manner of Trades and places of trust the quite contrary hath been practis'd the Courts of Judicature wherein was an equal number of Counsellors and Judges of both Religions for hearing and determining differences have been suppress'd and quite alter'd Attorneys Apothecaries Chirurgeons and generally all other mechanick and handycraft Trades not permittedto gain or eat their bread in quiet But which is most doleful of all to consider the Ministers of the Gospel are forbidden to preach the word of God many of them slain imprisoned and banished their Churches pull'd down to the ground and their flock dispers'd over the face of the Earth into England Sweden Italy Denmark Germany c. as Sheep having no Shepherd just as it happened unto their Predecessors the Albigenses and Waldenses for the same cause above Five hundred Years ago and the few that remain in the Land of their Nativity waiting for the time that their King and Sovereign like an other Cyrus or Charlemain his Royal and Religious Ancestor will give and proclaim deliverance unto the dispersed Tribes from their cruel Bondage and from so great a Famine of the Word for at present they many times see their young Infants yield up their innocent Souls in carrying them unto places far distant to receive the Seal of the Covenant of Baptism others yielding up their Spirits without the Benefit or Help of their Spiritual Guide's consolation at the hour of Death besides many other great Miseries which they daily suffer in Body Soul and Estate So that the Parisian Maacssre was a kindness being compared with the present usage which the Protestants of France do receive by the diligence of Romish Emissaries and from their own unkind Countrymen for that gave them a speedy deliverance from all miseries whereas they are now as it were held on the Rack and made suffer a thousand Deaths before they are freed from the Burden of one miserable Life When our Neighbours and Brethrens Houses are burning and all in a Flame for the same common Faith and Reformation all Christians that have any sense of Religion and Piety have great reason to unite their Prayers unto the God of Heaven That he would be pleased to avert his just Judgments from falling upon us for our great Impieties and preserve our Church and Nation from the sad calamities which have ruined so many Christian Families in France c. and which threaten the like usage unto the rest of the Reformed World I own it is the singular Blessing of God and by the Liberality of the great Encourager of Virtue and Learning his Grace the Lord Primate and Chancellor of Ireland that I am happy this day in addressing my self unto you almost in the Words of S. Paul unto Felix the Roman Governour in adventuring to speak the more freely in this matter because you have been for many years a Righteous Judge unto this Nation living so that Envy it self dares not whisper the least Corruption or sign of fear or favour to Friends or Enemies and are perfectly sensible of the verity of these things which I have only hinted at to avoid Prolixity lest I may be thought to write a Book of Martyrs rather than an Epistle Dedicatory Our Gentry and Gallants formerly were wont in great numbers to flock and resort unto Montpellier Montauban Bergerac c. where they freely exchanged their English Gold for the Nourishment and Recreations they there found both for Body and Soul But now it may too truly be said of those places in particular and of other whole Provinces in general That the Ark of God their Glory is departed from them and they as the Asiatick Churches are over-spread with thick and dark Clouds of Profaneness Atheism Ignorance and Superstition so that those who travel that way may justly fear it will be to their damage both in Body and Soul What was the pleasant and beautiful Jerusalem when the Christians were sent out of it unto Pella and other places And what is France but an Aceldama now that the Protestants are expell'd contrary to the proceedings of the wise and valiant Dealings of Lewis the Twelfth who before he would ruine his Subjects for Religion sent Commissaries and not Dragoons into the several parts of his Dominions to be justly informed of the truth of matters who upon the Report made unto him by his Commissaries swore a great Oath in presence of his Officers and Counsellors of State That the Protestants were the best Subjects he had in his Kingdom and thenceforward commanded that they should not be molested in Body or Estate And it is well known that the present King has much better knowledge and experience of his Protestant Subjects Loyalty than that great Prince had occasion to know so that it is hoped the sinister Councils of a Plotting Jesuitical Faction will not always prevail to the Ruine of so many faithful good Subjects and of so flourishing a Kingdom I have presumed here to present unto you an Epitome of the chiefest revolutions which have occurred upon this tremendous Article of Christian Religion in the Eastern and Western Churches from the Apostles days unto the last Age wherein the truth of the chiefest matters negotiated by Emperors Kings Councils Popes Prelates and the eminentest Doctors of the Church in the several Centuries are retrieved and recited with as great integrity and moderation aspossible can be I have endeavoured to accommodate my self unto the Author's sense and terms as near as I could and if any passage seems to vary from the Doctrine of the Church of England which I do not observe through the whole Book I hope to find a favourable Censure being only a Translator and not the Author If the Work be duely weighed it will not stand in need of much recommendation for the buying and reading of it such generous WINE needs no Bush all is Loyal and Orthodox here it recommends it self unto all sorts of Persons that desire to see the weightiest matters of Religion interwoven with the pleasant light and truth of the purest History of all Ages whereby Faith as well as Mens Reason is improved and confirmed to the eternal silencing of that common question of the Gentlemen of the Roman Persuasion unto Protestants in asking Where their Religion was before Luther and Calvin Here are Depths where Elephants may swim the learned and curious may find sweetness and satisfaction also the weakest Lamb the pious and devout Soul may wade without fear and go away plung'd and pleas'd in pleasure and delight And how could I better expose this Sacred Treasure of Ecclesiastical Antiquity unto publick view than by recommending my weak endeavours herein unto your favourable acceptance and Patronage having received the first design of coming to light near the famous Mansion of your worthy Progenitors where for several years I spent some of the pleasantest days of all my life wherein I freely confess as God's Glory and the good of his Church was chiefly designed by me
of a Sacrament of Communion for the benefit of all Christians Therefore it is Constit Apostol l. 8. c. 13. that the Author of Apostolical Constitutions mentioning the Persons who ought to communicate and in what manner he comprehends generally all faithful Christians as well Clergy as People without distinguishing Age or Sex John Cochloeus writing against Musculus a Protestant Josse Clicthou upon the Canon of the Mass Apud Cass in Liturg. and Vitus Amerpachius all three of the Communion of Rome confess the truth of this Tradition which we have established and the two former confirm it by the Authority of Pope Calixtus which practice is at this time observed in other Christian Communions and which I make no doubt was alwayes observed in the West because at the time it ceased in the Latin Church that is to say in the Twelfth Century at soonest those who went out and departed from her observed it very Religiously never celebrating the Eucharist without Communicants until the last separation of Protestants whose practice also it is Having spoken of the Communion of aged persons we must treat of that of young Children according to the rule which was proposed St. Cyprian reports the story of a little Christian Girl Cypr. de laps p. 175. whose Nurse had carried her unto the Pagan Temple where they made her eat Bread steept in Wine both having been consecrated unto Idols and that afterwards as her turn came to Communicate in the Christian Church they had very much trouble to open the Childs Lips into whose mouth with much adoe they poured a little of the Sacrifice of the Cup but in vain Id. Ep. 59. The Sacrament saith he not enduring to abide in this polluted Mouth and Body and indeed she vomited what they had forced her to take The same may be collected from another place in his Works where he defines with his Brethren and fellow Bishops that nothing hinders the Baptizing of Infants presently after their Birth because that for the most part the participation of the Sacrament followed the reception of Baptism and to say the truth it seemeth that he explains himself sufficiently not to leave us the least doubt of it In the Apostolical constitution Const Apost l. 8. c. 13. Children are counted amongst those who ought to Communicate this custom then is very antient seeing we find it established in the third Century but if it is antient it was also of a large extent this custom having since continued in all Christian Climats and Countreys and is at this time practised in all the Churches of the Greeks the Russians or Moscovites the Armenians and Ethiopians and we do not find that those Christian Communions have ever laid it aside which doth fully prove what we said That this custom was soon spread into all parts of the Christian World But to speak particularly of the Latin Church we must as near as may be follow the steps of this antient practice and in the first place I will instance in what hath been said by the Jesuit Maldonat in his Commentaries upon St. John Maldon in c. 6. Joan. v. 53. I lay apart saith he the opinion of St. Austin and of Innocent the First which was believed and practised in the Church six hundred years That the Sacrament also was necessary for young Children at present the thing hath been cleared by the Church and the practice of several Ages and by a Decree of the Council of Trent that not only it is not necessary for them Ep. ad Syn. Mil. apud Aug. Ep. 93. but that also it is not permitted to give it unto them And indeed Innocent the First shews plainly that it was the practice of his time that is of the Fifth Century As for St. Austin his constant Doctrine in a great many passages of his Works is That the Eucharist is necessary unto young Children for obtaining eternal Life I shall content my self with two or three passages of this famous Doctor Aug. de pec mer. rem l. 1. c 20. Let us hear saith he the Lord saying of the Sacrament of the holy Table unto which no body approaches as they ought unless they are first Baptized If ye eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no Life in you What more do we look for what can be replied to this only that obstinacy knits its Sinews to resist the Force of this evident truth Else durst any one deny but that this Speech concerns little Children and that they can have life in themselves without the participation of this Body and of this Blood Id. ibid. 24. And in the same Book It is with great reason that the Christians of Africa call Baptism Salvation and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ Life whence is that as I think but from an antient and Apostolical Tradition by which the Churches of Christ hold for certain That no body can attain either unto the Kingdom of God or unto Salvation or eternal Life without Baptism and the participation of the Supper of our Lord. And writing against Julian the Pelagian Id. contr Jul. l. 2. c. 1. alibi What saith he would you have me do Is it that the Lord saying If ye eat not my Flesh c. I ought to say That young Children who dye without this Sacrament shall have Life The same thing may be justified by several other Doctors of the same time but seeing it is owned by both sides it would be needless It may be only observed that Maldonat set not his bounds right when he included this use or rather abuse in or about the six first Centuries for besides that there is mention made of Communicating Infants presently after Baptism in Gregory the First his Book of Sacraments Lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 73.74 Conc. Tol. 11. Can. 11. Vit. Leufr c. 17. in Chron. Insulae Lirin we have a Canon in the Eleventh Council of Toledo Anno 675. which plainly commands it In the beginning of the Eighth Century the Life of the Abbot Leufred affords an example of this custom for we therein read That Charles Martel having desired him by his Prayers to restore health unto his Son Griphon who was afflicted with a great Feaver amongst several things which he did 't is observed that he gave unto him the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord. Charlemain in a Treatise written by his order and in his name doth plainly shew that this was still practised in the West at the end of the Eighth Century De Imag. l. 2. c. 27. for he not only saith That there is no Salvation without participating of the Eucharist but he also mentioneth the Communion of little Children Capit. l. 1. c. 16. Suppl Conc. Gal. p. 183. c. 7. Ibid. p. 306. c. 8. whom he represents unto us fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of our Lord And in his Capitularies he commands That Priests
in a bad light they can never rightly understand what was the true Belief of the Church upon the Controversies wherewith it hath been agitated so many years Nevertheless there is nothing we should more indeavour than to represent and discover the naked truth not caring that men should triumph over us so that truth might triumph over us all It is with this design that I have undertaken to discover sincerely what Christians have believed in past Ages and the Article of the Eucharist which seems to me one of the most essential and which causeth the greatest division amongst Christians in the West But to the end that none may be mistaken in the explication of the testimonies of the holy Fathers and not swerve from their Intentions I will propose some means which seem not to me improper and the practice whereof may be of great use unto all such as desire to be instructed in what they believed In the first place their Works ought to be read without any prejudice I speak of their genuine not forged Works for when one is pre-occupy'd in favour of an Opinion and sets about reading them one shall find what is not intended therein prejudice so darkning the understanding that many times the shadow is taken for the substance and a fallacious appearance for the truth because that prejudice predominates and makes men incapable of rightly judging what they read the Idea of the opinion which prepossesseth us so filling the faculty of the Understanding that it can receive no other impression until we dismiss these prejudices Wherefore the first thing to be done when we set about reading the Monuments which we still injoy of Ecclesiastical Antiquity is well to examine our selves to see if we be free from all sorts of preoccupation For provided we bring unto this study nothing of our own but attention and a sincere desire of knowing the truth we shall gather Fruits full of consolation and joy and we shall doubtless discover what hath been the belief of those ancient Doctors upon the point which we examine Secondly great heed must be taken not to separate what God hath joined together I mean the nature and the matter of the Symbols from their efficacy and from their vertue in their lawful use for then these things are inseparable although they be different one from another for the nature of Bread and Wine is one thing and the grace and vertue which the Consecration addeth unto their nature is another thing and therefore it is that the holy Fathers spake not so honourably of the Sacrament when they consider the substance of the Symbols as when they regard their efficacy and vertue And indeed when they have a design to represent this efficacy they make use of the loftiest and most magnificent expressions to raise the Dignity of this Mysterie and to make us conceive a grand Idea of it and certainly it is with great reason because 't is a thing very worthy our admiration and which I may say doth surpass our understanding that Christ Jesus should accompany his Sacraments with so great a power that he should cleanse our Souls with a few drops of Water and that he should nourish them with a few crumbs of Bread and a few drops of Wine but after a manner so Noble so Heavenly and so Divine that all we can do is to feel the fruits and advantages without conceiving the manner or how it is effected And therein is seen that magnificence of the Works of God Tertul. de Baptis c. 2. which is promised in the effect whereof Tertullian speaks and which he opposeth unto the simplicity of these same Works which appears in the Action and in respect of which Simplicity the Fathers have expressed themselves in terms more humble and not so lofty agreeable unto the nature of Symbols This second means shall be follow'd by a third which is not the least considerable and for the understanding whereof it is necessary to observe that the Holy Fathers have used two sorts of expressions in speaking of the Eucharist by the one they affirm that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine and by the other they say it is the Body and Blood of Christ These two sorts of expressions taken literally cannot agree together nor be both true in relation to one and the same Subject For if the Eucharist be properly the Body of Jesus Christ it is not properly Bread and if it be properly Bread it cannot be understood to be properly the Body of Jesus Christ Nevertheless the Fathers who have said that the Eucharist is Bread have also said that it is the Body of Jesus Christ how shall we then do to give a right sense unto expressions so different and which in appearance are so inconsistent That which we should do is maturely to consider what these Holy Doctors have said for explanation of their meaning and that cannot better be done than by diligently searching their Works that of the two sorts of expressions which they have used they have restrained the one without giving any limitation unto the other for in equity it must be granted that those which they have limited ought not to be explained according to their intention without the restrictions which they have used and that on the contrary the others which have received no limitation should be understood simply and absolutely and in the proper terms wherein they have expressed them and to say the truth had they intended that these two so different expressions should have been understood in the same manner wherefore should they have taken so much care and pains to limit and restrain the one and never heed to take the least care in restraining or sweetning the others Such different proceedings in regard of these kinds of expressions doth it not plainly declare that they intended that they should be differently understood and that there should be given unto those which they have restrained a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and unto those which were not restrained a proper and litteral Sense that is to say that the former should be taken for Figurative Speeches and the latter for proper expressions and without any Figure If then they have restrained and limited the expressions which do affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and if they have not limited those which affirm that 't is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ it must be concluded that those which declare that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine are improper and figurative Speeches and that the others which say that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord are proper and literal expressions But if on the other side they have taken exact care to restrain the propositions which say That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without adding any limitation unto the others which asserted that it is Bread it must be necessarily infer'd that when they said that the Eucharist is the Body of our Lord they spake improperly and
it that is either to oblige the people to adore it or for some other reason The first that I can find who explained the cause and reason of this Elevation was German Patriarch of Constantinople in his Theory of Ecclesiastical things where he very curiously inquires the mystical reasons of what was practised in the Church and particularly in the celebration of Divine Mysteries a Treatise which most Authors attribute unto German who lived in the VIII Century and some unto another of the same name who was Patriarch in the XII After all the Author of this Theory being come unto the Inquiry of this Elevation crept into the Church about the VI. Century doth sufficiently give to understand that it intended not the adoration of the Sacrament but only to represent the Elevation of our Saviour upon the Cross Germ. Constantinop in Theor. t. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 407. and that was its lawful and genuine use and end The Elevation of the pretious body saith he represents unto us the Elevation on the Cross the Death of our Lord upon the Cross and his Resurrection also As for the Latins the first that I remember who bethought himself of finding out a Mystery in the same Elevation was Ives of Chartres at the end of the XI Century but all the Mystery that he therein found was no more than had been found by this Patriarch of Constantinople near 300. years before him When the Bread and the Cup saith he are lifted up by the Ministry of the Deacon Ivo Carnens Ep. de Sacrif Miss t. 2. Bibl. Patr. p. 602. there is Commemoration made of the lifting up of the Body of Christ upon the Cross And as this is the first among the Latins who in the Elevation of the Sacrament hath discovered the Mystery of the Elevation of our Lord upon the Cross so also is he the first of the Latin Church if I mistake not who hath writ of this Elevation for there is no mention of it neither in S. Gregory nor in S. Isidore of Sevil who both flourished in the beginning of the VII Century nor in Amalarius Fortunatus nor in Rabunus Archbishop of Mayence nor in Walafridus Strabo nor in the pretended Alcuin Authors partly of the IX and partly of the X. Century although they all of them wrote of Divine Offices and indeavoured to discover the Mystical significations of all things practised in Religion in their times and especially in the Sacrament unless it were Gregrory the first who only left a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Sacrament It s true that at the end of Rabanus his first Book of the Institution of Clerks there is seen a Fragment by way of supplement wherein mention is made of the Elevation whereof we treat but against the truth of the Manuscripts wherein this Fragment is not to be found besides what the thing it self evidently declares that this Famous Prelate was not the Author of it Moreover the Author whosoever he was with German and Ives of Chartres refers the Elevation he mentions unto the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross The Elevation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Priest Adject ad Raban l. 1. de offic Bibl. patr t. 10. p. 586. Hug. de St. Victor l. 2. c. 28. de Miss observat Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 1408. and by the Deacon imports saith he his Elevation on the Cross for the salvation of the World Hugh of St. Victor an Author of the XII Century discourseth no other wise of this Mystery The Priest saith he after the sign of the Cross lifts with both hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and a little after lays it down which signifies the Elevation of Jesus Christ on the Cross and his laying down into the Grave The Learned of the Communion of Rome agree in all this with the Protestants and James Goar of the Order of preaching Fryers in his Notes upon the Ritual of the Greek Church observes Goar in Eucholog p. 146. n. 158. That it is not certainly known when the lifting up the Host was joyned unto the Consecration in the Latin Church and rejects the Opinion of Durandus who maintained it had never been separated from it and he proves his by the silence of the Writers above mentioned unto whom he joyns the Author of the Micrologue who lived by every bodies confession in the XI Century and the Roman Order which some suppose was writ at the same time And he saith that both these speak of the Elevation of the Oblation Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. patr p. 15. which is true as to the Micrologue but as for the Roman Order it indeed makes mention of the Elevation of the Cup by the Deacon for as for the Elevation of the Host that is to say the consecrated Bread by the Bishop Goar ubi supra I find no mention thereof in the whole Book howsoever Goar gives to be understood that the Elevation spoken of by these two Authors tended not unto Adoration when he observes that it was not joyned unto Consecration but that it was made at the end of the Canon very near the Lords Prayer Hugh Maynard Hug. Menard in Sacram. Greg. p. 373 374 375. a Benedictine Fryer explains himself so fully in his Notes upon Gregory the first in his Book of Sacraments that nothing more can be said than what he hath written Now saith he in the Latin Church as soon as the Bread and Wine is consecrated they are lifted up that the people there present might adore them which practice I do not judge to be antient seeing there is no mention thereof to be found in our Books of the Sacraments Printed nor Written nor in Pamelius nor in the Roman Order nor in Alcuin Amalarius Walafridus Rabanus who have fully explained the Order of the Mass nor in the Micrologue who hath also very exactly laboured in the same Subject Afterwards this learned Fryer observes that it is clearer than the Sun at Noon day if the XV. Chapter of the Author of the Micrologue be considered who would not have failed to have writ of this Ceremony had it been used in his time that is in the XI Century because he makes mention of lifting up the Bread and the Cup together before the Lords Prayer which also appears more at large in the twenty third Chapter of the same Treatise Nevertheless he excepts the Mozarabick Office wherein mention is made of two Elevations of the Host one of which is made presently after Consecration and the other after these words Let us declare with the Mouth what we believe with the Heart but at the same time he saith by Parenthesis if nothing hath been added and to say the truth there is great likelyhood that it is an addition made since the introducing into the Latin Church the custom of lifting up the Host immediately after Consecration that it might be
Ambr. de fide l. 1. c. 4. Id. in Psal 118. serm 12. Ibid. serm 13. No Body can be his own Image And elsewhere he opposeth the Image and the Sign unto the Substance It is the Image saith he and not the Truth And again These are Signs and not the Substance Gregory of Nazianzen in his Treatise of Faith against the Arrians whereof we have only Ruffin's Translation unjustly attributed to St. Ambrose Greg. Nazian de fid vel orat 49. p. 729. Id. orat 13. 37. Id. orat 36. as appears by St. Austin's 111th Letter The Resemblance saith he is one Thing and the Truth another for Man was also made after the Image and Likeness of God yet he is not God Accordingly he declares elsewhere that the Image never attains to the Original and that the nature of an Image consists in the representing of the Arch-type Gregory of Nyss Brother unto the great St. Basil spake the same Greg. Nâ—ss de anim refur Gaudent tr 2. in Exod. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 1. Theod in Dan. l. 2. c. 2. Claud. de stat anim l. 1. c. 5. The Image saith he would be no more an Image if it were quite the same with that whereof it is an Image It is in the same sense St. Gaudentius said That the Figure is not the Verity but the resemblance of the Verity And St. Austin in his Treatise of the Trinity What can be more absurd than to say that an Image is the Image of it self And Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel The Image hath the Features and not the Things themselves Claâ—dian Mammert Priest of Vienna One Thing saith he is the Truth and another Thing the Image of the Truth And we have already heard Maximius Scholar of the pretended Denis the Areopagite saying These things are Symbols Maxim in c. 3. Hieros Eccles but they are not the Substance There be some which treating of the Eucharist with regard to the Body of Jesus Christ have not forborn these kind of Expresons as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice If saith he it be the Image of the Body Synod Nic. 2. Act. 6. Niceph. de cherub c. 6. t. 4. Bibl. Patr. it cannot be the divine Body it self And Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople How is it that one and the same Thing is called the Body and the Image of Jesus Christ for that which is the Image of any one cannot be his Body and that which is the Body cannot be the Image because every Image is a thing different from that whereof it is an Image And we shall see in due Time that it was in the ninth Century the Doctrine taught by Ratran Bertram de corp sang Dom. That the Earnest and Image is Earnest and Image of something c. that is that they refer not unto themselves but unto another But what may some say is that all you have observed in travelling in the Dominions of Ecclesiastical Antiquity The Registers of that Kingdom do they contain no other Laws and have you found no other Maximes in its Records Is it possible that the wise and prudent Councellors who in the several Ages have had the Government and Conduct of it have agreed to speak so meanly of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and consider'd this great and sublime Mystery but as the Image the Figure the Type the Symbol of the Body and Blood of our Lord as if a Believer under the Gospel were to feed his Soul only with empty and vain Figures with Images without efficacy and with Sacraments without any virtue Reader have but a little patience and you shall see that the holy Fathers have not abandoned their Belief unto Scorn or Calumny and that they very prudently prevented the Reproaches which would have been made against them What likelihood is there that Persons of so much Light and Knowledg as the antient Doctors of the Church were should speak meanly of the venerable Mystery of the holy Sacrament they who so valued and commended and highly praised the holy Scriptures which St. Paul calls the Power of God unto Salvation unto those which believe Rom. â— 16 and who have consider'd it as the powerful and efficacious Instrument of the Conversion and Salvation of Men which made St. Justin Martyr writing against Tryphon the Jew to say Just Martyr contra Tryph. We have not believed vain Fables and Words which cannot profit but which are full of the Spirit of God and grow into Grace for as he observed a little before the Words of our Saviour have in them something which command a Respect and Fear and they are able to shame those which turn from the right way whereas those which exercise themselves therein find Comfort and Peace What appearance is there that these same Fathers which have given unto Baptism one of the Sacraments of the New Testament which the Apostle calls the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. Gal. 3. and wherein he assures that we put on Jesus Christ such great high and magnificent Commendations and Encomiums calling it the Remedy which drives away all Evils the Death of Sin the Chariot which carries to Heaven the Deluge of Sin the Scattering of Darkness the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven the Inlargement from Slavery the Breaking of Bonds the putting on of Incorruption Grace Salvation Life the Remedy the Antidote that which leads to Immortality the Water of Life the Waters which can extinguish the Fire to come and which bring Salvation the best and most excellent of the Gifts of God and several other Elogies of this Nature I say what likelihood is there that they should have had any meaner lower or less honourable thoughts of the holy Sacrament and that after the Apostle's Declaration 1 Cor. 10. That the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless are the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ that they should look only upon this Sacrament as an empty and bare Sign without any effect or virtue without raising their Contemplations any higher Alas God forbid we should ever do them the Injustice as to think so In short if they taught that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are Images and Figures they judged them not to be empty Figures which had no other use nor virtue but to set before our Eyes some form that may be like the Original whereof they are Figures like the Images and Pictures which are to be seen in Painters and Carvers Shops they have firmly believed that they are Signs instituted by God and consequently accompanied with his Grace and Benediction which makes them efficacious unto those which receive them worthily and that with holy dispositions draw near unto the Mystical Table And if I mistake not this is what St. Epiphanius means when speaking of this Sacrament he saith Epiph. in pan exposit fid That the Bread is the Food or
before it was made That which is is not made saith Athenagoras but that which is not Tertullian Nothing that is to be made is not without beginning but rather it begins to be when it begins to be made And before him St. Justin Martyr said in his Treatise against the Positions of Aristotle That that which is made and is to be was not yet before it was made and that all Motion is made by the change of that which was not before but which was to be Origen Nothing saith he could be made but what was not And St. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers All that is made saith he was not before it was made The famous St. Athanasius It is the property of Works and of Creatures that they are said to be of the number of things which were not and which existed not before they were made Phaebadius or as Severus Sulpitius calls him Foegadius Phoebad contr Arrian Ambros de incar Domin c. 3. t. 4. Greg. Nyss contr Eunom l. 11. August contr advers leg l. 1. c. 23. Vigil contr Eutich l 3. c. 3. Bishop of Agen in Guyen If he was made saith he he was not St. Ambrose What is made saith he begins that which was had no beginning but he foresaw it And the Brother of St. Basil Gregory of Nyss If he was made he was not St. Austin in one of the two Books he wrote against the Adversary of the Law To make saith he is to produce what was not before In fine for 't were endless to cite all the Passages of the Fathers Vigilius an African Bishop in his Books against Eutiches How is it saith he that he that was is made seeing that to be made is wont to be the property of him that had not subsisted before if it were not that he was made what he was not He speaks of Jesus Christ that was made Man for our sakes in the fulness of time Let the Reader judg now if these good and wise Doctors could speak so absolutely and without any restriction and receive into the Articles of their Belief the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion I will add unto this Consideration what Origen saith in his Commentaries upon Genesis Orig. apud Euseb de praeparat l. 6. in Philocal c. 23. related by Eusebius in his Book of Evangelical Preparation and in the Philocalie of St. Basil and of Gregory Nazianzen That which maketh a thing is elder than the thing made For a Man so Learned as Origen one of the clearest and transcendent Wits of his time in the Church or the whole World could not say some have spoke so weakly and at the same time have believed that Men every day make the true Body of Jesus Christ because by this reckoning the Cause should be after the Effect and those which make the Body of Jesus Christ much younger than this Divine Body contrary unto the Maxim of Origen which is grounded upon the Light of natural Reason or at least it should have been his Duty to have given us notice that altho this Maxim be undoubtedly true and that it takes place generally in all things that are made nevertheless there is one particular occasion wherein it is quite otherwise I mean the Subject of the Eucharist because then by an inconceivable Mystery the thing made is incomparably elder than those that make it yet nevertheless say they we do not find in any part of his Writings the least sign of any such Advertisement It must then be said that Origen was a Sot or that he believed not of the Eucharist what the Latins believe at this time I leave it to the liberty of those which will be pleased to take the pains to read this Treatise to decide the which of these two Opinions they think most agreeable unto Truth In the fourth place the Fathers have constantly believed That what contains is greater than what is contained Nevertheless say some if their belief upon the point of the Sacrament were the same with that of the Latin Church they ought to have excepted the Body of Jesus Christ from this Rule and teach with the Latins that altho for the most part the continent is greater than the thing contained and that in effect it is so Nevertheless it happens by a Miracle of the Almighty Power of God that the Body of Jesus Christ having all the dimensions of a true Body as well as ours yet doth subsist intirely in a little crum of Bread and in a drop of Wine if in advancing this fourth Maxim they made this exception in respect of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament they say it must be freely confessed and without being pâ—â—â—ccupi'd by a false Interest of any side that if they have not taught the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion as formally as the Latines they have at least owned and admitted one of its Consequences and that in that case cannot be drawn from the Testimony of the Holy Fathers the same advantage against the Belief of the Latin Church as otherwise might be done but also say they if these zealous and wise Conducters of the Christian Churches have spoken simply and without exception the Latins must needs confess that they knew not or rather refuted and opposed all the Consequences of their Doctrines which have been examined Let us see then how they have govern'd themselves in relation unto this and let us faithfully receive their Depositions Theophil Antioch ad Antolyc l. 2 p. 81. I will begin with Theophilus Bishop of Antioch a Writer of the second Century This saith he is a property of the true God not only to be every where c. But also not to be contained in one place otherwise the place which contained him would be greater than him for what containeth is greater than what is contained St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in our France Iren. contr heres l. 2 c. 1. despising the extravagancy of Marcion which had invented two Gods one good the other bad Marcion's good God saith he is hid or lock'd up in some place and environed about with some other Strength which should in all likelihood be the greatest because what containeth is greater than what is contained Tertul. contr Marc. l. 1. c. 15. It was also the Language of Tertullian who also lays it down for infallible That nothing contains any thing which is not greater than the thing contained According to which teaching elsewhere that the Soul of Man is Corporal He saith that it cannot subsist but in a Body which may be fit and proportionable to its greatness and that it cannot be there if it be greater or less than it Id. de anim cap. 32. Greg Nyss de vit Mos p. 238. How saith he can the Soul of a Man either fit an Elephant or be contained in a Flea St. Gregory of Nyss followed the same Steps when he said If it be thought that the Divinity is inclosed
as the Science of Physick it self doth testifie Let the Reader be pleased to consider the Demand of Consentius and the modest Answer of St. Austin to infer what he shall judge convenient For methinks saith the Protestant that there is but two Sides to hold the one is to say That the Question of Consentius was extravagant and the Answer wholly unworthy the great St. Austin which cannot be said without want of Charity towards the one and abusing the Memory of the other The other is to own That neither St. Austin nor Consentius could have spoken as they did and believe what is now believed by the Latin Church There is scatter'd here and there in the Writings of the Ancients several Things of this Nature from whence may be drawn Evidences for the Knowledge of what they believed In this Rank may be placed the Reproach made against the Orthodox in St. Austin August contra Faust l. 20. c. 13. which we touched in Chap. III. Part 1. That they served Ceres and Bacchus under a Pretext of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but because the Accusations of Enemies are not always certain Proofs of the Truth of what they charge Ignorance and Malice having for the most part a great Share in these Sorts of Reproaches and Accusations I would lay no great Stress upon this Reproach but now mentioned if St. Austin's Answer did not thereunto ingage me For instead of returning back this Accusation as a bitter Slander and Calumny and to say unto these Enemies of Catholicks that they were deceived in thinking that their Eucharist was Bread and Wine and in building this erroneous Opinion on this wrong Foundation that they served these false Gods of the Heathens He contents himself with telling them that it is true that the Catholicks did celebrate their Eucharist with Bread and Wine Id. ibid. but that this Bread and Wine did not regard nor relate unto Ceres and Bacchus Although saith he it is Bread and Wine yet they have no Relation unto those Heathen Idols I add unto this Reproach the Accusation of Rabbi Benjamin in St. Isidor of Damieta mentioned by us in the same Place Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401. for he accuseth the Christians to have invented a new and strange Oblation in consecrating Bread unto God whereas the Law commanded bloody Sacrifices Some think St. Isidore ought to have answered this Accusation with the Lye in plainly denying the Thing If the Oblation of the Church had been not an Oblation of Bread but an Oblation of the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ that it was the only Way this ancient Doctor could take to stop the Mouth of this insolent Jew if the Belief of Christians of his Time had been truly so there needs only common Sense to conclude thus But St. Isidore very far from so doing he agrees with Rabbi Benjamin Id. ibid. that the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread He only tells him That he doth ill to call it New because it was practised even under the Dispensation of the Law during which they offered the Shew-bread and he reproaches him of not knowing That the Law it self did consecrate the Shew-bread Hieron Ep. 22. ad Eustoch cap. 5. St. Jerom relates of several religious Persons of his Time in that they excused themselves for drinking Wine and with the more plausible Pretext to cloke this Liberty of drinking many Times unto excess they were wont to say in adding Sacriledge to their Drunkenness Ah! God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Jesus Christ This Excuse is as they think as weak and ridiculous as could be if these religious Persons and the Christians of that Time had not believed that what was contained in the Holy Cup and which they called the Blood of Jesus Christ was truly Wine For to what purpose say they was it to insist upon what the Communicants drank at the Holy Table to authorise the Liberty they took of drinking Wine if it had not been Wine in effect So that they believed no other Explication could be given to these Words which I submit to the Judgment of those which shall read this History Moreover the Protestants say That the same St. Jerom furnisheth them again in his Dispute against Jovinian with a Proof of the Belief of the ancient Church It was about Wine Hi. ron advers Jâ—vin l. 2. c. 4. which St. Jerom would have forbidden especially unto Maids and young People Jovinian on the contrary proves That we should use it and one of the Reasons he alledges is That Jesus Christ offered Wine and not Water in the Type and Figure of his Blood This Reason of Jovinian's is of no Force if it be not supposed that what is in the Chalice is Wine it may be Jovinian was mistaken some may say and not knowing the Belief of the Church in his Time he reasoned on a wrong Ground But what appearance is there that although he was not so Eminent as his Adversary yet he had his Talents and Gifts How could he be ignorant of what was not hidden from the most Simple and Ignorant amongst the People Besides St. Jerom's Answer gives us sufficiently to understand that Jovinian's Reasoning was well and solidly grounded and that he supposed a Principle universally received by all Christians In fine however considerable a Man St. Jerom was and whatever Respect we owe unto his Memory yet we may say without wronging him that he had his Failings seeing there 's no Man without his Faults and happy is he that hath fewest as saith the Poet. The most remarkable Fault in St. Jerom was his Passion against his Adversaries and too great Earnestness in disputing which sometimes transporting him beyond the Bounds of Reason inspired him with very injurious and outragious Expressions Id. ibid c. 11. It is then very likely he would not have spared Jovinian if his Opinion had been contrary unto that of the Church and but that he would presently have cried Ah the Heretick Nevertheless he doth not do so On the contrary he answers after a manner which plainly shews that in this Point he was of the same Opinion with Jovinian Although that Jesus Christ saith he was hungry and thirsty and that he was many times at Feasts yet it is not written that he pleased his Mouth nor his Belly if you except the Mystery which he shewed in Type of his Passion We have spoken in the second Chapter of our first Part of two sorts of Christians which used only Water in the Eucharist besides the Encratites of whom we will say nothing in this Place The former in the Morning Assemblies abstained from the Use of Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament because they feared least the Smell of it should discover them to be Christians and People which came from participating of the Eucharist and that discovering them to be such Cyprian Ep. 63. it might expose them
to the Persecution of the Heathens It may be saith St. Cyprian that some may fear at the Morning Oblation to make known by the Scent of the Wine that he hath participated of the Blood of Jesus Christ Was ever any Fear so ill grounded or any pannick Fear like this If it had then been believed that what was drank in communicating was the real Blood of Christ where was the Sense of those People to be afraid of a Shadow and to tremble where there was no Cause of Danger Seeing it could not be said that the Blood of Jesus Christ had the same Smell that Wine had and that moreover it is expresly spoken of the Smell of Wine and not of the Odour of the Blood of Christ And what surpriseth them yet more is that those of whom we speak were not private ordinary Persons but Conducters also for St. Cyprian designs such at the Beginning of his Treatise by those which consecrate the Cup of the Lord and distribute it unto the People To say that the Smell of Wine should rest in the Sacrament although there had been no Wine that could not be because the Holy Fathers before declared That Accidents could not exist without their Subjects without ever excepting the Sacrament Moreover when St. Cyprian condemned this Abuse as doubtless he had reason to condemn it wherefore had he not said That those People were the most to blame that could be to take for Wine the proper Blood of Jesus Christ and to think that the Sacrament had the Scent of Wine seeing there was no Wine in it Wherefore had he not alledged against them the Belief of the Universal Church if it held for an Article of Faith that what is contained in the mystical Cup is not Wine after Consecration but the very Substance of the Blood of the Son of God It was say they the only Means that could have been used to have made them ashamed and to have reclaimed them from their Error yet nevertheless St. Cyprian doth not make use of it He contents himself to pity their Ignorance and their Timidity and to blame them that they had not followed the Example of Jesus Christ who had not used Water alone in his Eucharist nor Wine alone but of both The other Christians which celebrated the Sacrament with Water did it by another Motive as Gennadius hath informed us when he told us De dogm Eccles c. 75. That they did so under a Pretext of Sobriety Is it possble that this Thought could ever come into the Mind of a Christian that to drink the Blood of the Lord Jesus was to want Sobriety What were Men made of in those Times say the Protestants Had they common Sense and Reason as we have For we cannot conceive their Proceedings it must be freely confessed if participating of the Holy Cup they believe they drink the pure Blood of the Son of God and not Wine how they could think that under a Pretext of Sobriety that they ought to use only Water therein But wherefore had not the Holy Fathers taken Care better to instruct and inform them herein it had been their Duty and Charity to have cured these Souls from this mistaken Niceness which caused them to err they also did it for they were too zealous and charitable to let themly in Error But how have they done it was it in saying unto them That the holy Liquor in the Sacramental Cup is no longer Wine but the proper Blood of Jesus Christ no at least no such Thing is seen in their Writings to think so On the contrary you would think they take Delight in shewing that it is Wine Id. ibid. For see here all the Answer that Gennadius makes to combate this Abuse There was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption our Saviour having said I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine Prudence is very necessary in the Conduct of Life but I think it is more in matters of Religion especially unto Pastors and Conducters which lead the Way unto others they should take care not to make any wrong Steps I mean not to teach any thing either by Preaching or Writing but what they carefully digest particularly not to urge any Thing against Unbelievers or Hereticks that may reflect upon any of the Mysteries of our holy Religion No body that I know hath accused St. Chrysostom of want of Prudence and to say the Truth for what is known of him great heed ought to be taken of laying any such thing to his Charge Nevertheless it is observed in one Part of his excellent Works one thnig which would certainly be ill relished had he been in the Opinion of the Latins It is a Reproach which he makes unto Laban upon his complaining that he was robbed of his Gods Chrysost Homil 57. in Gen. ad c. 30 31. t 2. O Excess of Folly saith he unto him thy Gods saith he are they capable of being stoln Art thou not ashamed to say Wherefore have ye stolen away my Gods For if this holy Doctor believed that the Bread of the Sacrament after Consecration were no longer Bread but the true Body of Jesus Christ his Saviour and his God it may be said that the Reproach he made unto Laban was neither prudent nor judicious because he might have been answered That the same might befal his God And indeed others before me have observed Alex. Gerald. itiner Romae I dit extr that Alexander Geraldin Bishop of St. Domingo in that Spanish Island complained formerly unto the Emperor Charles the fifth That the Temple of his Bishoprick not being well covered all therein was exposed unto Thieves insomuch saith he that the Body of God it self is not there secure against Robbers against Witches and Sorcerers nor against the Rage of wicked Men. But when we should not have the Complaint of this Bishop all the World knows that what St. Chrysostom saith of the Gods of Laban may befal the consecrated Host One cannot then forbear either to accuse this holy Doctor of want of Wisdom or to say that he did not believe the substantial Conversion of the Latin Church which I will refer to the Readers Judgment whilst I say Theodoret. in Genes Quest 55. that Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom should not avoid the same Censure however discreet he was otherwise If he had believed that the proper Body of Jesus Christ which all Christians adore and unto whom they address the Soveraign Worship of their Religion were truly and properly eaten with the Mouth of the Body Id. in Levit. Quest 11. p. 124. For if that were so say they with what Face could he say That it is the highest Folly to adore what we eat And again when he asks this Question Where is there any Man of good Sense that can call that his God which he eateth himself after having offered it unto the true God Had it not been to have exposed himself
as they have contrived against them amongst so many Calumnies wherewith they have endeavoured to slander them they have never attacqued them about the Mystery of the Sacrament The Emperor Julian scoffed at the Mystery of Baptism but as for the Sacrament of the Eucharist we do not find that either him or any other hath ever given it the least Onset Their Admiration is the greater when they consider that the Doctrine of the real Presence hath been exposed unto very sharp Reproaches of the wise Men of the World for Cardinal du Perron relates Du Perr de l' Eucharast l. 3 c. 29. p. 973. La Boulay le Goux in his Travels part 1. c. 10 p. 21. upon the Credit of Sarga a Jesuit that the Philosopher Averroes a Mahometan by Religion said That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than that of Christians who eat and tear the God which they adore And Mr. Boulay le Goux doth testifie in his Travels That Mahometan Soldiers in a Contest they had with his Servants amongst other Reproaches which they used they called them Wicked Unbelievers Eaters of their God I will not here insist upon the Treatise of Joseph Albon a Spanish Jew called Ikkarim wherein he represents all the Inconveniencies which arise from the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and which as he conceiveth doth contradict the Lights of Reason and the Testimony of the Senses but I will only say that the Protestants draw this Consequence That if the ancient Christians had been of that Belief the Jews and the Gentiles would not have failed in all likelihood to have reproached them of it and to have made it the Subject of their Scorn for they cannot think that Celsus had less Wit than Averroes nor that the ancient Enemies of Christianity were less inquisitive nor less concerned than the Turks are now who commonly live in Ignorance The Roman Empire was never more refined by Arts and Sciences than when the Christian Religion began to be established so that Christians had for their Enemies and Persecutors Men full of Wit Knowledg and of Understanding and which had spent a great part of their time in Search of Learning nevertheless we do not find that they have contested with them upon the Subject of the Eucharist nor that ever they made them the Reproaches that Averroes and the Turks have made and do still make unto those of the Latin Church It is the Observation which the late Mr. Rigaut made Rigalt not ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor c. 5. when he said That amongst so many Villanies and Injuries wherewith they charged the Christians even in accusing them of Impiety under pretext they had no Altars and that they sacrificed not And amongst so many Apostates which fell away from their Religion there was not one found that accused them of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of their God And to say the Truth say the Protestants there is great Reason to wonder at this Silence if it be supposed that the ancient Christians believed and did what is done and believed by the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament We know that the Romans and Greeks despised the Religion of the Egyptians which was indeed full of Idolatry Javenal Satyr 15. and which one of their best Poets made a Mock of in one of his Satyrs Neither are we ignorant of these Words of the best of their Orators Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deor. Do you think there is any Man such a Fool as to believe that what he eats is God They cannot then conceive that those People were of such Thoughts and that they should have been silent towards Christians if they had indeed believed that they did eat the Flesh it self of their God and Saviour What likelihood is there they would have spared them upon it after having flouted them with most of their Mysteries and after having made them the Subject of their Raileries and Pastimes Certainly when they compare this constant and continued Silence with the Reproach made against the Latins they can see no other Cause of this different Proceeding but the Difference of Belief For if the primitive Christians had believed with the Latin Church that what they receive at the Lord's Table was truly and really their God the Gentiles would not have failed to have made them the same Reproaches which the Infidels make against the Latins Seeing then they have not been exposed unto the like Reproaches one cannot chuse as they think but conclude in all likelihood that they had not the same Belief yet it must be granted there iâ— to be seen in the Writings of the Ancients one Testimony from whence it may seem to be collected that the Gentiles believed that Christians did really eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ It is Oecumenius that hath preserv'd it under the Name of St. Irenaeus and of the first Martrys of Lyons Oecumen Comment in 1 Pet. c. 2. he thus represents it unto us The Greeks having taken the Servants of Christian Catechumenies and torturing them to discover some Secrets touching the Christians These Servants having nothing to say to the liking of those which tormented them except what they had heard their Masters say That the Divine Communion is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ they also thinking it was really Flesh and Blood said so unto those which examined them which they took as if the thing had been indeed done by Christians and they signified so much unto the other Greeks and constrained Sanctus and Blandina the Martyrs by violence of Torments to confess it but Blandina answered them boldly and to the Purpose with these Words How can it be that those who abstain from Meats which are allowed them should endure such things It is said that whoever will but take the pains to compare this Relation of Oecumenius with the ample and exact Relation of what passed in the Tryals of the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienna which is conserved till our Time in Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History and with what the Fathers 7 or 800 hundred Years elder than him have taught us to wit That the Gentiles have not at all made these Reproaches against Christians upon the Subject of the Sacrament would therein finde so many and great Differences that he would verily conclude that Oecumenius in all likelihood relying too much upon his Memory hath reported an Occasion of this Reproach quite otherwise than it is to be seen in the Acts inserted by Eusebius in his History and particular Circumstances which are not there to be found some whereof are also contrary unto those which are therein at this present but that none should have Cause to complain as if it were intended to discredit a Testimony which may give light unto the History which we write it must be received as it is without inquiring any farther if it agrees or not agrees with the Acts before spoken of To this Effect it
not that is to say Id. cap. 17. That the Mysteries of our Redemption are truly the body and blood of our Saviour And we shall find say the Protestants that he so explained himself in regard to their Efficacy and their Vertue and of the real and effectual communication of this Body and Blood in the lawful use of this Sacrament and not to say that they are substantially this Body and Blood because that is inconsistent with the Declaration he made just before That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is the substance of Bread and Wine whereas these things accord very well with saying that although the Sacraments are Bread and Wine in substance yet they are for all that truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Efficacy and in Vertue because they are indeed accompanied with the Vertue and Efficacy of his Divine Body and of his precious Blood the term of truly being opposed not unto figuratively or sacramentally for that would be a contradiction seeing he speaks of Mysteries but it is opposed unto untruth as if the Sacrament were not at all the Body of Jesus Christ unto vainly as if it had only the bare name and nefficaciously as if it had not the virtue And that this is the true sense of the words of Wallafridus it appears by the title of the Chapter entituled Of the vertue of the Sacraments in which Chapter the more to advance the efficacy he with many of the Ancients particularly with Rabanus his Master and with Ratramn his Contemporary interprets the 6th of St. John not of the Flesh and Blood it self of Jesus Christ but of the Sacraments of his Body and Blood or to speak with St. Fulgentius Of the Mysteries of the Truth Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiop and not of the Truth of the Mysteries This is the Reasoning of Protestants At the same time time that Wallafridus wrote his Book Heribald or Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was in great Reputation but because we have that to say of this Prelate as will give a very great weight unto his Testimony we will reserve him for a Chapter unto himself and in the mean while we will say something of Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gastinais who in that he speaks horably of Heribold as shall be related hereafter may intimate that they were both of one Judgment But these sorts of Inferences are too weak to be insisted upon therefore I will seek for something in his Writings that is more material as in one of his Letters unto Amulus or Amulo Archbishop of Lyons in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ Lupus Ferratiâ—n Ep. 81. Id. Ep. 40. he said That he raised his Humanity unto Heaven to be always present with him by his Divinity This that he calls Rabanus his Tutor and rendred him thanks for that he took care of instructing him doth no less confirm what he said and gives cause to think that in all likelihood Rabanus had instilled his Opinions into him because most commonly we embrace their Opinions whose Disciples we have been in our Youth especially when they are Opinions received by the Major part of the World Unto which may be added what he saith in the Book of three Questions Id. de tribus quaest p. 208 209. ult edit which Monsieur Baluze proves to be his to wit That God hath subjected spiritual Creatures unto time only but as for bodily things he hath subjected them unto time and unto place and that it cannot be questioned if it be considered that all bodies that have length breadth and depth and which are called solid are never contained but in one place It is evident that he means of being contained circumscriptively otherwise his Opposition would be insignificant being certain that Spirits for instance Angels also fill a place so that whilst they are here they are not there and this is termed to be in a place definitively But to be there circumscriptively appertains only unto Bodies which being made up of several parts are in such manner scituated in the place which they fill that each part of the Body answers unto each part of the place St. Fulgent ad Pet. Diac. c. 3. It not being given unto Bodies to exist after the manner of Spirits to use the terms of St. Fulgentius Seeing then that the Abbot de Ferriers speaks after this manner of the existing of Bodies and that he believes it inseparable from every Corporal Creature without excepting the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it follows that he believed not this Existence after the manner of a Spirit which is attributed unto him in the Latin Church nor by consequence the real Presence whereupon it depends as one of its necessary Consequences This is what several do infer from this passage The Emperor Charles the Bald being informed that his Subjects were not all of one Opinion touching the Doctrine of the Sacrament thought it necessary to consult some of the most Learned of his Kingdom and such as were of greatest Credit and Esteem Amongst others which he made choice of to write on this Subject he chose two persons whom he esteemed very much the one was Bertram or as he is called by the Writers of that Age Ratramn which is his true name and the other was John Surnamed Erigenius of Scotland that is to say of Ireland according to the Language of our times Their Writings have not had the same fate for those of Ratramn have been preserved unto us but as for those of John they were condemned and burnt two hundred years after at the Council of Verceill And as they were two several Writers so we must also distinguish them in this History and that we speak of each of them severally To begin with Ratramn Priest of the Monastery of Corby and afterwards Abbot of Orbais I say he was a Man so esteemed in his time that all the Bishops of France made choice of him to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and by the industry of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar we have in our hands the four Books which he composed and are such that when I compare them with that written by Eneas Bishop of Paris in the same Century and in defence of the same Cause I find as great difference betwixt them as betwixt Light and Darkness or at least betwixt the weak Essay of some illiterate person and the accomplished Work of an exquisite Artist because in truth the Work of Eneas is extreamly weak in comparison of that of Ratramn I say of that Ratramn unto whom the Abbot Trithemius ascribes such great Commendations in the XV Century and whom the Disciples of St. Austin Defenders of the free Grace of Jesus Christ so much admired when they made use of what he wrote touching the Doctrine of Predestination Therefore the President Mauguin speaking of him said Mauguin dissertat Hist
Chron. c. 17. t. 2. p. 133. 135. that he was a learned Doctor of the Church Non levis Armaturae in Ecclesia Christi Militem Eminent in Probity and in Doctrine an undaunted and powerful Defender and Protector of the Catholick Verity against Innovators It was this Ratramn whom Charles the Bald consulted upon the Mystery of the Sacrament to be informed by him what was the true Opinion of the Church and who by his Order wrote the little Treatise Of the Body and Blood of our Saviour The Destiny whereof was more favourable than that of John Erigenius's Book which is destroyed whereas the other is still in Being Ep. ad Dom. Luc. d'Achery t. 2. Spicileg praes I know the late Monsieur de Marca said that the Book of John Erigenius and that of Bertram or Ratramn was but one and the same thing and that the true Author of it was John Erigenius who having concealed his Name cloaked it under that of Bertram but in truth nothing can be seen weaker than the Conjecture of this illustrious Prelate I have often admired that so learned and understanding a person as Monsieur de Marca should have such a thought for if he had taken the pains to have compared this little Treatise whereof we speak with the other Works of Ratramn and with what remains unto us of John Erigenius's he would never have gone about to have taken it from the one to have given it unto the other because the Style is wholly Ratramn's and is nothing like unto that of Joh. Scot for the saying that Berengarius frequently made mention of John Scot and that he made no mention of Ratramn is to say nothing to the purpose for it may be that Berengarius might speak of him and that it might not come unto our knowledge or if he did not speak of him it might be because Bertram's Book was not come to his hands as that of John Erigenius's was Doth it not very often come to pass that small Treatises as that of Ratramn's was do at first make a great noise but a hundred or two hundred years after they are as it were buried in Oblivion that scarce any hath knowledge of them And who knows but the same fate may one day befall the great and famous Works of this illustrious Archbishop I mean his eight Books of the Privileges of the Gallican Church This great Man adds the Testimony of Ascelin who making Answer unto a Letter of Berengarius doth make mention of an Interpretation given by John Erigenius unto some passages of Gregory the First very agreeable unto that which Ratramn also gives them and from thence infers to confirm his Hypothesis that the Book of Ratramn and of John Erigenius was but one and the same Book and composed by this latter But let me again take the liberty to say that this is no solid Reason John Erigenius and Ratramn disputed against one and the same Adversary they both pleaded the same Cause wherefore then might they not employ the like Arguments and explain after the same manner the words of Gregory now spoken of And to say the truth if the reasoning of Monsieur de Marca should be admitted it would follow that Tertullian and St. Austin should be but one and the same Author seeing they both write and almost in the same Terms that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body And that moreover it doth not appear that the Explication of John Erigenius is whole and entire word for word in Ratramn It is concerning these words of the ancient Latin Liturgy We beseech thee O Lord that thy Sacraments may accomplish in us what they contain to the end we may receive in substance what we now perform in appearance Ascelin upon whose Testimony this learned Prelate doth relie makes John Erigenius say Specie inquit geruntur ista non veritate But the words found in Ratramn are Dicit quod in specie gerantur ista non in veritate See here already some difference in the Construction and in the Terms Besides we know not if John Erigenius joyned unto his words this Paraphrase which Ratramn joyned unto his Id est per similitudinem non per ipsius rei manifestationem that is to say by resemblance and not by manifestation of the thing it self It cannot then be said for certain that the Explication of John Erigenius is to be found verbatim in Bertram for although they agree both as to the Ground of the Explication and that in substance they expressed themselves alike nevertheless it cannot be denied but that there was some difference in their Expressions I am very sorry that this illustrious Prelate had not always followed the truth and that it was his fortune sometimes to run against the constant Current and Truth of History as when he pretends to vindicate Pope honorius from being tainted with the Heresie of the Monothelites when he would make the Foundation of Churches in France to be ancienter than indeed it is when he undertook to derive the Institution of Archipresbyters from the Will and good Liking of Bishops of Cities and other things which it may be may some time or other be enquired into And to conclude that the Books of Ratramn and of John Erigenius should be but one and the same Book against the truth of History Cardinal Baronius said very well Baron Annal. Eccles num 12. That one ought to make light of what a new Writer doth relate of ancient Transactions if he be not countenanced by the Authority of some elder than himself Of much greater reason then should he be rejected when he directly opposeth the Testimony of the Ancients Here is a Question of a matter in the IX Century viz. whether Ratramn wrote against Paschas Monsieur de Marca denies it Is it just to believe him before a Writer of that Age and which was a favourer of Paschas and whose Interest it was by consequence to have supprest the Works of Ratramn I mean the Anonymous writer of whom we have formerly made mention Paschas Radbert saith he Anonym apud Cellot ubi supra abbot of Corby affirms under the name of St. Ambrose that it is no other flesh which is received at the Altar but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered on the Cross that is risen from the Dead and which is at this day offered for the Life of the World Rabanus in his Letter unto Egilon and one Ratramn in a Book which he composed and dedicated unto King Charles that is to say Charles the Bald do sufficiently argue against him Unto this Testimony may be joyned that of Sigibert in the XI Century and of Trythemius in the XV. besides the Witnesses of several written Manuscripts And after all this conclude that the Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ which we have under the name of Ratramn is truly his and that it was published in the
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
Church That it was a Leaden Age an Iron and unhappy Age an Age of Darkness Ignorance Superstition and Obscurity whereas his Adversary esteems it to be an Age of Light an Age of Grace and Benediction For my particular although I know that he which esteems it an Age of Darkness is supported by the Authority of all or at least the greatest number of Historians which have written of it especially of Baronius Gennebrard and Bellarmine and that so far he hath not said any thing of his own And that the reasons of his Adversary which represents it as an Age of Learning and Benediction do not appear unto me of sufficient force to invalidate what he hath established upon the report of Historians I will however make a third party in this rencounter and hold the mean betwixt these two extreams I say that I will not absolutely follow the Historians which represent it wholly dark and ignorant nor the Author of the Perpetuity which represents it all light and glorious For if I do not make it an Age wholly Light neither will I esteem it to be wholly Darkness If I judge it not to be an Age of Grace neither do I conceive it to be one altogether unfortunate If it appear not unto me to be wholly an Age of Benediction neither doth it appear to be only an Age of Malediction In a word if I look not upon it to be an Age of Hillary's of Athanasius's of Basills of Gregory's and of Ambroses or as an Age of Chrisostoms of Jeromes and of Austins yet I do not regard it as an Age of Bareletes of Maillards and of Menots I do not liken it unto a fair Summers day when the Heavens being free from Clouds the Sun shineth in its full force and communicates unto us without any Obstruction his Light and Heat but unto a Winters day which being dark and the Air full of thick Clouds deprives us of the sight of the Sun yet not totally of its Light so that we have still left us sufficient to direct us although it may not be always enough to hinder us from stumbling In like manner say some during the X. Century the Sins of Men having made a thick Cloud betwixt the Sun of Righteousness and them he communicated not unto them fully the Light of his healthful Beams although he imparted unto them sufficient to avoid the Errors which cannot be believed without Ruin and to embrace the Truth the knowledge whereof is necessary to Salvation What likelihood say some is there that having shed forth so much Light upon the IX Century for the defence of the Truth that Men should on a suddain be plunged into Darkness But what likelihood is there also that the same Craces with the same freedom should be continued to be dispensed unto Men when it was seen that they began to abuse them and that the Flesh gaining by little and little the Victory over the Spirit they degenerated insensibly from the truth of their Belief and the purity of their Devotion Nevertheless as God is infinitely good and that he never leaves himself without witness of doing good unto Men however unthankful and ungrateful they be so if he dispensed not sufficient Knowledge unto the Men of the X. Century to oppose the Opinion of Paschas with the same vigour as it was opposed in the IX yet he dispensed them so much as to hinder it from being established all that Age as shall be shewed in the progress of this History But in the first place it will be necessary to relate what is said by William of Malmesbury De gestis Pontific Anglor 〈◊〉 of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury who lived in this Age He so confirmed saith he several persons which doubted of the truth of the Body of our Lord that he shewed them the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Cup changed into Blood and afterwards he made them return unto their natural form and rendred them proper for the life of Men. This is the only Author of the X. Century that is come to our knowledge which publickly declared himself for the Opinion of Paschas whereas the Historian's Relation sheweth that there were several that were of a contrary Judgment and who had no small inclination to profess it openly besides the method of this Prelate to make them receive his Opinion seems unto many to be but a story made at random either by Odo himself or by the Friar which wrote the History of it and they heartily wish that Christians would not use these kind of Prodigies to prove the truth of the Doctrines of their Religion saying that Unbelievers are dis-satisfied and those which believe and are enlightned and that are pious can receive no Edification thereby And they make no question but that Paschas rendred his Doctrine suspicious unto most persons by the pretended Miracles that he made use of to establish it because this kind of proceeding shewed plainly that he found neither in the Scriptures nor Traditions Reasons strong enough to defend it seeing he had recourse unto these prodigious Apparitions But whatever this Arch-Bishop of Canterbury could do for the promoting the Doctrine of Paschas in England his endeavours had not all the success he could have wished the contrary Doctrine which had been so well planted in this Kingdom until the Year 883. by John Erigenius one of the greatest Adversaries of Paschas there continuing still and being publickly preached In fine Alfric which some also esteem to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others Bishop of Cride after having been Abbot of Malmesbury a Man learned according to those times in a Sermon under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury thus spake of the Sacrament In notis Vheloci in histor Bedae Anglo-Sax l. 4. c. 24. about the Year 940. The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body wherein he suffered but the Body whereof he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body This is my Blood He adds That the Bread is his Body as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water of the Desert was If this Sermon was one of Wulfin's according to the Title the Year 840. as we have computed it doth not ill agree with it But if it be Alfric's we must descend lower towards the end of the X. Century Apud Usser de dhristian Eccles success statu c. 2. p. 54. There is another which some cite under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury and others attribute unto Alfric wherein the Author useth the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the Water which flowed from the Rock If these two Sermons are of two several Authors we have already two Witnesses directly
Century heartily desired Lib. 3. de divin office in praefat It would suffice saith he without Singers without Readers and without all the other things practised in the celebration of the Sacrament that the Bishop or Priest should pronounce the blessing to consecrate the Bread and Wine to the end the People should be nourished for the salvation of their Souls as the Apostles did at the first beginning of Christianity By which words he sheweth that he found the celebration of this Mystery too much clogg'd with Ceremonies as also St. Austin found that all the Christian Religion was 500 years before Amalarius for he complains That Religion is burdened with heavy yokes Ep. 119. c. 19. so that the state of the Jews is more supportable But now it is time to consider the preparations of the Communicant having examined those of him which Celebrates CHAP. II. Of the Dispositions necessary for the Communion And first Of the Inclinations of the devout Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ WHen our blessed Saviour did distribute the Bread and Wine of his Eucharist to his Apostles he said unto them Do this in remembrance of me which his Apostle doth extend to the Commemoration of his Death and of his Sufferings a Remembrance which draweth after it all the good and holy dispositions which the Communicant should have towards God and Jesus Christ And these Inclinations proceed from several Idea's which this saving remembrance doth stir up in our Souls at the time in which we do prepare our selves for the participation of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For although the Sacrament was instituted principally for remembring the death of our Saviour nevertheless because his Death is inseparable from his Incarnation Resurrection and Ascension so it is that we approach unto the holy Communion after having meditated on all these great and sublime Mysteries every one of which produceth in our Souls dispositions somewhat different as having divers objects and several encouragements the which nevertheless are all heavenly and all divine and all which do tend unto one mark and unto one end which is the Glory of God and of Jesus Christ and the eternal Salvation of our Souls And to say the truth this Sacrament cannot represent unto our eyes all these great and wonderful objects but that it opens unto us at the same time a wide Field for our Meditation to enlarge upon from the Incarnation of the eternal Word even unto his second coming to Judgment and we cannot finish this glorious course without having all the dispositions which God requires and all the preparations which he desires of us This will plainly appear if we do severally reflect upon all the Idea's which the remembrance of our Saviour and of his Sufferings do present unto our Souls and what the Fathers have said upon each of them and if we also feel the divine motions which will necessarily flow from the Christian Soul For example The holy Fathers have considered the Eucharist as a Memorial a Symbol an Image and a Sacrament of the Incarnation or as the Doctors of the Greek Church speak of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ that is to say of that free and merciful dispensation which inclined him to take our Nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin Mary by the miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost which is what St. Justin Martyr would say when he observed Contr. Try phon p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance in that he was made Man for those which should believe in him It was also the thoughts of Eusebius Demonstr l. 8. a Genesi That Jesus Christ gave unto his Apostles the Symbols of his divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the Image of his true Body And it cannot be any way doubted but it was on this same consideration that Pope Gelasius said De duabus in Christo natur That we do celebrate in the Action of the Mysteries the Image and resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that we must believe of our Lord Jesus Christ that it self which we profess in his Image which we there celebrate and there receive that is to say that we should be persuaded of the truth of his Flesh and Blood the Symbols and Sacraments whereof we do receive at the holy Table It is just what St. Leo intended to express by these words which were addressed unto the Eutychians You should communicate at the holy Table in such a manner Serm. 6. de jejun 7. mensis pag. 86. that you may not in the least doubt of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It is whereunto also attendeth all the passages of the Fathers which prove either against the Eutychians or against the Docetes and the Putatifs the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ by the Eucharist as the existence of a thing is proved by the Image and by the Figure which represents it Dialog 2. p. 84. because according to Theoderet's saying There must be an Arch-type of the Image because the Painers which imitate Nature do represent the Images of things which are seen From whence he draws this Conclusion If the divine Mysteries are the Figure of a true Body then the Body of our Lord is now also a true Body not changed into the nature of the Divinity but filled with the divine Glory A Reasoning for the most part like unto that of Tertullian against Marcian for having expounded these words This is my Body by these others That is to say Lib. 4. advers Marcion c. 40. the Figure of my Body he adds That it would not have been a Figure if there had not been the truth of a Body or a true Body And indeed this Idea of the Incarnation of our Lord was in such a manner imprinted in the minds of Communicants that the last Prayer of St. Basil's Liturgy begins thus O Jesus Christ our God Bibl. Patr. t. 2. Graeco-Lat we have accomplished and finished according to our power the Sacrament of thine Oeconomy and Dispensation This Meditation which representeth unto us the horrour of sin the sad condition we were in the fearful Gulph wherein we have precipitated our selves the Love of the Father the tender Charity of the Son the admirable work of our Redemption the great Mystery of Godliness God manifest in the Flesh fills us full of Gratitude unto God And if unto the Idea of his Conception and Birth we joyn that of his Life therein to contemplate the purity of his Innocence the glory of his Miracles the splendor of his Vertues the efficacy of his Doctrine and the shame of his Sufferings we shall therein find so great joy so great comfort and so great pleasure in the contemplation of this divine Scene that we shall be insensibly transformed into the same Image from Glory unto Glory to speak with St. Paul that is to say