Bread with the innovations and changes which ensued thereupon IT is not sufficient to shew that Bread and Wine have always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist amongst Christians excepting some few Hereticks which had changed it others that had miserably altered and corrupted the Celebration and in fine others which had wholly rejected it though upon several motives and different Principles Neither is it sufficient to have hinted at the reproaches which were made against Christians upon account of the Bread and Wine in this Divine Sacrament and to have examined the great controversy which armed if it may be so said the Greek Church against the Latin Church in the XI Century touching the Nature and quality of the Bread of the Sacrament to know whether it should be Leavened or Unleavened To the end nothing should be wanting unto this consideration we must endeavour to find out from whence was taken the Bread and Wine imployed by Christians in the celebration of their Sacrament I make no question but they proceeded from the liberality of Believers who being inflamed in those happy times with the divine fire of Charity which the Antients
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
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
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
Brain tell us better than Pasehas himself what their Opinion was Paschas told us in the foregoing Chapter that those People did not judge as he did teach That the Eucharist was the Flesh which was born of the holy Virgin but the Figure and the Sacrament of that Flesh a Figure and Sacrament filled with the Vertue and Efficacy of this Divine Flesh so that believing that the Bread remaining Bread after Consecration they also believed that as to its substance and matter part of it turned into our proper substance for the nourishment of our Bodies and the other part passed the way of our common Food which is directly to speak plainly the Opinion of those at this present called Calvinists Now if this Belief was Erronious if this Opinion was Heretical contrary unto that of the Church and different from the Ancient belief of Christians is it probable that King Charles the Bald would have chosen for his Principal Chaplain by consent of the Pope and the Synods of his Kingdom and that the Clergy of France would have suffered to preside over it a man infected with such an Opinion Or that Hinemar after his Death should call him a Bishop of venerable memory And that there should be engraven on his Tomb Here lyeth the Body of St. Heribold I cannot think so but rather that the Opinion of Heribold and the other Adversaries of Paschas which is the same of the Calvinists was the most general Opinion in the IX Century and that that of Paschas which is followed by Roman Catholicks at this time was not approved at that time but was opposed by all the great and learned Men of that Age. This is what the Protestant saith and the inference he makes from the Dignity and Belief of Heribold CHAP. XV. A Continuation of the History of the IX Century wherein is examined the silence of the two Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church IT is a thing very worthy to be observed and which deserves serious consideration that the Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second having been Spectators of so obstinate a combate without engaging on either side and having been silent in a time when they ought to speak and seen Mens minds divided although unequally upon the subject of the Sacrament yet after all declared not themselves in favour of the one side or the other and it doth not appear that they open'd their mouths either to condemn or approve either of the two Opinions So that if the Roman Catholicks do say that they condemned not their Doctrine in the person of Paschas the Protestants can also affirm That they pronounced no sentence against their Belief in the persons of his Adversaries which were incomparably more famous both in number and quality than the followers of Paschas because that instead of one or two at the most at least that is come to our knowledge which followed him we have heard the testimonies of Sixteen the Principal Chaplain Bishops Archbishops Abbots and others which in that Age opposed themselves directly or indirectly unto his Opinion as being contrary unto the Belief which untill that time had been generally received in the Church But if after what hath been said the Latin Church shall continue to teach that the Belief of Protestants which we have proved to be that of the Adversaries of Paschas was at that time esteemed erroneous then it must necessarily follow say they that she confess that Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second may justly be suspected to be guilty thereof Decret Grat. dist 82. c. Error Leo. I. Ep. 93. c. 15. according to this Maxim of the Law inserted by Gratian in his Decree That one approves the Error whereunto he makes no opposition And according unto what is said by Leo the First That he which recalls not a Man from his Error sheweth that he erreth himself And if on the other hand she affirms that the Doctrine of Paschas which is hers was at that time acknowledged to be Catholick and Orthodox and the publick Doctrine of the Church she would tacitly accuse these two Popes for having suppressed it as Adversaries and Enemies according unto what is contained in the same Maxim of the Law before alledged Decret Grat. ubi supra That the Truth is suppressed when it is not defended For to imagine that Nicholas and Adrian had not knowledge of this great Contest cannot reasonably be said The thing had made too great a noise for them to be ignorant of it Had there been indeed only bare verbal Disputes this pretext might have some colour but there having been Books written on either part and some of them having been composed by Order and Command of a King of France it is nothing probable that the Apostolical See should be wholly ignorant of the matter under Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second Wherefore then may it be said Did they not take part Wherefore did they not declare either for Paschas or for his Adversaries Wherefore had they not condemned the one and protected the others If the Doctrine of Paschas had been the ancient Doctrine of the Church why did they not authorize it by their Approbations And wherefore did they not thunder out their Censures against that of his Adversaries Or if the Belief of his Adversaries were the ancient Belief of Christians wherefore did they not encourage it by their Power And why did they not Anathematize the Novelty of Paschas This difficulty deserves to be carefully enquired into there being not many Demonstrations to resolve it but only several Conjectures and Circumstances which I refer unto the Judgment of those that shall take the pains of reading this Treatise It is said then in the first place that although we have not positively said that Paschas proceeded by way of Explication yet we have made appear that in all likelihood it was the way he took not to irritate Mens Minds in proposing his Opinion Secondly that Paschas his Party had no Followers during the IX Century as hath been already proved So that having but a very few it remained very probably inclosed in the Cloisters of some Friars which he might have gained unto his Party wherein it hid it self from the many oppositions which it found until some more favourable time should present to advance and establish it self in the World And in fine that the Belief of his Adversaries had the Victory and Advantage in this Age being generally received and practised in all the West Nicholas then and after him Adrian considering that the Opinion of Paschas was opposed by the most eminent Men of that Age that it had no Followers nor Adherents and that after all the Opposition it found in its first Establishment it would not do any prejudice unto the other they very judiciously believed that it was the wisest course to let it fall of it self and to refer unto
prolog Chron. in the Eccleâ—iastical Histoâ—â— of Nicholas Vignier upon the Year 1â—â—6 Cap 4. That they were so respected that they were not made to watch nor to pay Taxes and that when any military person travelled with them he needed not to fear being injured by his Enemies William Paradin in his Annals of Burgundy saith That he had read some Histories which cleared the Albigensis from all the crimes which had been laid to their charge affirming that they had not been guilty of them and that they never did any thing but reprove the Vices and Abuses of the Clergy With this Doctrine and Conversation the Albigensis and Waldensis spread abroad into all parts which made Reynerus their Eenemy say That of all the Sects which is or hath been there is none more dangerous unto the Church than that of the Leonists or Lyonists for so they were called from the City of Lyons from whence Waldo went out because it is the ancientest for some say it hath been ever since the days of Sylvester and others from the days of the Apostles and because also it is of the largest extent there being scarce any place but that they are to be found But it must not be imagined that they were suffered to live long in peace in the places of their habitation In fine the Waldensis were expelled out of Lyons whereupon they were constrained to seek for refuge some of them in the Valleys of Dauphin and Piedmont and others in Picardy from whence they passed afterwards into Bohemia in which places they subsisted for several Ages notwithstanding the violence of sundry Persecutions Fol. 2. as is fully represented by Dubravius and Claud de Cecil Bishop of Turin There is saith the latter above two hundred years that this Heresie hath subsisted in this Diocess particularly in the farthest parts of it and near the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as well in the King of France his Dominions as in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy And the former upon the Year 1160. It was saith he at this time that the Heresie of the Piccards began to flourish under an ill Planet to the end that none should think that that which of late hath made so great a progress in Bohemia is any new thing He calls the Waldensis Piccards because after having been driven away from Lyons several of them and Waldo himself as some do report retired themselves into Picardy from whence they were called Picards as they had been called Albigensis from the Country of Albi where they remained and subsisted until the latter end of the XIII Century notwithstanding the furious attempts made by Princes and Prelates against them as appears by Paul Perrin's History of the Albigensis Lib. 2. c 11. which proves it by authentical Evidences one of which amongst the rest is dated in the Year 1281. as it is found in several other Authors who make mention of several Croisada's raised against the Albigensis and the Waldensis during the greatest part of the XIII Century But as we write the History of the XII Century we may not forget two considerable circumstances First That in that Age Stephen Bishop of Autun began to use the word Transubstantiation and because there were two Bishops of Autun of this name in the same Age the first of which was advanced unto this Dignity in the Year 1112. and the other in the Year 1160. or thereabouts it is not exactly known which of the two it was that began to make use of this term In fine one or the other of them said De Sacram. Altaric c. 13. That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet nevertheless Lombard Master of the Sentences his Contemporary and of the same Opinion in the main of the Doctrine L. 4. dist c. 11. dared not to determine of what nature this Conversion is either formal or substantial or of some other kind The other circumstance which deserves to be considered is that at the end of that Century Hubbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in England and Legat of Pope Celestine caused a Synod to be held at York where amongst other things he commanded that when any sick persons were to be communicated that the Priest himself should carry the Host Rog. de Hoved. in Rich. II. cloathed with Priestly Habits suitable unto so great a Sacrament with Lights born before it unless there were some cause to the contrary and it is whereof we shall have further occasion to speak in the last part of this History Now let us examine what passed in the XIII Century at the first beginning whereof Stat. Synod c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. Odo Bishop of Paris made in one of his Synods certain Constitutions concerning the Sacrament as Of the manner of carrying it unto the Sick Of the Adoration of those which met it Of keeping of it in the best part of the Altar Of locking it up safe with several precautions in case it happened that any part of the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the Ground Ibid. in praeceptis communibus praecepâ—o 23 24. or if any Fly or Spider should fall into the Blood But because most of these things do relate unto the Worship we will omit speaking of it until we come to consider wherein Christians made their Worship and Devotion in regard of the Sacrament chiefly to consist I shall only say that it was with Odo as it happened unto several others after the Condemnation of Berengarius I mean that they retained several ancient expressions although the Doctrine was changed and that since this Change happened which is pretended to be at the beginning of the IX Century by Paschas and to have been established by publick Authority in the XI by some Popes in their Councils these kinds of expressions do not very well agree as many say with the Belief of the Latins For example this precaution of Odo If there falls to the Ground any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because say the Protestants the Fathers might very well say so seeing they believed that the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in substance and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament and in vertue But as for the Latins since Berengarius they believe that it is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ therefore they cannot reasonably say that any part of it falls to the ground because the substance it self of the Body and Blood of the Son of God is not subject unto any such accident Some Years after that is to say in the Year 1207. Amalarick or Amaury of Chartres was in great esteem for his Learning as Gaguinus reports in his sixth Book of the History of France and he teacheth amongst other things That the Body of Jesus Christ was not any more in the Bread of the Altar than in any other Bread or in any
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
imputed unto them because there is not the least sign of it to be found Cap. 10 11 12 13. â—bi supra neither in the Confessions of Faith made by the Waldensis inserted by Paul Perrin in their History nor in that of the Taborites Which by the testimony of Eneas Sylvius had embraced the impious and wicked Sect of the Waldensis Of necessity then their Belief must be the same with the Protestants because that of the Waldensis did agree with it as may be judged by all that hath been hitherto spoken But in fine the Question is to know the Belief of the Taborites touching the holy Sacrament but what can better inform us than their own Confession of Faith drawn up in the Year 1431. by John Lukavitz wherein they declare Confess Tabor Joan. Lukavits that their Belief touching the Eucharist is That the Bread remains in its nature true Bread and that it is the Body of Jesus Christ not by a material Identity but Sacramentally really and truly Then they reject the Opinion of those which say That the same Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven is also in the Sacrament Ibid. with all its essential and accidental Proprieties Because say they this would be a means to presuppose that the substance of Bread should cease to be and that it should be converted substantially into the Body of Jesus Christ Moreover they formally deny the Adoration of the Eucharist If John Hus was of the same Opinion of those which were called Taborites it must be owned after so express a Declaration as they made that he opposed the Doctrine of Transubstantion If we give credit unto what is reported in the Acts of the Council of Constance we cannot question but that he was contrary unto this Doctrine In fine The Council doth condemn thirty Articles of John Hus in the 1 Concil Constant sess 15. twenty fifth whereof they make him say that he doth approve of forty Articles of Wickliff's the 2 Ibid. sess 8. three first whereof are directly contrary unto Transubstantiation Moreover there is to be found in the Proceedings made against him that he had preached and taught 3 Ibid. sess 15. That after consecrating the Host at the Altar the material Bread did remain that the substance of Bread remains after Consecration and that the Opinion which the Church holdeth of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is erronious Therefore Pope Martin the Fifth Ad finem Concil Constant in his Bull of Approbation of the Council doth not fail of representing John Hus as approving the Articles of Wickliff before spoken of Ibid. He declares also that Jerom of Prague was of the same Judgment that is to say in an Opinion contrary unto the Church of Rome which the Council doth also observe in the twenty first 1 Ibid. sess 21. Session And Gobellin Persona Official of the Diocess of 2 Cosmodrom a tat 6. c. 95. Peterborough who lived at that time thought that he ought not to say the contrary after the Declaration of the Pope and of the Council But if we consult the Works of John Hus printed at Noremberg Anno 1558. with his Martyrdom and that of Jerom of Prague for so it is that their death is therein styled we shall find that he always believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Concomitance and the reading of Wickliff's Works for whom he had an extraordinary kindness calling him always Evangelical Doctor could never make him alter his mind nor work upon his spirit the same effects which it wrought upon the Taborites In fine in his Treatise Of the Blood of Jesus Christ against the false Apparisions of it which at that time was frequently published in all parts he said Tom. 1. fol. 155 That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really after what manner soever it ought to be here below in the Church that is to say as appears by the scope of the whole Discourse invisibly and not visibly as the Autors of these miraculous Apparations would have it be believed And in the same Treatise Ibid. he accuseth of Incredulity those which believed not what he said of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament He supposed Ibid. That Accidents do subsist without their subject in the Sacrament confesseth that there is no contradiction in saying That the Body of Jesus Christ is here sacramentally Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. p. 158. Ibid. fol. 161. and at the same time in Heaven locally He affirms for truth that his Blood is truly and really in the Sacramen confesseth That Jesus Christ is hidden in the Sacrament And amongst many Inconveniences which he fears these feigned Apparitions of the Blood of Christ might produce Ibid. fol. 162. he puts this down as the fifth That it may be there are some which question whether the Blood of Jesus Christ be in the venerable Sacrament because it doth not visibly appear unto them And a little after he saith That we adore the Body and Blood of of Jesus Christ which is at the right hand of his Father and in the venerable Sacrament made by the Priests The same man writeth in his Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ Id. t. 1. fol. 164. That the Doctrine of Berengarius is a great Heresie He receiveth for a true testimony of St. Austin's a passage of Lanfranc a sworn Enemy of Berengarius which the Canonist Gratian cites in his Decree under the name of St. Austin In a word in this little Treatise he embraceth and follows all that the Latins believe of the Sacrament of the Altar And that it should not be imagined that he changed his Opinion it is to be observed that amongst several little Treatises which he composed during his Imprisonment at Constance Cap. 2. p. 32. t. 1 there is one Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ written Anno 1415. wherein he teacheth the same Doctrine Ibid. declaring moreover That all that the Church of Rome believes of the venerable Sacrament ought to be believed That he had preached this Doctrine from the beginning unto that day And in fine Ibid. fol. 49. Ibid. fol. 40. c. 3 That he believed Transubstantiation And saith he I never taught that the substance of material Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar He adds a little after That the Body and Blood of our Saviour remains in the Sacrament as long as the Species of Bread and Wine do subsist In another little Treatise wherein he examines whether Lay-persons should receive under both kinds he lays it down for a truth That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is under both species of the Sacrament that is to say that he is entirely under the species of Bread and entirely under that of Wine He that writ the History of John Hus particularly the conflicts he was to suffer at
Constance and at the which he saith he was present Tom. 1. fol. 9. reports a publick Testimony of the University of Prague touching the purity of the Belief of this man wherein is declared that Hus had denied the things whereof he had been accused unto the Pope especially that he had ever taught That the material substance of Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar The Author also reporteth Ibid. fol. 12. that John Hus was heard in open Council the 7th of June and that he confessed That the Bread is transubstantiated and that the Body of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered and was crucified c. is truly really and wholly in the Sacrament And as a certain English Man said that Hus disguised his Opinion just as Wickliff had formerly done in England he answered That he spake sincerely and from his heart Which need not much be questioned when it must be observ'd Tom. 2. so 344. that Hus was a man full of candor and sincerity It is related in the acts of his Passion for that 's the Title given them in his Works that these things but now mentioned and others of the like Nature are reported of him But besides these proofs there is also found amongst John Hus his Letters Num. 65. Tom. 1. fol. 8. a very favourable testimony given by the University of Prague unto him and Jerom after their Death that is to say the 23d of May Anno 1416. and in Num. 66. a Summary of the belief of the Comminalty of Prague composed of the followers of John Hus wherein they formally establish the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Concomitants saying That Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples his Body and Blood miraculously hid under the Species of Bread and Wine Ib. num 66. And alledging a passage under the name of Leo which imports That the Blood is received with the Body under the species of Bread and the Body with the Blood under the species of Wine that nevertheless the Blood is not eaten under the species of Bread as the Bread is not drank under that of Wine I will add to conclude unto all these considerations two other circumstances In the first place that the Taborites which had a great Veneration for John Hus although they were of a contrary Judgment unto him upon the point of the Sacrament mention him often in their Confession of Faith upon the Articles which he either held or favoured but upon the point of Transubstantiation they alledge nothing of his In the second place that in regard of Wickliff who was much esteemed by Hus he declares positively in his Writings against Stephen Palets his greatest Enemy Tom. 1. p. 264. A. that he did imbrace what there was of truth in the Writings of John Wickliff Doctor in Divinity not because he said it but because it was agreeable unto the Holy Scriptures and unto Reason but if he taught any Error he intended not to follow him nor any one else therein And in full Council Ibid. fol. 13. being charged with the 40 Articles of Wickliff condemned by the Fathers of Constance he said that he adhered not unto Wickliffs Errors confessing nevertheless that he could have wished the Archbishop of Prague had not condemned them after the manner that he had condemned them declares Ibid. fol. 13. B. that he never obstinately defended them although he approved not that they should be condemned before that the Justice of their condemnation was shewed by reasons taken from the Holy Scriptures In fine he defends himself particularly upon each of these Articles limiting explaining or distinguishing them without any heed being thereunto given by the Council and what there is besides very strange in the business that answering in his Writings unto the Objections of his Adversaries which had been before of his side but were become his Enemies Tom. 1. so 255. 265. p. 292. unto fol. 321. he never toucheth the Article of Transubstantiation yet it is not likely that having been his Friends they could be ignorant of his Opinion upon this weighty point nor that they could have been silent if John's belief had been contrary unto that of the Church of Rome As for Jerom of Prague besides the intimate friendship which was betwixt him and John Hus which continued until their Death as it had been carefully improved in their life especially by the conformity of their Faith and Manners there is to be seen in the same Works a Discourse wherein the Author saith the same of Jerom Tom. 2. so 356. which he had done of Hus for he writes that one of his Adversaries having said there was a report That he believed that the substance of Bread remained upon the Altar he made this answer I believe the Bread is at the Bakers and not in the Sacrament of the Altar Poggius Florent ad Leonard Aretin in fascicul rerum expeton fugiend fol. 152. Which agrees very well with what is written by Pogge the Florentine unto his Friend Leonard Aretin Jerom saith he being examined what he believed touching the Sacrament answered That by Nature it was Bread but at the instant of Consecration and afterwards it was the true Body of Jesus Christ that he believed it to be so and all the rest according as the Church believed And some body having replyed it is reported that thou teachest that the Bread remaineth after Consecration he answered the Bread remaineth at the Bakers house This is the sum of the belief of John Hus and of Jerom of Prague touching the subject of the Sacrament Nevertheless the Council of Constance caused them to be burnt alive they endured this punishment with wonderful patience according to the relation of Pogge the Florentine an Eye witness and of Eneas Sylvius which speaks thus They both dyed very contentedly and drew near unto the Stake as cheerfully as if they were going unto a Banquet without letting fall a word as might express any thing of grief or sorrow when the Flames began to seize them they sang a Hymn the sound whereof could scarce be stopped by the noise of the Fire It is said That never any Philosopher suffered Death so constantly as these Men endured the punishment of the Flames The Death of these two Men served only to confirm the Taborites in their Opinions and inspired them with Zeal for its defence and of making publick and open profession thereof in Bohemia not but there was found in other parts those which professed the same Doctrine for Baleus reports upon the relation of Thomas Gasconius and of Leland that in the year 1457. Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England Had ill Opinions touching the Sacrament and that he maintained the Doctrine of Wickliff Centur. 8. Auth. 19. but that he was compelled to renounce and moreover was deprived of his Bishoprick It is very probable he had followers in his Diocess yet
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
Greeks unto the Pope to see after what manner he was to sign it and that he commanded them to hear the discourse which the Bishop of Nice would make and that he no sooner began to speak but Cardinal Julian bid the Protonotary write and as this Bishop spake by order of the Emperor and drew near the end of his discourse he bid him speak touching the mystical Sacrifice saying Id. ibid. c. 8. p. 293. What the Roman Church believeth touching the Consecration of Divine Gifts or Oblations we believe also viz. That the Divine words of our Saviour Take eat This is my Body drink ye all of this This is my Blood are those which sanctifie and consecrate them herein we agree with you yet we say also that the Priest doth contribute thereunto as the Husband-man by his Labour contributes unto the production of the Fruits of the Earth but we refer the whole unto these words of our Saviour and are therein of the same opinion with you Let us now hear what the Historian saith unto this discourse of the Bishop of Nice who spoke so well that he obtained a Cardinals Cap and was afterwards sufficiently known by the name of Cardinal Bessarion Ibid. p. 293 294. It was saith the Historian the design and scope of the Cardinal of Nice to deliver himself in the Eloquence of a great Orator as if he had spoke in the name of all although we knew nothing of it and that we had not given our consent unto what he had spoke for it was all made up of Artifice and cunning and the Latins demanded this speech might be inserted in the Decree of the union which the Emperor refused absolutely to yield unto he feared that being returned unto Constantinople he should give occasion unto those that had a mind to talk that he had overthrown the Divine Liturgy which the great St. Basil and the Divine Chrysostom had left having received it of James the Brother of the Lord. But the Latins being earnest and desiring to have our consent in writing touching this Article the Emperor so ordered the matter that the Bishop of Nice should repeat these matters before the Pope some of our men being also present as if they had been come from the whole Assembly of the Greeks which being written by the Latins were published in all their Provinces which was done by force and surprise and contrary unto our knowledge see here with what sincerity what advice liberty and concord things were carried It was then after this manner things passed at Florence upon the Article of the manner of consecrating of the Eucharist which makes good what we have said That the Greek Church hath retained unto this day the custom of consecrating by Prayers and Supplications Let us now to reassume our discourse say That if some of the antient Doctors of the Church made the Consecration of the Symboles depend on the pronouncing of these words This is my Body it is of the number of those which have declared in favour of the Consecration by Prayer as for Instance St. Chrysostome and some others with him and in this case that they should not jar amongst themselves it may be said they have not attributed the Consecration unto these words This is my Body but as unto words declaring what was before befaln unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist for it is often said that a thing is done when it is declared that it hath been done or it may also be said That they considered these words as containing a promise of God whereby he tacitly accompanies with his Blessing and his Grace the Prayers which are addressed unto him for the Consecration of the Sacrament But if the Fathers who attributed the Consecration unto these words This is my Body are not of the number of those who have already declared in favour of a Consecration by the vertue of Prayer of necessity their thoughts must be interpreted after the manner as hath been said or freely confess that they have digressed from the common Road and that so their testimonies are not to be received nor allowed against so constant and so universal a tradition For in these rencounters we ought to follow the advice given unto us by Vincentius Lerinensis Common If sometimes the different opinion of one or a few more that are deceived rise up and thwart the received opinion of all or of a greater number of Catholicks the rashness of one or of a few ought to be opposed in the first place by the general Decrees of an universal Council if there be any in the second place if there be none That the Opinion of several great Doctors be followed who agree together For as he saith a little after Ibid. Whatsoever a private person believes more than others or against others were he Doctor Bishop Confessor Martyr let them be accounted as low opinions proper to himself hidden and private and let it not be owned to have the authority of an opinion commonly publickly and generally received Arcudius a Greek Latinized doth not differ much from the thoughts of Vincentius when speaking of the manner and form of Consecration L. 3. de concoâ—d c. 31. he saith It seems indeed there is some discord amongst the holy Fathers but those which seem obscure must be explained by those which are clear joyn the lesser number unto the greater and follow the judgment of the most considerable the most learned and of those which are much of the greatest number which words Goar finds much to his liking In Euchol p. 140. saying That Arcudius gave an advice which indeed was short but very discreet and convenient But that nothing might be wanting unto this Observation and that we may the better understand the nature of this Consecration and the great consequence of it let us compare the Consecration of Pagans unto that of Christians for many times these sorts of Comparisons do tend very much to the clearing of matters in question The Pagans called Consecration a certain Formulary whereby their Priests caused the Divinity which they adored to be present in his Image and this Formulary was nothing but certain precise and formal words whereby they thought to operate this presence in the Images which were made for that purpose Wherefore Tertullian told them in his Apology These Images are of the same matter with our Pans and Kettles Apol. c. 12. Minut. in Oct. but they change their fate by Consecration And Minutius Felix See it is melted forged wrought and is not yet a God see it is polished built erected and is no God see here it is beautified consecrated invoked and then 't is God when Men would have it so and do dedicate it Origen in his Books against Celsus upon these words of the 95th Psalm and according to the Hebrew the 96th L. 7. p. 378 ult Edit All the Gods of the Nations are but Devils That appears saith
distribution of both Symbols separately in the latter Ages they came to administer the Bread in the Consecrated Wine so from the distributing the Eucharist steeped by little and little insensibly in some Churches of the West they gave the Communicants only the consecrated Bread a custom which in process of time introduced it self almost into all the Western Churches until that it was established in the year 1415. upon Saturday the 15. of June by this Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. t. 7. Concil part 2. p. 1042. This present holy general Council of Constance lawfully Assembled by the Holy Ghost declares discerns and defines that although Jesus Christ after Supper instituted and administred unto his Disciples this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine yet nevertheless the commendable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church hath observed and doth observe that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper nor to be received of Believers but fasting except in case of sickness or some other necessity allowed or admitted by Law or by the Church and in like manner that although in the Primitive Church Believers received the Sacrament under both kinds yet nevertheless to avoid certain perils inconveniencies and scandals this custom was fitly introduced that those who officiated should receive under both kinds and the Laity under the species of Bread only withall that they should firmly believe and nothing doubt that the intire Body of Christ and the Blood are truly contained as well under the species of Bread as under the species of Wine Therefore such a custom being reasonably introduced both by the Church and by the holy Fathers and that it was a long while observed it ought to pass for a Law which is not allowed to be rejected nor changed by every bodies fancy without the Authority of the Church Therefore they are to be judged erroneous that think it to be Sacrilegious or unjust to observe this custom or this Law and those who obstinately affirm the contrary of what is above said ought to be banished as Hereticks and severely punished by the Diocesans of the places or their Officials or by the Inquisitors of the Heretical evil in the Kingdoms or Provinces where by hazard or on purpose they have attempted or presumed any thing against this Decree according to the lawful Ordinances and Canons which have been seasonably made against Hereticks and their abettors against the Catholick Faith But notwithstanding the severity of this Decree Cassander hath left us upon Record in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds formerly cited That it is read that Pope Martin the Fifth p. 1037 after the Council of Constance did practise in the solemn Office of Easter the Precept and Formulary of the Roman Order in giving the Communion unto the people under both kinds The same in the same place relates as from Thomas Waldensis That after the Synod of Constance the Pope of Rome did not forbear giving the Communion after the use of Rome that is to say under both kinds unto the Deacons the Ministers of the Altar and unto other persons eminent in Piety and Worth as also unto Rectors of places and considerable Monasteries his Brethren and unto others he thought worthy of so great a Gift He saith moreover That Cardinal Cusa in his Letter written unto the Clergy and learned Men of Bohemia Anno 1452. some years after the Council of Basle declares That until very near his time the Pope at the Feast of Easter suffered the Laity unto whom he had with his own hands given the Body of the Lord to receive the Blood from the hands of the Deacons And that Nicholas of Palerma who assisted at the Council of Basle saith That the opinion of Doctors is That it would not be ill done that the Communicant should also receive the Blood This Council of Basle whereat this Archbishop was present granted unto the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds provided that in all other things they should conform unto the Church of Rome and that they would instruct them to believe that Jesus Christ was contained wholly under the one and the other species All those who are any thing read in the History of those times know that those of Bohemia who differed nothing from the Church of Rome but only in the matter of the Communion under both kinds were called for that reason Calixtins different from the true Taborites but so 't is as it appears by a Letter from George Pogiebrac King of Bohemia that these Calixtins did not quietly enjoy this Grant for in this Letter which was written in the year 1468. and for which we are obliged unto Dom Luke d'Achery T. 4. Spicileg p. 413 414 415. a Benedictine Monk this Prince declares himself plainly to be a Calixtin That he was bred up in this manner of Communicating under both kinds That his Father Mother and Grand-mother had so practised That the Council of Basle had granted Liberty of it unto his Subjects not by way of permission as the Church sometimes tolerates Sins but to the end it should be allowed by the Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our holy Mother the Church his Spouse That in all other things he agrees with the Church of Rome so that it appears by this apologetical Letter which he writes unto Matthias King of Hungary his Son-in-Law that he only desired liberty of Communicating under both kinds as he had been taught by his Father and Grandfather and I doubt not but a part of this Apology will in convenient time and place give sufficient ground for making a clear and certain Judgement of the Belief of the ancient Taborites upon the point of the Eucharist But after all these changes happened at sundry times the Council of Trent in the 21. Session being the Fifth under Pope Pius IV. Anno 1562. the 16. of July after having spoken of the Authority which the Church hath alwaies had in the dispensation of Sacraments to change in time and place what she thought fit the substance still remaining intire it adds Sess 21. c. 2. 3. de doctr That therefore the Holy Mother the Church being sensible of this wholsom Authority in the administration of Sacraments although that at the beginning of Christian Religion the use of both kinds was frequent nevertheless in process of time this custom being changed it was introduced for wise and solid reasons to approve this custom of communicating under one kind and hath commanded it to pass into a Law which shall not be allowed to be alter'd or laid aside at pleasure without the Authority of the same Church And in the following Chapter which is the Third of Doctrine It declares moreover That though our Redeemer as it is said in his last Supper instituted this Sacrament under both kinds and gave it unto his Apostles Yet it must be confessed that Jesus Christ intirely and
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 first Shape and in their first Form and are visible and palpable as they were before Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth Century Certainly saith he the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you receive are something that is divine whence also it is that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature and nevertheless they still retain the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine It was also the Judgment of Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Age Ephraem Anâ—tâ—och apud Phoc. cod 229. The Body of Jesus Christ saith he which Believers receive doth not forsake the outward Substance and hold inseparably unto the inward Grace And that it may not be question'd that he spake of the Sacrament of his Body he adds the same of Baptism saying that it preserves just as the Eucharist doth the outward Form and the inward and spiritual Grace And Baptism Id. ibid. saith he being wholly spiritual and being but one keeps the propriety of its sensible Form that is to say Water and loseth not what it was made A Council of the East assembled at Constantinople Anno 754 declares Concil Const in Act. Nicaeâ— 2. Act. 6. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer the Image of his Body a Thing chosen to wit the Substance of Bread Ahyto Bishop of Basil Walafridus Straho Ratran will teach the same Doctrine in the ninth Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in the tenth and the Taborites of Bohemia in the fifteenth Yet it must be confessed there is to be found in the Writings of the Antients a Passage where the Author be he who he will seems to differ from this Belief universally received by the Church in his Time it is in an Easter Sermon attributed unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles who lived in the sixth Century although it be not certain whether it be his or not but so 't is that in this Sermon amongst other things it is said Cesar Hom. 1. de Pasch That the invisible Priest he means Jesus Christ changeth by the secret Power of his Word the visible Creatures into the Substance of his Body and Blood Some would answer that the private Opinion of Caesarius should not take place against the many Testimonies above alledged not being just that one should be preferred before so many the greater part whereof were nothing inferiour unto Caesarius in Dignity and Learning and some surpassed him both in one and the other as St. Chrysostom and Pope Gelasius others in Dignity at least as St. Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch not to mention his Learning which in all likelihood was nothing short of Caesarius if he were truly the Authour of the Sermon which we examine and others in fine in Learning as Theodoret whose Light and Knowledg was incomparably greater and they would not fail here to apply that Maxime of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyrinens common already cited in the beginning of this History If sometimes the different Opinion of one Person or of some few which are deceived rise up in opposition against the Consent of all Id. ibid. or at least of much the greater Number of Catholicks Against the Obstinacy of one or of a few more should first be opposed the Decree of an universal Council if there be any Secondly if there are none let the Opinion of several great Doctors that do agree amongst themselves be followed for saith he whatsoever is believed by one particular Person above or against what is received and allowed by all be he Saint Doctor Bishop Confessor or Martyr let it be reputed a low peculiar and close Thing private and particular to himself and let it not have the Authority of an Opinion commonly publickly and generally received This is what several might answer unto this Difficulty and their Answer would not be contemptible Others think more kindness may be shew'd unto Caesarius in reconciling him with the rest rather than reject him for they conceive this Act of Humanity is due unto an Author to give a favourable Construction to his Words and not to make him clash with the Opinion generally received which ought especially take place in things that regard the essential Parts of Piety and Religion because in those Things without endangering our Salvation we cannot separate from the Belief which hath been always received in the Church of God Let us see then how they would reconcile Caesarius with those other glorious Witnesses above-mentioned It may easily be done say they if you consider that the Fathers often speak as Caesarius did although they only understand a Change of Quality which befals the Substance wherein this change is made Tertul. cont Marc. l. 3. l. 1. ad Uxor though nevertheless it is not changed it self for instance Tertullian said That we shall be changed into an Angelical Substance instead of saying that we shall be changed into an Angelical Quality as he elsewhere explains himself So Eusebius said of the Soul of Helen Mother of Constantin the great Euseb de vita Constant l. 3. cap. 46. that she was transformed into an incorruptible and Angelical Substance to signify that she had acquired Angelical Qualities in respect whereof she might assume the Name of Angelical Substance So St. Austin Aug. in Psal 68. Hom. 1. By Sin Man fell from the Substance wherein he was made nevertheless Man continues to be Man but because he lost the Righteousness and Holiness which beautified and adorned his Nature he made no difficulty of saying so And St. Peter Chrysologus speaking of the change hapned in the human Nature of Christ by the Refurrection Chrysolog Hom. 82. saith that our Lord changed Substance which is not true but in regard of Qualities But to come nearer the Sacraments all Christians generally confess that the Water of Baptism doth not lose its Substance Tertull. de Baptism yet that hinders not but Tertullian calls Baptism a divine Substance because the Waters of Baptism receiving by Consecration the Holiness which they had not they are said in some fort to pass into the divine Substance it being reasonable that the Subject should derive its Name from its best and most noble part What then may hinder but Caesarius might say in a good sense of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament That Jesus Christ doth change them into the Substance of his Body and Blood although the Bread and Wine keep their Substance because he makes them pass into the efficacy of his own Flesh as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks Certainly it ought not to be thought strange if they consider that Pope Gelasius who wrote about 50 Years before Caesarius Gelaf de duab nat Christ that the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine still remains as we but now heard for all that saith that the Bread and Wine pass into a divine Substance because the Consecration gives them a heavenly and divine virtue by reason whereof
Miles but St. Marsus felt the Eucharist was turn'd into a Scrpent which rouled about him and as he found by the pain he suffered that he was severely punished for his Disobedience and Neglect he had committed at the Communion He cast himself at the Feet of St. Milain and told him what was happened the holy Bishop wept for him all Night Watching and Praying and next Day gave him Absolution and the Blessing and presently after the Serpent took again the Form of the Eucharist and St. Marsus taking it he communicated with Joy which he neglected to do to his Damage It is plain that the Eucharist here mentioned is nothing else but the Bread of the Eucharist which St. Cyril of Alexandria commonly calls by that Name In short this Eucharist was intended for the Communion as appears by the whole Story Therefore St. Milain gave unto each of them a Portion it also appears that Marsus had received some Tincture that the receiving the Sacrament broke the Fast and I find not but the other Bishops were of the same Mind All that is blam'd in Marsus is the having preferr'd the Fast of the Day before the Communion whereas he ought to have preferr'd the Communion before the Fast that is to say that it was better to have communicated with the others and broke his Fast as they had done than to deprive himself of the Sacrament to keep the Fast of the Day Theodoret. Hist Relig. p. 791. because the Sacrament is a Bond of Charity which is infinitely greater than Fasting Therefore the Anchorit Marcion said to Avitus who went to visit him in his Solitude and who made some scruple of breaking his fast to eat with him We know that Charity is more excellent than Fasting But in fine it was believed in our France in the VIth Century as 't was in Tertullian's time that the receiving the Eucharist broke the Fast and it shall appear in the Course of this History that the Greeks believed so in the XIth Century and that they still believe it at present as Father Cellot informs us To conclude if any desire to know the Dioceses of these five French Bishops abovementioned he may understand St. Milain was Bishop of Rennes Albin of Anger 's Launus of Constance in Normandy Apâ—d Eus b. Hist l. 6. c. 49. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. c. 5. Contr. Donat. post Collat. c. 6. Clem. Alexand. Sâ—romat l. 1. p. 271. Cyril Alex. in Joan. l. 4. c. 14. Victor of Mans and Marsus of Nantes In the seventh place I observe that the Fathers speak of the Eucharist as of a thing whereof but a little is received a Bit a Piece a Portion So the Priest of Alexandria in Eusebius sent unto Seraphion A little of the Sacrament So St. Austin speaks of receiving a little and again That Peter and Judas received each of them a Morsel So Clement of Alexandria said That each of the People took a little And St. Cyril of Alexandria That Jesus gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples And so in a number of other places which is not necessary here to mention in a thing not contested and that is owned by every Body In fine having endeavoured with some labour to find if the ancient Doctors of the Church have affirmed as the Latines at this time do that several Miracles are done by the Sacrament August l. 3. de Trinit c. 10. I can find nothing of that Nature on the contrary they have informed me That these things might have been honoured or receive respect as religious but not cause astonishment as things strange or miraculous CHAP. III. Of the Use and Office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament HAving seen what was believed and said in this spatious and vast Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity of the things received in the Sacrament and having examined the Reflections which the Doctors of that Empire have made upon the Words of Institution of this Divine and August Sacrament we are obliged to enquire what they have taught of the Use Office and employ of these sacred Symbols I mean of the Bread and Wine If we will search into their Records wherein the Laws and Maxims of this Kingdom may be found we shall see that those which have had the Government and Direction of it have conceived that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Anti-type the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the Resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It 's true 't is not enough to say so the Reader must moreover see the Testimonies where the holy Fathers say so for 't is their Opinions are now in question and not ours Let us then take all these Titles in Order and shew what the ancient Doctors of the Church have said unto each of them at least as far as may be necessary unto our purpose They say in the first place That it is a Sacrament Hil. in Matth. cap. 9. Ibid. c. 30. as when St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers speaks Of receiving the Sacrament of the Bread of Life in Faith of the Resurrection and that he saith of Judas Ambros de iis qui init c. 9. Aug. Ep. 163. Id. l. 3. de Trinitat c. 4. Id. Serm. ad Infant Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. Isid Hisp dâ— Offic. Eccles l. 1. c. 18. that he was not worthy of the Communion of Eternal Sacraments St. Ambrose calls it The Sacrament of the true Flesh of our Lord. St. Austin The Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood Again he saith That it is a great Sacrament And again These things saith he are called Sacraments Facundus said the same when he saith That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ is called his Body and Blood and that Believers do receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood St. Isidore of Sevil in the VIIth Century saith positively That the Bread and Wine are made the Sacraments of the Divine Body being sanctified by the Holy Ghost But being there is nothing more frequent amongst the Latin Fathers than this manner of Speech which continued in the Latin Church until these late times we shall not insist on gathering more Testimonies to prove that the holy Fathers believed that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ It shall suffice to warn the Reader Aug. de Civit. Dâ—i l. 10. c. 5. comr advers leg l. 2. c. 9. aâ—â—i that St. Austin teacheth us in sundry parts of his Works that the word Sacrament signifies a holy Sign and that those which desire more proofs of this Expression may see what is said by the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerom on the 11th of the 1st Epist to the Corinthians Charlemain in his 4th Book of Images chap. 14. Christian Druthmar upon St. Matth. in the Library of the Fathers Tome 16. p. 361. The second Title we have set down August contâ—
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
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
conformable unto the Principles which they have set down Nevertheless because there be several others which we have not touched we find our selves absolutely obliged to handle them in this Chapter the better to clear the Truth which we seek for and if in what remains to be examined they have said any thing which might favour the Hypothesis of the real Conversion which the Latins have made an Article of their Faith it is certain that what they have said hitherto will not be of so much moment and will lose of its worth and vertue whereas if nothing can be found in what is yet to be seen contrary unto what hath been already examined it must then be necessarily concluded say the Protestants that there is nothing in all their Writings that agrees with the Hypothesis of the Latin Church In fine if these Holy Doctors have believed the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ then they must also have admitted of these following Maxims First That a Body may be in several Places at once but far from admitting this Maxim to be true they directly oppose it Tertullian disputing against the Heretick Hermogenes which made the Creature co-eternal unto God Tertul. advers Hermog c. 38. If it be in a place saith he it is then within the place if it be within the place it is then bounded by the place within which it is if it be bounded it hath a remote Line and being a Painter as you are your own Profession must needs inform you that the furthest Line is the end of any thing whereof it is the remotest Line And elsewhere Id. de anim c. 9 he establisheth the same Doctrine when he places the Extent and the three Dimensions that is the length breadth and heighth amongst the most essential Properties of a Body and which necessarily and absolutely belong to their Bulk and Mass Arnobius was so strongly of Tertullian's Opinion that he uses it as a Principle universally received to refute the Evasion of Pagans who taught that their Gods were in all the Images which were consecrated unto them Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. ult edit It is not possible saith he that one God should be at one and the same time in several different Images suppose that Vulcan hath ten thousand Statues consecrated unto him in all the World can he be present as I have said in all the ten thousand at one time I think not Why not Because that which is of a particular and singular Nature cannot multiply it self into several Subjects and yet preserve its singleness intire and whole From whence he concludes a little after That it must be said or confessed that there must be an infinite number of Vulcans if there be one in each of these Images or that he is in neither of them if there be but one Vulcan because being but one Nature cannot admit that he should be divided to be in several If the Christians of those times had believed that the Body of Jesus Christ their Saviour and God had been in a Million of places at once without being therefore multiplyed nor divided it must indeed be granted that they had chosen a miserable Advocate to defend their cause because instead of defending he betray'd it and exposed it to the scorn of Infidels in reproaching them with that to be impossible which they themselves held to be possible and which said happened daily unto the Body of their God but we intend not to do this Injury unto the memory of this Christian Orator that would be Injustice and Ingratitude so to serve him seeing he hath said nothing but what is conformable unto the Opinions of other Doctors of the Church For when a Man saith St. Hilar. de Trin. l 8. p. 41. l. in Psal â—24 p. 211. â— Hilary or his Resemblance is in a place he cannot be elsewhere at the same instant because that which is is contained where it is the Nature of him which is in any place where he is sustained being infirm and incapable of being every where Hence it is that the Fathers commonly prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost by his being present in sundry places at once in opposition unto Creatures which can be but in one place at a time I will not here alledg all their Testimonies it shall suffice to produce some upon a matter that admits of no difficulty Amb de spirit l. 1. c. 7. t. 4. Seeing that every Creature saith St. Ambrose is circumscribed by its Nature by certain bounds and limits and that the Creatures even invisible Creatures are limited by the Propriety of their Substance who dares call the Holy Spirit a Creature which hath not a limited and bounded Power for he is over all and in all which is certainly the property of the Deity Didymus who flourished at Alexandria at the same time when Ephrem did at Edessa Didym de Spir. S. l. 1. If the Holy Ghost saith he were a Creature he should have a circumscribed Substance as all things which have been created for altho the invisible Creatures are not circumscribed by place and bounds yet they are bounded by the propriety of their Substance but as for the Holy Ghost seeing he is in many places he hath not a limited Nature And a little under he saith The Angel which was present with the Apostle when he prayed in Asia could not be present at the same time with others which were in other parts of the World Pasch de Spir. S. l. 1. c. 12. â— 9 Bibl. Patr. Paschas Deacon of the Church of Rome As all Creatures saith he are subject unto the beginning of time it is known also that they be local and bounded by certain Limits and Spaces but as for the Holy Ghost he is not inclosed within Bounds or Limits like a Creature I could add unto all these Witnesses the Depositions of several others but because it is a matter the Truth whereof is known unto those which are any thing verst in the Writings of the Ancients it is needless to insist any longer upon it but only to observe that the Holy Fathers do never except the Body of Jesus Christ from these general Maxims as if his Glorification had acquired him the propriety of being in several places at once their silence upon occasions of such weight and where they could not possibly dispense with themselves from making this Exception if their belief had admitted of it doth evidently prove that they constantly believed that when the Body of Christ was in one place it could not be in another no more than other Creatures his Glorification having indeed given him a Glory which he had not before but without taking away from him the qualities or properties of a true Body besides they are not content to inform us of their Belief by their Silence they also inform us by their Words for
besides what they have already told us of the local presence of Christ in Heaven and his absence from Earth in regard of his Body and his Human Nature the presence whereof they have constantly opposed unto the Presence of his Divine Nature they have formally declared themselves against the Polutopie of his Divine Body I mean against his presence in divers places at one and the same time Fulgent ad Trasim l. 2. c. 17. for they positively say That the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when he is upon Earth leaving Earth when it goes up to Heaven that he is every where as God but that he is in Heaven as Man and that he is in a certain place in Heaven Aug. Fp. 57. sub finem Ep. Id de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 29. Id. tract 31. in Joan. Vigil contr Eutyck l. 4. c. 14. after the manner of being of a true Body That there is no corporal Nature that can be wholly and intirely in Heaven and wholly upon Earth at once That Jesus Christ as Man according to the Body is in one place and that he so departs from a place that he is no longer in the place from whence he parted when he is gone to another place That when the Body of the Lord was upon Earth it was not in Heaven and in like manner being now in Heaven doubtless it is not upon Earth and that 't is so certain it is not there that in regard of it we look that Christ shall come from Heaven Bertram de Nativ Christ c. 3. t. 1. Spicileg Dacher p. 323. That altho Jesus Christ is every where present according to the property of his Divinity he is but in one place according to the dimensions of his Body because that which is local is not in all places but it goes unto some other place when it hath left the place where it was before Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 82. Therefore St. Justin Martyr proved it as an Article of the Faith of Christians in his time That the Father Creator of the World having raised the Christ from the Dead was to raise him up to Heaven and there to keep or retain him until he had slain the Devils his Enemies and that the number of the good and vertuous which he foreknew should be accomplished that is to say until the day of the general Resurrection this is what the Protestants say Secondly according to the Doctrine of the Latins the Body of Jesus Christ must exist in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without occupying any space if the Fathers were of this Opinion they would not have failed to have left us proofs in their Writings or if they were obliged to say the contrary of Bodies in general and when they considered them in the Order of Nature they would doubtless have brought some exception touching the glorious Body of our Lord Jesus they were too prudent and too wise to forget so considerable a Circumstance the silence whereof might have been of very dangerous consequence and have done notable prejudice unto their Doctrine so that having exactly considered what they have said of Bodies in general and in regarding what they be naturally it appears they have made no Exception for the Body of Christ it follows then of necessity as the Protestants say that they believed not that it could exist after the manner of a Spirit that is to say invisibly and without filling a space according to the measure of its dimensions this is what I could discover in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which we have remaining touching this Question which is that the Holy Fathers testify That 't is impossible that that which hath neither Bounds Cyril Alexan. de Trinit c. 3. t. 6. Aug. l. 83. quaest q. 51. t. 4. alibi Fulgent deâ— de ad Pet. c. 3. nor Limits nor Figure and which cannot be handled nor seen can be a Body That all Bodies be they what they will take up space and place by its compass And that every thing continues in the state wherein God put it when he made it it not being the property of a Body to exist after the manner of Spirits The Protestants think it was in these kinds of Occasions that the ancient Doctors of the Church ought to have 〈◊〉 if they had any other Opinion of the Body of Christ and that altho they so determined the manner of existing of Bodies yet that they acknowledged another wholly peculiar unto the Body of Christ after the Resurrection after the which he may be in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without taking up of any space and without that each part of this Divine Body should answer unto each part of the place which should be proportioned unto its greatness and compass Nevertheless the Truth is say they that no such thing hath ever been found in their Writings and that no exception can be found for the Body of our glorious Redeemer Shall we say that they have therein wanted Wisdom and Conduct but they think this would be to stop the course of their Glory and to slander the great Reputation they have acquired in the Church of God that it would render them useless in the Controversies which divide Christians in the West because upon each point in dispute some of either side may tax them with the like thing and make them Parties It were much better say they to confess sincerely that they believed not that the Body of Jesus Christ could exist after the manner of a Spirit nor any other manner than as Bodies are wont to exist because that after his Resurrection he would have his Apostles know by seeing and feeling that he had a true Body In the third place it is another Consequence of the Belief of the Latin Church that the Body of Jesus Christ which was formed so long agoe in the Womb of the Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost is made every day by pronouncing these Words unto which the Latins attribute the Consecration of the Sacrament I will not here examine the divers Means by which it is pretended to be done my design not permitting it because I compose an Historical Treatise as far as the Subject will permit me and do endeavour as much as possible may be to avoid any thing that savours of Dispute and Controversy I will then only say that if the Holy Fathers were of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist they could not avoid allowing as true this third Consequence which necessarily depends of it Yet nevertheless having read their Works I find they held for an undoubted Maxim Athenag legat pro Christ Tertul. contr Hermog c. 19. Just Martyr sect 17.23.43.59 p. 44. Orig. in Exod. Hom 6. Hilar. l. 12. de Trin. in Psal 138. Athanas contr Aâ—riau orat 3. That what is made was not
the Learned do call a Body that which by distance of the length breadth and depth takes up space and places to wit the lesser by less parts and the greater by greater parts Id. l. 10. de Trin. c. 7. alibi passim He testifies also elsewhere That which is not a bodily Substance doth not take up the least space of place by its least part Claud. Mam. de stat anim l. 1. c. 17. and the greater by the greatest And Claudian Mammert If saith he the Soul be corporal it must then in that regard be extended in the Body as Water in a Vessel fills up the least parts of it by the least parts of it self and the greatest by the greatest Id. c. 18. And again No Body saith he can be touched all at once and how little soever it be it cannot be wholly in one place And I cannot tell but St. Chrysostom had the same thought Chryso Hom. 11 in Ep. ad Ephes when he said That the Body ought not to be placed at hazard but with a great deal of heed because if it be out of his place it is not in its proper scituation and he makes the harmony and true composition of a whole Ibid. to consist in that each part keeps in its place They teach that no Body can dwell in it self nor participate of it self Him saith St. Chryso Hom. 10 in John Chrysostom that dwells in the Tabernacle and the Tabernacle are not one and the same thing but the one lodgeth in the other for no Body inhabiteth in himself St. Cyril of Alexandria speaketh the same thing when he saith Cyril Alex. in Joan. 1.14 That of necessity these two things must be distinguished him that inhabiteth Id. Scholior c. 25. t. 5. p 794. and that in which he dwelleth for as he saith elsewhere that which inhabiteth is not the thing it self wherein he inhabiteth but rather one conceives that one is in the other And as to what regards the participation of himself Id. in Joan. l. 1. c. 7 S. p. 58 66. Id in Joan. â— 2. c. 1. p. 119. Vide l. 9. c. 1. p. 792. Id. dial 5. de Trin. p. 560.1.5 he saith in several places that it is unpossible there is nothing saith he that is a participater of it self and that which partaketh cannot be one and the same thing with that whereof it doth participate And again That which participateth doth naturally differ from that of which it participates all manner of reason will force us to confess for if that were not true there would be no difference betwixt one and another but they would be all one and that which would be a partaker of something would be a partaker of himself which cannot so much as be imagined without Absurdity for how can it be conceived that one can be a participant of himself And elsewhere It is not necessary saith he that that which one thinks to be partaker of a thing should be of another nature than the thing whereof he partakes to the end it might be said and that it should not be thought that one and the same subject should be partaker of himself for he is of the same Nature B. It is necessary Id. Dial. 6. p. 594 598. Id. dial 7. p. 643. Vid. Thesauâ—i assâ—r 19. p. 193. t. 5. which he repeats twice in the following Dialogue if not in the same Words to the same purpose and effect And in fine in the VIIth Dialogue seeing there is nothing that is partaker of it self but that is done by relation of some other it must of necessity be said that which participates is of another Nature than that which is participated of Salonius one of our Bishops of France Salon in Eccl s t. 1. Bl1 Pat. p. 152. E. 153. A Vid. Hieron in hâ—nc locâ—m expounding these Words of the 4th of Ecclesiastes The Fool foldeth his Arms and eateth his Flesh makes this Observation Who is such a Fool as to eat his own Flesh And he observes in the same place That 't is said by a Hyperbole because that it is incredible that any Man should eat his own Flesh All Christians confess that Jesus Christ did participate of the Eucharist how then could the Fathers hold for constant and undoubted that no Body can partake of himself so as to treat the contrary opinion of Absurdness and Extravagancy if they believed what the Latin Church believed of the Sacrament for methinks they could not chuse but tell us that it is undoubtedly so excepting only what happened in the first Sacrament where Jesus Christ eat his own Flesh and participated of himself Nevertheless it is most certain that they have said no such matter and that they have made no exception judg then of the force of their Silence after having judged of the strength of their Expressions For as for me I must end what I have begun in saying that the Holy Fathers observe yet further that a Body cannot be intire in one of its parts which nevertheless is done according to the Hypothesis of the Latins when our Saviour did participate of the Eucharist Every Body saith St. Austin which occupieth a place August de immoâ—talit animâ— c. 16. t. 1. is not quite whole in every one of its parts but in all of them therefore one of these parts is in one place and the other in another I will add unto all these Considerations to conclude the Chapter that these Holy Doctors have deposed that any thing which can be seen or touched and that comes within the Senses is a Body Tert. de resur carâ— Ed. Rhen. p. 68. Id. advers Marc. l. 4. c â— Tertullian assures That what may be seen or held is a Body And elsewhere he justifies the truth of the Body of Christ against Marcion in shewing that he suffered himself to be touched It cannot be thought saith he that he was a Spirit because he admitted himself to be touched strongly and violently Whereupon he alledgeth this famous Verse of Lucretius That nothing besides a Body can touch nor be touched Lactantius Firmianus Tutor unto Crispus Son of Constantine the Great Lactant. instit l. 3. c. 17. Tit. Bostren contr Manich. l. 2. Amb of in c 1. ad Coloss Chrysost Hom. 26. in Joan. Theod. dial 2. speaking of Epicurus his Atoms saith That if they are little Bodies and solid they may be seen Titus Bishop of Bostria in Arabia doth witness That any thing that can be seen is a Body St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan That what may be touched and handled is a Body Hillary Deacon of Rome in the works of the same St. Ambrose What one sees is a Body St. Chrysostom What is submitted to the Senses is a Body And Theodoret in one of his Dialogues What may be seen is a Body Let the Reader if he please apply all these Testimonies unto the subject of the Sacrament
celebrate these Antitypes that is to say these Figures he himself having commanded us to shew forth his Death Whereupon the Protestants say That this Form of Thanksgiving doth not well agree with the Belief of the Latin Church and that it is conceived in Terms too weak if the Author which transmitted it to us had believed the real Presence which makes the Spirit of the Communicant in the heat of his Devotion to look unto Jesus Christ himself and to the Substance of his Body whereas this here speaks unto him of Antitypes and of Figures So in St. Basil's Liturgy the Priest celebrating prayeth unto God Liturg. Basil in presenting him saith he the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For although in this Prayer he desires of God that he would sanctifie and consecrate them nevertheless it doth evidently appear that he considers the Symbols of Bread and Wine as already consecrated because they could not without the Vertue of Consecration be the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ which he look'd upon as already done which according to the Belief and Practice of the Greeks was done in that very Moment Greg. Nazian Orat. 11. p. 187. St. Gregory of Nazianzen in the Funeral-Oration of his Sister Gorgony relates amongst other things the miraculous Recovery of this Vertuous Woman and refers it unto the Sacrament in these Words She put her Head saith he near the Altar and shedding a Flood of Tears after the Example of her who washed with her Tears the Feet of Jesus Christ she declared that she would not leave that Place until she had obtained and recovered her Health her Tears were the Incense which she poured forth upon all his Body she mingled them with the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as much as her Hands could hold and instantly O Miracle she felt her self healed and retired What did St. Gregory think of will some say in relating this History if he had believed what the Latin Church believes For if that were so no body but would judge that he ought to attribute this Recovery of his Sister not to the Sign but to the Thing signified not to the Figure but to the Body it self of Jesus Christ nevertheless he doth the quite contrary 't is to the Antitype and the Figure that he attributes this wonderful Effect and thereby he shews that he was of another Opinion There is in the Works of this same Father an Oration wherein doubtless he discovered the Strength of his Wit and the Treasure of his Eloquence I mean wherein he hath omitted nothing to obtain his Desire which was to preserve the City of Nazianzen whereof his Father had been Bishop and which the Emperors Prefect threatned with Destruction and Ruin Levit. This excellent Man taking Pity of this poor City and passionately desiring to preserve it from the Storm wherewith it was threatned he earnestly beseeches the Prefect to spare it He beseeches he conjures he sets before his Eyes all that is most holy and most sacred in Religion Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. and to touch him even to the Heart he saith unto him amongst other Things I represent before your Eyes this Table where we communicate all together and the Types and Figures of my Salvation which I do consecrate with this same Mouth with the which I present my Request this Mystery I say which lifts us up unto Heaven Must it not be confessed saith the Protestant either that St. Gregory was but a very bad Orator and that he took but an ill Course to appease the Prefect to stir up his Compassion towards the Inhabitants of the City of Nazianzen in laying before him the Figures of his Salvation and instead of speaking unto him of the Body it self of Jesus Christ and of saying unto him That he conjured him by this pretious Body which he made with the same Mouth which intreated him or that he had not yet learned the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and because to this Day no body ever denied unto Gregory Nazianzen the Quality of a good and eloquent Orator He adds That it must of necessity be concluded that he was not in all likelihood of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament In the Life of St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon who lived in the VIIth Century there is a kind of Sermon or rather a Collection of Exhortations and Remonstrances which he made unto the People that he instructed in the Faith of Jesus Christ and unto whom he preached the Doctrine of his holy Gospel and amongst several of these Instructions the Scope whereof was to incline them unto good and to divert them from Evil he directs this unto them S. Elig l. 2. vita ejus c 15. p. 217. t. 5. Spicil Daâ—h Hinder them from making Diabolical Sports and Games and from Dances and that they do not sing the Songs of Pagans that no Christian be exercised therein because that by these Songs one becomes a Pagan for it is not just that the Devils Songs should proceed out of the Mouth of a Christian wherein enters the Sacraments of Jesus Christ There 's no body but doth easily perceive that St. Eloy's Exhortation had been incomparably Stronger and more efficacious if instead of Sacraments he had spoken of the real Body of Jesus Christ For if the Hearers had been hardned to the highest Degree he must needs have moved them in shewing them that it was a shameful thing to see devilish Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein the proper Body of Christ doth enter Was it not the fit time to have said it and could he dispense himself from saying it if he had believed what the Latin Church now believes Seeing then that he said it not and that he contented himself with speaking of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ one cannot also reasonably dispense themselves from inferring that he was of another Belief it is as the Protestant saith what may be collected from this Testimony There is in the third Tome of the Councils of France which Father Sirmond hath published a Letter of the Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims and of Roüen that is to say of the Suffragan Bishops of those two Archbishopricks assembled at Cressy Anno 858. to consider of the Order of Lewis King of Germany which forcibly invaded the Kingdom of Charles the Bald his Brother In this Letter which is very long and divided into Chapters they represent several things unto this Prince and because he desired they would give him their Oaths they strongly refused alledging this Reason for their Denial That it would be an abominable thing Concil Câ—ris t. 3. Gall. p. 129. Extr. that 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 should be concerned after the
liberty of writing and speaking against the Doctrines of the Church was never greater than in the first Ages of Christianity nor less in the West than since the Condemnation of Beranger I can find no other cause of so various and different proceeding but the difference of Doctrine which until Paschas his time was such that no Body had reason to take up Arms to dispute against it whereas ever since the establishing of his Opinion which altered the ancient Belief there hath been made continual Resistance and Opposition Now I come to the Disputes which the ancient Fathers have had against Hereticks wherein they have imployed the Mystery of the Eucharist The first which troubled the settlement of Christianity were the Saturnians the Menandrians Valentinians Marcionites and others I intend not to burden my Paper with all the Impieties of these Wretches but only to represent those against which the holy Doctors have made use of the belief of the Holy Sacrament and in what manner they have done it I find then there were three horrible Impieties held by these extravagant Persons against which they employed the Holy Sacrament by the first they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true human Body but a shadow of a Body and a meer form void of substance or solidity By the second they said that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the World but that the World and all Creatures which we see in it are the effect of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance and not of the Father of Jesus Christ And by the third in fine they said that all these material Creatures should be wholly destroyed and that by Consequence our Bodies being of the number of these Creatures should not be raised being uncapable of receiving supernatural Incorruption nor of participating of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Flesh and Spirit not subsisting both together The Holy Fathers do alledge the Eucharist to refute the first of these Impieties but it is requisite to know how they do alledge it for if they had been in the belief of the Latin Church they would not have failed as the Protestants say to have told these Hereticks that they overthrew the Faith of the whole Church which holds that the Substance of Bread and Wine is turned into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which could not be if he had not a true Body They suppose this would have been the only means to have refuted them and they think the Latins would have used this course had they to do with such Hereticks They say also that the Argument would have been clear and convincing and that 't is to be believed the ancient Doctors would not have followed any other course if they had been of the same Opinions that yet nevertheless they do not argue after that manner to refute the first Error of these Instruments of Satan they only tell them that seeing the Eucharist is the Image and Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ then of necessity he hath a true Body because every Image and Figure doth presuppose the Existence and Truth of the thing that it represents and that it is the reasoning of Tertullian in his Excellent Treatise against Marcion Tertul. adyers Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Jesus Christ saith he made the Bread his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body now it had not been a Figure if there had not been a true Body for a Shadow and empty Appearance such as is a Spirit is not capable of having a Figure The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in Origens Works reasoneth after the same manner Author Dial contra Marc. inter Orig op Dial. 3. If Jesus Christ saith he had neither Flesh nor Blood as the Marcionites affirm of what Flesh and Blood is it that he hath given us the Images that is to say the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament when he commanded his Disciples to remember him by those things Against the second Impiety they also imply the Holy Sacrament and see here how they do it Tren contr heres l. 4. c. 34. They say The Holy Sacrament is an Acknowledgment which we make unto God under the Title of Creator in offering unto him the first Fruits of the Creatures which he hath made and that it were an injustice to the Father of Jesus Christ if he were not the Creator of the World to offer unto him things which belonged not unto him as if he coveted that which belonged to another and desired to have what was not his own That if the Creatures were the product of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance it were to wrong God instead of giving him Thanks to offer him the Fruits of Passion of Nature and of Ignorance It is after this manner St. Ireneus doth argue to confute the Adversaries which he opposed in shewing them that the Father of Jesus Christ must needs be the Creator of the World because he accepts the Oblations of Bread and Wine which is made unto him in the Eucharist for to say that it is no longer Bread and Wine after Consecration but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that 't was so St. Ireneus understood it the Protestants say this would have been yeilding the cause unto these Hereticks who teaching that Jesus Christ was not of the number of the Creatures of this World would not have failed to have inferred that his Father had not been the Creator because our Lord was offered unto him which was not the work of the Creator whereas in saying that there was offered unto him Creatures of this World as these Hereticks owned as well as the Orthodox that there was such offered unto him in the Eucharist he would have put them to silence all the shifts they could have made would have vanished away at the sight of this Truth because they confessed that Bread and Wine are of those Creatures whereof the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would not have received an Oblation if he had not been the Maker of them Something of this Nature is seen in Tertullian's first Book against Marcion Chap. 14. It remains to see after what manner the Fathers have acted to refute the last Impiety of these Hereticks who denied the resurrection of the Body maintaining that all material Creatures shall be wholly destroyed and reduced to nothing Iren. advers haeres l 4. c. 34. and that the Flesh is uncapable of receiving Incorruption because Incorruption is a Grace of the Spirit which can have no Commerce nor Society with the Flesh We preach in the Eucharist saith St. Ireneus the Communion and Unity of the Flesh and Spirit for as the Bread which is of the Earth receiving the Invocation of God is no longer common Bread but is the Sacrament composed of two things the one Terrestrial the other Celestial so also our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are no more corruptible
deceived that it hapned about they year 630. Hist Miscel l. 18. And because Anastatius wrote some time after there being yet in Egypt an Augustal Prefect it necessarily follows that he wrote about the year 637. And before the year 639. Hist Sarac in Omar that the Sarrazins entring into Egypt expelled the Augustal Prefect and made themselves Masters of the Country Which being granted the Reader may please to take notice that this Anastatius of whom we speak disputing against the Hereticks which held that the Body of Christ could not suffer from the first moment of his Conception brings in the Orthodox making this question to the Heretick Annasâ—at Sin in cap. 23. Tell me I pray the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you offer and whereof you are partakers is it the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or common Bread as that which is sold in Markets or only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ as the Sacrifice of the Goat offered by the Jews Whereunto the Heretick having answered God forbid we should say that the Holy Communion is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ or bare Bread Anastatius replies We believe it to be so and confess it according to Christ's words to his Disciples when in the Mystical Supper he gave them the Bread of Life saying Take Eat this is my Body He also gave them the Cup saying This is my Blood He said not this is the Figure of my Body and Blood He is the first that deviated from the usual Expressions and that denied what all the holy Fathers before him had affirmed and some also after him as we have shewed in the Third Chapter of this Second Part And have shewn that these holy Fathers testifie That when our Lord gave his Eucharist to his Apostles he gave them the Figure of his Body Anastatius then denying what the others affirmed according to the Maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis his Opinion should be rejected as an Opinion private and peculiar to himself and we are firmly and constantly to hold and embrace the publick and universal Belief but because the words of Authors are favourably to be interpreted at least as much as may be some say it should be so done towards Anastatius and that 't is easie to give a good sense unto what he said He declares the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he saith nothing as they think that being rightly understood but is very reasonable because it is most certain that the Sacrament is unto the faithful Soul instead of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that he truly communicates unto him this broken Body and this Blood poured out for his Consolation and Salvation and that it is changed as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks into the Efficacy of his Body If Anastatius say they erred in rejecting the word Sign and Figure the Fathers both before and after him having used it it cannot be believed that he hath changed any thing in the ground of the Doctrine they think so for several reasons in the first place he saith it is not simple Bread as is sold in the Markets for thus speaking is to acknowledge that it is Bread which by Consecration hath acquired the quality of an Efficacious and Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of whom for that reason it takes the name as it hath the virtue and efficacy in its lawful use as when the Fathers say of the Waters of Baptism and the Oyl of Chrisin Cyril Hieros Catech. 3. illum Mystag 3. that it is not common Water and common Oyl they deny not that it is Water and Oyl they only mean that it is Water and Oyl sanctified to be the Symboles of the washing and purifying our Souls by the Blood of Jesus Christ and by the Vertue of the Holy Ghost Secondly He declares that it is not a Figure as the Sacrifice of the Goat which the Jews offered that is a Type and Figure without efficacy and vertue having taken this name of Type and Figure for a Legal Figure and without Operation in which sense it is true that the Communion is not a Figure and bare Type destitute of the truth like the Types and Figures of the Law whereof he produceth an Example in the Sacrifice of the Goat In the third place he speaks of a Body of the Lord Which being kept in a Vessel corrupts in few days Id. Anast Ibid. c. 23. changeth and quite altereth of a Body and Blood which as he saith in another Chapter of the same Treatise may be broken divided Id. c. 13. Ibid. c. 13. and distrihuted in parcels broken with the Teeth changed poured out and drank And in the same Chapter he saith That the Body and Blood distributed unto the People saying The Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour is a Visible Body created and taken from the Earth They conclude then that if there was imprudence in his expressions there was no Error in his Doctrine and they are very much confirmed in this Opinion which I freely remit unto the judgment of others if they consider the Doctrine had received no Opposition in the East nor West Maxim in Nol. Dionys Arcop pag. 68. 75. 69. not in the East because in the time Anastatius wrote in his Desert Maximius Abbot of Constantinople whose Name was more famous and his Doctrine more eminent taught That the holy Bread and Cup of Benediction are Signs and sensible Symbols or Types of true things Symbols and not the truth that the things of the Old Testament were the Types those of the New Testament are the Antitypes but that the truth shall be in the state of the World to come This Author faithfully retains the ancient Expressions and Doctrine of those which went before him and he thus defines the word Symbol Id. in Interp. vocum The Symbol is a sensible thing taken for an intelligible thing as the Bread and Wine are taken for the Divine and immaterial Food Not in the West because in the same Age Anastatius lived Isid Hispal de Offic. Eccl. l. 1. c. 18. St. Isidor of Sevil said That the Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wine is his Blood that the Bread is called his Body Id. Origin l. 6. c. 19. because it strengthens the Body that the Wine resembles the Blood of Jesus Christ because it creates blood in the body Id. voca c. 26. de alleg in Genes c. 12. And that these two things which be visible pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body being Sanctified by the Holy Ghost That by the Commandment of the Lord we call the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that which being made of the fruits of the Earth is sanctified and becomes a Sacrament by the Invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost Id. in Genes
took them out of the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to teach them unto such as desired to be instructed At the beginning of the Letter Id. ibi p. 1619. 1623. You examine me saith he upon a thing whereof several persons doubt Id. in Matt. l. 12. p. 1094. In his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew I have treated of these things more at large and more expresly because I am informed that some reproved me as if in the Book of Sacraments which I published I had given unto the words of Jesus Christ more than the truth it self doth allow Ib. p. 1100. And again There are many that in these mystical things are of another Opinion and there are many that are blind and cannot see when they think this Bread and this Cup is nothing else but what is seen with the Eyes and which is tasted with the Mouth Wherefore the Anonymous Author before mentioned Aut Anonym uâ—i supra writes that some affirmed That what is received at the Altar is the same that was born of the Virgin and that others on the contrary denied it and said That it is another thing But having been told by Paschas himself that he had several Adversaries and Opposers We must farther learn of him what was the belief of this great number of Opposers for after having cited the words of Institution Take Eat this is my Body Paschas Ep. ad Frudegard Commentar in Matth. l. 12. he adds That those which will extenuate this term of Body saying That it is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament nor his true blood let them hear these words they pretend I know not what as if there was only in the Sacrament a certain vertue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as if our Saviour had told a lye and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood c. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples he said not This is or there is in this Mystery a certain Vertue or Figure of my Body but he said This is my Body And a little after I admire that some would now say That it is not the reality of the Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the thing it self but in Sacrament a certain efficacy of the body and not the body a vertue of the blood and not the blood a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the substance It cannot then reasonably be after such formal and positive Declarations that the world should think any other Opinion can be attributed unto the Adversaries of Paschas but that of the Protestants of France and of all others of their Communion As the Belief of Paschas is that of the Roman Catholicks to say otherwise were to dissemble to renounce the truth and to be unworthy the esteem and credit of honest men Let it then be granted for certain that in this important point which we do examine Paschas was a Roman Catholick as 't is spoken now a days And that his Adversaries on the contrary were Protestant Calvinists from whence it will necessarily follow that if the followers of Paschas in the IX Century were more considerable and of greater numbers than his Adversaries the Opinion of the Latin Church had the victory over the other but if also the number of his Adversaries was greater their Name more famous and their Reputation better established it must be concluded That the Belief of the Protestants had the Victory it appears that so things are to be understood to do right unto both parties The better to succeed in this design I will begin with those that followed Paschas seeing it was him that obliged his Adversaries to contradict him and oppose themselves unto the Establishment of his Opinion which appeared new unto them and different from the ancient Faith of the Church It cannot be denied but Paschas Radbert had good Endowments as appears by his Works and that he was commended by some Writers of that time as a Man of great Learning and above the common sort Nevertheless as to the Subject in hand I have not observed in what I have read that many persons have declared in favour of him It is out of all question that Frudegard fell into his Opinion after having read his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Letter which Paschas writ him Paschas Ep. ad Frudeg pag. 1620. we therein find these words You say that you believed so formerly he speaks of his Opinion and that you read the same in the Book of Sacraments that I composed Since which time Frudegard having read the Advertisement which St. Austin gives in the third Book of Christian Doctrine of understanding figuratively what our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh he was very much shaken and if he changed not quite it may be said that he continued in suspence without declaring for or against Paschas It is what he informs us Ibid. when he adds unto his first words But you say that you have since read in St. Austin 's third Book of Christian Doctrine that where it is said it is the body and blood of Christ it is a figurative manner of expression and if it is a figurative speech and a figure rather than the truth I cannot tell say you how it should be understood And you say afterwards And if I believe that it is the same body as that which he took from the holy Virgin his Mother this excellent Doctor that is to say St. Austin declares on the contrary that it is a great crime to wit to believe that it is the real body of Jesus Christ Paschas doth what he can to continue him in the Opinion he had been of before he had read this passage of St. Austin and the better to effect it he alledges this unto him under the name of this great Saint and as being taken out of his Sermons unto the Neophites Ibid. Receive in the Bread what was nailed upon the Cross and in the Cup that which came out of the Side of Jesus Christ Words which for certain are not of St. Austin and which are not to be found in any of his Works which we have in great numbers Paschas 't is true cites them as to the best of his remembrance and I cannot tell if in a matter so important as this it will serve turn to say As I remember or If my memory fail not In the main it not appearing that he satisfied Frudegard in his doubts the surest side we can take in this Conjuncture is to make him neither a Friend nor an Adversary of Paschas but to leave him in his doubts if we would not increase the Sect of Scepticks I will not say the same of the Anonymous Author which Father Cellot hath furnished us and whom we have twice mentioned already in this Chapter for it appears plainly he was
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
Jesus Christ And as this Bread and Wine pass into the Body of Jesus Christ so also all those that eat it worthily in the Church are one sole Body of Jesus Christ as himself hath said Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Nevertheless this Flesh which he hath taken and this Bread Id. ibid. in cap. â—1 and the whole Church are not three Bodies of Jesus Christ but one Body And afterwards Although this Bread is brought from several places and that it is Consecrated throughout the whole World by several Priests nevertheless the Divinity that filleth all things filleth it also and maketh it to be one sole Body of Jesus Christ and all those which receive it â—d in Canone Idiss â— t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 441. do make this same Body of Jesus Christ which is one and not two And elsewhere As the Divinity of the Son which filleth all the World is one so also although this Body is Consecrated in sundry places and in an infinite number of different days yet they are not several Bodies of Jesus Christ nor several Cups but one sole Body and one Blood with that which he took from the Virgin and gave unto the Apostles for the Divinity fills it is joyned to it and causeth that as it is one so also it should be joyned unto the Body of Jesus Christ and should be one Body of Jesus Christ in verity This Author whoever he was says two or three things which sufficiently inform us of his intention for he saith that the Divinity joyns the Bread unto the Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then he must needs believe that it subsisted still after Consecration because a thing that is not cannot be joyned unto another thing the uniting and joyning of two different subjects presupposeth the Existence of the one and the other he saith also that the Church as well as the Sacrament is one Body with the natural Body of Jesus Christ he affirms it no more of the Sacrament than of the Church he then meant that they were both so after one and the same manner In fine see here how he argues the Natural Body of Jesus Christ the Sacrament and the Church are filled with one and the same vertue and animated if it may be so said with the same Spirit they are not then three Bodies but one the Unity of one Body depending on the unity of the Principle that acts in him So that because the same Principle that acts in the natural Body of Jesus Christ acts also in the Bread of the Eucharist and in the Church they should not be according to this Author but one and the same Body because that though considering them severally they be three different Bodies yet to consider them in the unity of this Principle and in the Numerical Identity if I may so say of the same vertue they become one sole Body This is as far as I can comprehend the Opinion of Remy which though not favouring the Opinion of Paschas yet is not for all that the Opinion of his Adversaries Therefore we will let him stand alone to receive the Depositions of others which present themselves to be heard The first is Rabanus very illustrious for his Dignity and for his Merit Historians vie with each other to celebrate his Praises as of the greatest Man of that Age and unto whom none was to be compared He was first a Friar in the Abby of Fulda then Abbot of the same Monastery and at last Archbishop of Mayance This illustrious Prelate and the most famous Disciple of the great Alcuin Tutor unto Charlemain being informed of the Opinion of Paschas Radbert touching the Sacrament set himself in a posture of arguing and openly opposing himself against it as against a Doctrine that appeared new and strange unto him and contrary to the ancient Belief of the Church This is the Declaration which the Anonimous Author and favourer of Paschas hath made us saying That Rabanus disputed against him at large Autor Anonym ubi supra in his Letter unto the Abbot Egilon But if we had not the Testimony of this Disciple of Paschas we cannot be ignorant of this matter seeing Rabanus himself hath transmitted the thing unto us for in his Penitential which Peter Stuart Professor in Divinity in the College of Ingolstat hath published he speaks after this sort Raban Maur. in Poenitent c. 33 de Eucharist It is not long since some persons holding erroneous Opinions touching the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ have said That it is the Body it self and the Blood of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and wherein our Saviour suffered upon the Cross and rose again from the Dead which Error we have opposed as much as we could and have signified in writing unto the Abbot Egilon what ought to be believed of the Body it self It cannot then be doubted but Rabanus wrote directly against Paschas seeing that the Opinion which he condemns and which he opposeth as erroneous is just that of Paschas as we have plainly demonstrated This Letter is lost either through the length of time or the malice of Men which have lived since that time But 't is sufficient that we do know that he wrote it and by consequence was a great Enemy of Paschas as unhe plainly testifies by several of his other Works which are come to our hands for he teacheth that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and that these divine Symbols being received by Communicants part of it turns into their substance and the rest goes as their other ordinary food doth unto the place where Nature dischargeth it self Autor Anonym ubi supra The Anonymous Author already cited several times saith positively That he held the Sacrament to be subject unto this Accident And William of Malmesbury wrote to his Brother Robert in the Preface of the Epitome of Amalarius of Divine Offices which is to be seen in a Manuscript at Oxford Guillelm Malmesbur in All-Souls College I gave you notice saith he that amongst those which have writ of these things there is one that you are to avoid which is called Rabanus which in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices saith That the Sacraments of the Altar are profitable to nourishment and for that reason are subject to corruption or malady or age or to be cast into the draft or to death it self See how dangerous a thing it is to say to believe and to write these things of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Tho. Waldens t. 1. doctrin in praesat t. 2. c. 19.52 62. Thomas Waldensis testifies the same in divers parts of his Writings where he reproacheth Wicliff That as he teacheth that the Eucharist is digested and passeth into our substance so he might also teach with Rabanus that it passeth into the draft And he instanceth the
you that is to say if you participate not of my passion and if you believe not that I dyed for your salvation you have no life in you This is the constant Doctrine of St. Austin He also testifies in the following words that he gloried in being one of his followers The Mystery is the Faith Ibid. as St. Austin saith in his Letter unto the Bishop Boniface As then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is after some sort the body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his blood his blood so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith so we may also say This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament as if he should say This is my Blood which is given for you he could not say more plainly That the Cup that is the Wine which is in the Cup is the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is the thing whereof it is the Sacrament And in another Letter unto one Guntard whom he calls his Son and that he was something dissatisfied because Amalarius did spit presently after having received the Sacrament he saith unto him Id. ad Guntard Ep. 6. p. 196. that he denied not but that we should venerate the Body of Jesus Christ above all other Food It is not at all likely he would have spoken after this manner if he had believed that what is received in the Sacrament is the very Body of Jesus Christ because there can be no comparison betwixt this Divine Body and our Ordinary Food but he might well say so of the Sacrament for the which we should have a more peculiar respect and veneration than for our other meats He explains himself and sheweth that he speaks not of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Typical Body when he saith That it belongs to our Lord to pour out his Body by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation Ibid. p. 171. That it is the Body of Jesus Christ which may be cast out in spitting after having received it and whereof some part may be cast out of the mouth Unto all which he adds Having so received the Body of Christ with a good intention I don't intend to argue whether it be invisibly lifted up unto Heaven or whether it remains in our bodies until the day of our Death or whether it be exhaled into the Air or whether it departs out of the body with the blood or whether it goes out at the pores our Saviour saying Ibid. p. 172. Whatsoever enters in at the Mouth goes into the Belly and from thence into the draft only care is to be taken not to receive it with a heart of Judas not to misprise it but to distinguish it savingly from ordinary Food Thence it is that he requires That during Lent all Believers Id. de observatione Quadrages p. 174. excepting such as are Excommunicated should receive the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesâ— Christ and that the people should be warned not to draw near the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ irreverently I know not saith the Protestant if after all these Declarations it can be doubted that Amalarius was far from the Opinion of Paschas Id. de offic l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 25. and that when he saith We believe that the plain Nature of Bread and Wine mixed is changed into a reasonable Nature of the body and blood of Jesus Christ That the Church believes it is the body and blood of our Saviour and that by this Morsel the Souls of Communicants are filled with a heavenly Benediction which are passages alledged by the Latins to support their Doctrine He meant not that they passed or as Rabanus told us that they are converted into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood And to say the truth adds he I find he hath so fully explained and cleared his intention that it must be concluded that he believed the Sacrament is not the Flesh it self born of the Virgin as Paschas taught but the Sacrament of this holy Flesh the Bread and Wine by sanctification passing into this Divine Sacrament as he said of the Oyl the People offered Ibid. l. 1. c. 12. That by benediction it is converted into a Sacrament Therefore he gives us to understand that this Sacrament which we receive and that he calls the Body of Jesus Christ because of some likeness as he explained himself by the words of St. Austin is subject unto divers accidents whereto the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be expos'd particularly of going into the place of Excrements like other Meats Let the Reader judge if he please of this Dispute and Controversie Unto Rabanus and Amalarius I will joyn Wallafridus Strabo who in all probability wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical matters betwixt the years 840. and 849. In Poemate which was the time of his Decease In that he calls Rabanus his Father and Master it may give cause to conceive that he was of one Judgment with him but because meer surmises are not sufficient proof nor convincing Arguments Walafri Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles c. 16. Bibl. p. 7. t. 10. let us learn from his own mouth what he believed of the Mystery which we examine Jesus Christ saith he gave to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of Bread and Wine teaching them to celebrate it in Commemoration of his most holy passion because there could nothing be found more fitting then these species to signifie the Unity of the head and his members for as the Bread is made of several Grains and is reduced into one body by means of Water and as the Wine is pressed from several Grapes so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of believers And a little after he declares That Jesus Christ hath chosen for us a reasonable Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and of his blood in that Melchisedek having offered Bread and Wine he gave unto believers the same kind of sacrifice And again That as for that great number of legal sacrifices Id. cap. 18. Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel so also for that great diversity of sacrifices believers should rest satisfied with the Oblation of Bread and Wine As all these passages are exceeding clear so it is very just and reasonable they should serve for a Commentary unto others if it had hapned that Wallafridus had spoken less clear any where else for then should that judicious rule of Tertullians be practised That the plainest things should prevail Tertull. de Resurrect carn c. 19. 21. and that the most certaine should prescribe against the uncertain things which are doubtful should be judged by those things which are certain and those which are obscure by those which are clear and manifest Let us apply this unto what Wallafridus saith in another place which the Latins forget
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
and affront his Messengers insomuch as he threatens him with Deposition or of Anathematizing according to the Decree of the Fifth Universal Council There are several other things of the like Nature in the Letter which is not necessary to be mention'd What hath been said sufficeth to shew that Pope Adrian could not wish a fairer occasion to tax Charles the Bald as Protector of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas against whom Ratramn and John Erigenius wrote by his command not to speak of his Principal Chaplain Heribold which was of the same Opinion Adrian doth no such thing On the contrary he endeavours to appease the spirit of Charles in the Letter which he after wrote to him and to mitigate the anger which the first had provoked him unto wherein he had commanded him with Authority to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon unto Rome It is said that these proceedings do in all likelihood justifie that the belief of Ratramn and of John Erigenius whom the King Protected was the belief of Adrian himself and of the whole Church it not being to be believed the Pope would have been silent unto this Prince who had so touched him to the Quick if the Doctrine which he favoured had not been Catholick and Orthodox I would here conclude the History of the IX Century were I not obliged to say something of the Greek Church for at the beginning of this Age Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople and Successor of Tarrasius following the steps of the Second Council of Nice whose Constitutions touching Image Worship he followed Nicephorus I say with the Fathers of the Council declared That the Eucharist is not the Image of Jesus Christ De Cherub c. 6. Bibl. Pat. t. 4. but his Body seeing he spake as the Prelates of Nice the same Explication must be given to his words as were given unto those of the Council and refer the Reader unto what hath been said in the 12th Chapter if it be not better to rank him with John Damascen of whom we have also spoke in the same Chapter and to say the truth he speaks many things which are inconsistent with the Doctrine of the real Presence As for example Ibid. c. 7. That the humane nature of Jesus Christ is not invisible that God only can be at several places at once Id. de imag That every Body is necessarily limited and that it filleth a place which he applies particularly unto the Body of Jesus Christ Id. libel 12. capitulor c. 3. The third sacred Council saith he hath declared that Jesus Christ our God is limited according to the Flesh and hath Anathematized those which believe not this word And elsewhere Id. de imag having treated of the manner of Existing of Bodies Jesus Christ saith he is bounded according to his humane Nature after all the ways which we have shewed for he hath born a true Body like us and not a supposed Body And in a Dispute which the same Nicephorus had with the Emperor Leo the Armenian which Father Combefis hath published he attributes unto the Body of Jesus Christ Origin Const p. 176. visibility touch and circumscription to distinguish it from his Divinity and shewing the reason why Angels cannot be in one place circumscriptively he saith It is because they be simple Ibid. p. 180. and without composition and that they have not Bodies Father Combefis in the same Collection of divers Authors concerning the City of Constantinople alledgeth a great passage of Theodorus Graptus P. 221. 222. touching the Eucharist but because he teacheth the same Opinion with John Damascen as is observed by this same Friar which hath given it unto us and as it is easie to observe inreading of it we will dispence with our selves in relating of it seeing the Reader may find what hath been said of it in the 12th Chapter upon the Belief of Damascen Leaving then this Theodorus Martyr of Image Worship let us speak of another Theodorus no less affectionate than the former unto this same Worship and imprisoned for it It is Theodorus Studite whom Michael Studite that wrote his Life introduceth thus speaking unto his Disciple My Son these Men as I find endeavour Apud Baron ad ann Dom. 816. num 12. besides the other cruelties they exercise against us to starve us to Death because they know it is the cruellest of all sorts of Death but let us put our trust in God which can feed us not with Bread only but with meat incomparably more excellent because alf Spirits subsist by his good pleasure only And because above all other things the participation of the Body of our Saviour is wont to be the nourishment of my Body and of my Soul for the Father always carried along with him some parcels of the quickning Body and Celebrated the Divine Mysteries as often as he had conveniency I will receive only this Food I will taste nothing else whatsoever and what is wont to be allowed for two shall be for thee only He speaks of the Eucharist as of a thing which nourisheth the Body and which may be divided into sundry parts which cannot be meant of the real Body of Jesus Christ but of his Sacrament which is called his Body be-because it hath the vertue of it for the nourishing of the Soul CHAP. XVI Of the State of the X. Century THe Tenth Age hath exercised of late years two good Writers and hath afforded matter and subject unto Authors which with much skill and industry each defending the cause of his party grappled a long time about this poor Age either to advance the credit of it or to shew the morosity ignorance and obscurity of it they both spoke very agreeably what they intended to say and having thereupon reflected sharply upon each other in the view of all France have not as yet decided their Controversie If I mistake not every body may see that I mean the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist and him that answered him The former having made a short Discourse which was to serve for a Preface unto the Office of the Holy Sacrament had not some reasons hindred the execution of this first design The latter at the desire of some Godly Friends undertook to make some Considerations upon this little Treatise and having in brief spoken of the X. Century as of an unfortunate ignorant Age overspread with Darkness and Errors according to the testimony of Historians The Author of the Perpetuity hath insisted upon this part of the considerations of his Adversary and hath employed all his endeavours to restore unto this Age all the Reputation and Glory that he thought it had been unjustly deprived of accusing the Ministers of disparaging it for interest sake The other was not silent but having fully vindicated his Brethren from the Accusation laid to their charge he proves by several Historians and of persons the most affectionate to the Latin
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
parts it was publickly professed And this easily persuades me that Berengarius did not so much infuse this Opinion into them as he encouraged them by his Example to publish it by rousing them up from the stupidness wherein they had layen for some time For had this people believed no more of the Eucharist than just what Berengarius had taught this Doctrine could scarce have made so great a progress in so little a time but as it was instill'd into them from Father to Son Berengarius had no sooner opened his mouth but that they embraced it not regarding the fear that had till then discouraged them seeing the Contradiction it found in the World whilst that of Paschas therein received favour and encouragement But because the Enemies of this Doctrine have looked upon Berengarius to have been the true Author of it they have taxed him of infecting with the Venom of his Heresie all those which by his example had the courage to make Profession of it It is with this prejudice that Matthew of Westminster saith Ad Ann. 1â— 87. That he had almost infected all France Italy and England Matthew Paris and William of Malmesbury say Matt. Paris in Willielm II. Will. Malms 6. in Willielm l. l. 3. That all France was full of his Doctrine So it is that Durandus of Troarn an ancient Monastery in Normandy also saith in a Treatise which he made of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he opposeth the Doctrine taught by Berengarius It cannot be doubted but that the Doctrine of Berengarius was the same with that taught by several in the IX Century which opposed the Opinions of Paschas as Novelties which until then had not been heard of in the Church If then the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas was the ancient Belief of Christians as we suppose hath been sufficiently proved it must be granted that Berengarius did not depart from it and that those which followed him had been of old instructed therein Therefore as soon as he began to bublish it they knew it and without any difficulty made Profession of it But if Berengarius had Friends he also had Enemies if he had Followers he had also those which opposed him The first that attempted to write against him seems to be Adelman which from Theologal of the Church of Liege became Bishop of Bress He had studied with Berengarius under Fulbert Bishop of Chartres and having heard what Berengarius taught of the Sacrament of the Eucharist he wrote him a Letter wherein having renewed the memory of their old Friendship he shews that it was reported of him that he taught Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. ult ed. p. 167. That the Eucharist is not the true Body nor the real Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure and Resemblance Adelman endeavours to refute this Doctrine but by Reasons which appear weak and some also that do not very well agree with his Hypothesis but Berengarius answered him in such a manner as he might see that he did not much value his Reproof and that he was resolved always to defend his Belief calling that which was contrary unto him Apud Lanfran t. 6. bibl Pat. p. 192. The folly of the people of Paschas and of Lanfranc By which words he sheweth that he looked upon Paschas as the Author of this Novelty and Lanfranc as the Promoter of it and that both the one and the other endeavoured to infuse it into the people to the prejudice of their ancient Faith For Berengarius pretended that his Doctrine was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and that that of his Adversaries was not known but since Paschas his time who having invented it in his Cell brought it forth in the Year of our Lord 818. Berengarius having thus silenced Adelman Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 319. his ancient Fellow-Student Durandus Bishop of Liege and by consequence Adelman's Bishop sounded an Alarm in a Letter he wrote unto King Henry against Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and against Berengarius his Arch-Deacon as against persons which taught that the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ but the Figure of his Body which this Prelate calls Renewing of ancient Heresies And to shew with what Spirit this Bishop was acted he exhorts the King to deliberate of their punishment rather than to hear them in Councils Moreover I have called this Bishop of Liege Durandus after Baronius and those which have given us the Library of the holy Fathers but according to the truth of the History it cannot be so because Durandus was dead before Bruno was Bishop of Anger 's And indeed Durandus died Anno 1025. according to Segebert and Bruno attained not unto the Episcopacy until 1047. Of necessity then this Bishop of Liege must be some other than Durandus and probably it may be Dietuvin who was made Bishop of Liege in the Year 1048. about which time he and Adelman might have writ the Letters above mentioned Durandus Abbot of Troam in Normandy makes some mention at the end of his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour of a Council assembled at Paris by the Authority of the King against Berengarius and his Followers where the Doctrine of Berengarius absent and unheard was condemned and it was there concluded that he and those of his Judgment should be prosecuted in all parts and that they should be besieged where they should be found assembled to force them to renounce their Belief or be taken and put to death a Remedy very contrary unto the temper of the Gospel and unto the mildness of the Religion of Jesus Christ But after all this Council of Paris is no other than a fiction of the Author's brain For what likelihood is there that Lanfranc who wrote against Berengarius after this pretended Council would have passed it over in silence having so exactly mentioned all the Councils which were assembled against Berengarius in some of which he was present himself Moreover Anonymus de damnatione Berengarii multiplici Father Chifflet hath printed an Anonymous Author which specifies all the Synods wherein the Belief of Berengarius was condemned at the last of which himself was present at Rome Anno 1079. under Gregory the Seventh without making any mention of that of Paris Whereunto may be added that the Date and Character of the time doth not agree with the truth of History Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Ad ann 1035. thinks King Henry had thoughts of assembling a Synod against Berengarius but that he was hindred by the Bishop of Liege his Letters which I cannot believe after all that hath been said on this matter We are informed by Lanfranc that in the Year 1050. Pope Leo the Ninth assembled two Councils one at Rome where Berengarius Lanfranc de Eucharist Sacram t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 193. without being cited or heard was condemned upon Letters which he wrote unto Lanfranc and
which were read in the Assembly The other at Verceil in September where Berâ—en garius was warned to appear but he thought sufficient to send two Clergy-men in whose presence he was condemned a second time and with him the Book which John Erigenius had writ against the Opinion of Paschas about two hundred years before The Anonymous also failed not to begin the History of the divers Condemnations of Berengarius by these two Councils of Rome and of Verceil But these two Councils hindred not but that many wrote for him as there were many that wrote against him so it is expressed in Sigebert's Chronicle Sigebert in Chron ad ann 1051. of the Edition of Mireus at Antwerp Anno 1608. and it might also be seen in all the other Impressions had not care been taken to suppress it Many saith he disputed for and against him both by Word and in Writing In fine there is in Monsieur de Thou's Library a Manuscript Copy of the Chronicle of Sigebert wherein this is read France is troubled by reason of Berengarius of Towers who affirmed that the Sacrament which we receive at the Altar is not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure of his Body and Blood for which cause several disputed with much heat for and against him by Word of mouth and by Writing As for Berengarius himself he so little valued the Anathema's of Rome and Verceil that he spake very slightly of Pope Leo the Ninth and of his See as it was seen formerly in Guitmond his Adversary before it was altered by the Expurgatory Indexes but that 's in vain Anonym p. 363. seeing Father Chifflet's Anonymous relates almost the same thing and near hand in the very same terms which I will save my self the trouble of transcribing because they be something sharp and full of Contempt Victor Successor unto Leo seeing that Berengarius still persisted in his Opinion and that he ceased not to publish it notwithstanding the thundring of Leo's two Councils caused one to be assembled at Towers Anno 1055. wherein his Sub-Deacon Hildebrand who was afterwards Pope under the name of Gregory the Seventh presided and the Adversaries of Berengarius Lanfranc Guitmond and the Anonymous before mentioned have writ that Berengarius there presented himself and dared not to defend his Cause chusing rather to submit unto what Rome had determined in the matter We not having the Acts of this Synod it would be difficult to speak certainly of it it not being just wholly to give Credit unto what his Adversaries relate of him which doth not appear to agree with the following part of the History For Nicholas the Second of that Name was obliged to assemble another Council at Rome five years after that of Tours Berengarius there appeared and if we will believe Lanfranc and Chifflet's Anonymous he dared not to defend his Belief Chron. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. Sigon de Regn. Ital. l. 9. ad An. 1059. But how shall we reconcile Lanfranc and the Anonymous with the History of Mount Cassin and with Sigonius for they observe that his Enemies could not tell what to reply unto his Reasons and that they were constrained to search in the Monastery of Mount Cassin for a Friar called Alberick which Pope Stephen saith Sigonius had made Cardinal-Deacon who being come and not being able to answer Berengarius his Arguments demanded a Weeks time to answer him but in fine Threatnings having greater efficacy than their Arguments Berengarius being affrighted signed the Revocation which Humbert Cardinal of Blanch-Selva had Order to draw up and which I do not here examine because I do not meddle with matter of Controversie and which moreover the Latin Church at this time doth not much like of and that it was for fear of death that he renounced cannot be doubted after the Testimony of Lanfranc his great Enemy who thus speaks unto him in the Book he composed against him You have in presence of the Council Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 189. confessed the Orthodox Faith not for love of the Truth but through fear of death Therefore Chifflet's Anonymous doth observe a considerable Circumstance and which as I think deserves to find place in this History of Berengarius for he said Anonym ubi supra that Alexander the Second which succeeded Nicholas Anno 1061. did in a very friendly manner by his Letters advise and desire Berengarius to lay aside his Opinion and not to scandalize the Church But that Berengarius would by no means depart from his Judgment and that he had the courage to declare so much unto the Pope by Letters Thence it was that Gregory the Seventh Successor unto Alexander gave him Audience in two Councils as the Anonymous observes who assisted at the latter assembled at Rome Anno 1079. As for the former held at the same place he mentions not at what time but so it is that in the latter Council there was drawn up another Confession of Faith much milder and more moderate than that which had been made in Nicholas his time and they obliged Berengarius to sign it After which Tom. 2. Spicil p. 5â—8 Gregory gave him Letters of Recommendation which Dom Luke d'Achery has caused to be printed in one of the Thomes of his Collections This Gregory I say of whom 1 In vita Hildebrandi Cardinal Benno and the 2 Ad Anno 1080. Abbot of Ursperg do write That wavering in the Faith he made his Cardinals to keep a solemn Fast to the end that God would shew whether the Church of Rome or Berengarius were in the truest Opinion touching the Body of our Lord. And it must be remembred that this Synod of Gregory's was full of Contests upon this Subject of the Sacrament there being yet a great many Prelates which defended the Opinions of Berengarius against the Reality of Paschas as appears by the Acts of this Council related by Thomas Waldensis and Hugh de Flavigny Tom. 2. c. 43. Chron. Verd. ad Ann. 1078. in the Chronicle of Verdun which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father l'Abbe who doth also give us the Abridgment with this difference That he assigns this Council unto the Year 1078. whereas it was held in the Year 1079. But in fine The Acts produced by Waldensis and what the Chronicle of Verdon alledges doth testifie that there were those in this Assembly which affirmed that the Eucharist is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ But that nothing may be wanting unto the History of Berengarius it is necessary to touch upon some Circumstances which have not yet been mentioned In the first place His Adversaries being enraged against him have not feared to charge him with some Errors touching Marriage and Infant-Baptism as if he taught the Dissolution of lawful Marriage and rejected the Baptizing of young Children but without any other Ground than meer Report which as the Poet
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
firmiter credimus necessario tenendum ac secundum tanquam veritati fidei etiam Sacramenti dissonum merito reprobandum examinata itaque opinione praedicta dum ea quae dixerat retractare nollet sed magis videretur pertinaciter sustinere a Guillielmo Parisiensi Episcopo de consilio fratris Egidii Bituricensis Archiepiscopi provecti Theologi Magistri Bertrandi de Sancto Dionysio praesellenti doctore Aurelianensis Episcopi ac Guillielmi Albianensis Episcopi necnon doctorum in jure canonico pariter duorum ad hoc specialiter vocatorum perpetuum super hoc silentium dicto fratri sub poena excommunicationis impositum est lecturaque pariter predicatione privatur Verum cum ob hoc ad sedem Apostolicam appellasset auditoribus sibi datis in curia sed infacto negotio de medio sublatus est It appears by what hath been said especially by the Judgment of the Faculty of Divinity that it was not believed at the beginning of the XIV Century that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was an Article of Faith notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third at the Council of Lateran Anno 1215. and no more but a probable Opinion and that it was in every bodies free liberty to follow it or not Which will not a little confirm the Protestants in the belief they are in that the Doctrine of the Real Presence did not pass into an Article of Faith until the Council of Trent after the Ordinances whereof they esteemed that there was an indispensable necessity of separating from the Communion of the Latins and will make them at the same time say that this sole Consideration which we have made upon the History of John of Paris is sufficient entirely to ruin the foundation of the two famous Books which have appeared of late years wherein they have pretended to shew that Transubstantiation has always been esteemed in the Church to be an Article of Faith And there is no question but they are much confirmed in this Sentiment when they shall see that the Cardinal d'Aylli which assisted at the Council of Constance at the beginning of the XV. Century speaks of Transubstantiation as of an Opinion and also saith that it cannot be clearly inferred from the holy Scriptures nor as he thinks from the determination of the Church that the substance of Bread doth not remain in the Sacrament nevertheless he embraceth the Opinion that holds so as that which is most favoured by the Church and which is most generally received amongst the Doctors Petrus de Aylliaco Cardin. Camerac in 4. sent q. 6. See here his words Quarta opinio communior est quod substantia panis non remanet sed simpliciter desinit esse Ejus possibilitas patet quia non est Deo impossibile quod illa substantia subito desinat esse quamvis non esset possibile creata virtute Et licet ita esse non sequatur evidenter ex Scriptura nec etiam videre meo ex determinatione Ecclesiae quia tamen magis favet ei communi opinioni sanctorum doctorum ideo teneo eam But having reported what passed in the West during the XII and XIII Centuries touching the holy Sacrament according unto our method it will not be amiss to say something touching the Eastern Church Genebrard in his Chronologies makes mention of a certain Friar called Basil of whom he observes That he re-established the Error of Berengarius for although he speaks of the year 1087. nevertheless Ad annum 1087. according to the testimony of Zonarus reported by Cardinal Baronius he dogmatized for the space of 52 years we may put him into the number of the Authors of the XII Century It is true the same Zonarus reports in Baronius that the Emperor Alexius Comeneus caused him to be burnt as an Impostor so that if he was put to death for the Opinions which Genebrard imputes unto him touching the Sacrament it cannot reasonably be doubted but the Greek Church was in the XII Century of the same belief that the Latin Church was of But seeing this man was accused of several Impieties Apud Baron ad annum 1118. N. 27. as of denying the Trinity of rejecting the Books of Moses of teaching that the World was made by wicked Angels that Michael the Archangel was Incarnate of denying the Resurrection and of holding many other things alike wicked and abominable I suppose that as the Protestants can draw no advantage in favour of their Opinion from the belief of this man if it be true that he believed what Genebrard relates of him so in like manner have the Roman Catholicks no cause to boast of his Condemnation which was grounded upon several Impieties which sufficiently declare that he was a Manichean Leo Allatius represents this Basil as Chief of the Sect of the Bogomiles whose Heresie was composed of that of the Manicheans and Messalians and what this Author saith of them may be seen in the second Book De perpetua consensione Orientis Occidentis cap. 10. p. 636. But at the beginning of the XIII Century the mind of the Greeks was extreamly agitated upon the subject of the Sacrament some affirming that the Mysteries were corruptible others justifying the contrary The reason of these latter was because the holy Sacrament is a Commemoration of our Lord 's being risen again for us alledging to this purpose some passages of the Fathers which seemed to favour their Opinion But the others on the contrary denied that the Sacrament was a Confession of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying it was only a Sacrifice and by consequence he was therein corruptible as before his Passion and without Life and Soul I said that the Spirits of men was much agitated at the beginning of the XIII Age for the Dispute had already been begun even in the XII Century Therefore Zonarus a Greek Friar who lived at that time I mean in the XII Century speaks of it in one of his Letters and resolves the question in embracing both parties In notis Vulcanii ad Cyril Alexandr t. 6. libr. adversus Antropomorp ex Zonara ep 32. L. 3. de robus gestis Alexii He said That the Bread is the Flesh it self of Jesus Christ mortal and buried and for this reason it is corruptible ground and broken to pieces by the Teeth but that afterwards being chewed eaten and gone down into the Stomach as it were into a Sepulchre it becomes incorruptible because the Body of our Lord remained not long dead and buried but rose again soon after As for Nicetas Choniates who wrote just at the beginning of the XIII Century and that makes mention of this Dispute he sufficiently testifieth that the Patriarch Camaterus embraced the Opinion of those which maintained that the Mysteries were corruptible I shall not examine which of the two parties were most reasonable for to speak my thoughts plainly those people strove in vain and to no
purpose after curious questions fit rather to engender strifes and quarrels than to edifie and instruct Christians I shall only desire the Reader seriously to consider if either or both of these Opinions can agree or hold with the Doctrine of the Latins for those which held that the Mysteries were incorruptible alledge for their reason That the Sacrament is a Confession and Commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ instead of saying that it is the glorified Body it self of our Lord And the others which affirm that it is corruptible say That the Bread of the Sacrament is the dead Flesh of Jesus Christ which cannot be in the reality of the thing because all Christians do confess that our Lord dyeth no more and that his state of Death and Crucifiction hath been past above XVI Ages ago whereby may be judged the disposition of Zonarus which held of both sides and of the strange manner wherein he explains himself I know not if I should make mention of one Samonas Bishop of Gaza who is placed in the XIII Century for all do not receive his testimony which is wholly favourable unto that of the cause of the Latins seeing he saith in a Dispute against Achmet a Sarrazin Tom. 12. Bibl. patr p. 524 525 526. touching the Eucharist That the Bread and Wine are not the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but that they are by Consecration changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that the Division which is made to wit by means of breaking it is of sensible Accidents Were there nothing to be objected in the Nature of a Witness it could not be denied but this Greek Bishop was of the Belief of the Latin Church But the Protestants do deny that ever there was any such Dispute affirming That no Author hath made any mention of this Samonas because at that time there was no Greek Bishop at Gaza nor in all Pallastine being possessed by the Sarrazens having expell'd the Latins which had before setled Bishops of their own Language And in fine because the greatest part of this Writing was taken word for word from the Dispute of Anastatius the Sinaite against the Gaianites whereof mention hath been made in the History of the VII Century Whereunto may be added that this pretended Samonas speaketh formally of the Union of the Bread and Wine unto the Divinity which is just the Opinion of John Damascen as also what he saith Ibid. p. 525. that the Bread and Wine is taken that is to say that the Divinity joyns and unites them unto it self All the Protestants do not indeed say that there was not any Greek Bishop in all Pallastine in the XIII Century but they all agree to say That it belongs to the Roman Catholicks to prove that there was at that time at Gaza a Greek Bishop called Samonas seeing they produce him as a Witness and is such a Witness as no Writer makes any mention of In the same Tome of the Library of the Holy Fathers there is a Confession of Faith made by Nicetas in the XIII Century in favour of those which should be converted from Mahumetism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ wherein he saith Tom. 12. Biâ—â— Patr. p. 53â— That Christians do sacrifice Mystically Bread and Wine and that they participate thereof in the Divine Mysteries He adds nevertheless That he believes they are also truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power in a Spiritual and Invisible manner above and beyond all Natural comprehension only known unto himself And it is so also saith he that I intend to participate thereof for the sanctifying of Body and Soul for Life Eternal and for inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven This Author saith That what Christians sacrifice and receive at the Holy Table is Bread and Wine that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ having been changed by his Divine Power not unto all Communicants indifferently but only for them which Communicate with a true and sincere Faith Let the belief of this man be guessed at after all this But now I call to mind that I had almost forgot two Witnesses of the Greek Church of the XII Century one of the Ages whose History we examine in this Chapter to wit Euthymius and Zonarus In Matth. 26. The first saith thus Our Lord did not say These are the Signs of my Body and of my Blood but he said This is my Body and Blood And again As our Saviour Deified the Flesh which he assumed supernaturally so also he changeth these things into his quickning Body Words which Roman Catholicks mightily prize and value thinking that they favour their Hypothesis But it must not be concealed also that in another Treatise Euthymius testifies that he follows the Opinion of Damascen touching the Sacrament alledging to this effect a great passage out of his 4th Book of Orthodox Faith Panopl part 2. titul 21. Now the Opinion of Damascen was neither that of the Roman Catholicks nor the Protestants as hath been shewed in the 12th Chapter And Euthemius seems to assure so much in the words but now alledged when he compares the change befallen unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that happened unto the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ when it was taken into the Unity of one person by the Eternal Word besides that in the same place whence both the mentioned passages were taken he said That not the nature of the things proposed should be considered but their vertue which shews that he believed with Damascen that the substance of the Symbols do remain As for Zonarus another Greek Friar we have already seen how he embraced as well the side of those which held that the Mysteries were corruptible as those which supposed them to be incorruptible besides he expoundeth elsewhere the 32. Canon of the Council in Trullo In Concil 6. in Trullo can 32. The Divine Mysteries saith he I mean the Bread and the Cup represents unto us the Body and Blood of our Saviour for giving the Bread unto his Disciples he said Take Eat This is my Body and giving them the Cup he said Drink ye all of it This is my Blood CHAP. XIX An Account or Narrative of the XIV and XV. Centuries DUring the Papacy of Boniface the VIII who had so great a contest with Philip the Fair one of our Kings there was in Italy great numbers of Waldensis who were called Fratelli because they stiled themselves Brethren as the Primitive Christians who frequently so denominated themselves where it was that the whole Body of the Church was called the Brotherhood and what induces me to believe that these Fratellis were Waldensis and Albigensis many of whom retired themselves into the Vallies of Piedmont at the time that Waldo and his Adherents were driven away from Lyons is that an uncertain Author which wrote against
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