Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n apostle_n believe_v church_n 2,847 5 4.4740 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A49603 The history of the Eucharist divided into three parts : the first treating of the form of celebration : the second of the doctrine : the third of worship in the sacrament / written originally in French by monsieur L'Arroque ... done into English by J.W.; Histoire de l'Eucharistie. English Larroque, Matthieu de, 1619-1684.; Walker, Joseph. 1684 (1684) Wing L454; ESTC R30489 587,431 602

There are 22 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Church this custom of breaking the Bread into little pieces to be distributed unto each of the Communicants was practised therein until the Twelfth Century as we have seen at large And this manner of speech was so frequent that although they have abolished the action which had introduced it Serm. de Azymo c. 4. extr yet they do not forbear at this day to give the name of Particules that is to say little pieces unto the Hosts which they distribute unto Communicants although they give them unto each of them whole and not broken But you must take notice that before the Latin Church had laid aside the use and custom of breaking the Bread of the Sacrament to distribute it unto Believers there was a very considerable Separation made from her by Berengarius and his followers and the Albigenses and Waldenses and their adherents whereby this practice and custom hath been still observed even in the West it self which is not now practised in the extent of the Church of Rome CHAP. X. Of the Distribution and of the Communion and first of the Time the Place and Posture of the Communicant IN the Celebration of the Sacrament the breaking of Bread should be followed by the Distribution but because the Distribution contains several things under its compass as the Time the Place the Posture of the Communicant the Persons which distribute it those which receive with the words both of the one and the other and in fine the Things distributed and received it is absolutely necessary to examine them severally to give the more light unto this part of the outward form of the Celebration of the Sacrament Therefore we will rest satisfied to consider in this Chapter the Time the Place with the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant As for the Time there 's no body can make any doubt but that Jesus Christ did institute and celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the Supper of the Passeover and at the end of the Supper the Evangelists do witness it and express themselves so fully as that they give us not the least cause to doubt of it which makes me believe that the Apostles and the Churches founded by their Preaching practised the same during life And to say the truth it seems to be plainly found in the Eleventh Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians that the Belivers of that Church did celebrate this Divine Mysterie and participate thereof after having eaten altogether so that the Celebration of the Sacrament was as it were the Seal the Crown and accomplishment of those Agapes and Feasts of Charity I know that all be not of this Opinion and I do not intend to censure those who judge that the Celebration of the Sacrament was performed before the Agape I will only say that it is the Judgment of many Learned men which they ground upon the following Reasons which I am obliged to recite that the Reader might judge of their solidity In the first place it appears that the design of these first Christians was exactly to imitate the Order that was observed by Jesus Christ who as we said celebrated his Eucharist after Supper Secondly 1 Cor. 11.21 They pretend that the Apostle gives an evident proof of it when he saith That some advanceth and taketh his own supper before without staying for the rest for that could not be if they had begun with the Celebration of the Sacrament and ended with the Feast of Charity it being unlikely that the Sacrament would be solemnized before the Assembly was compleat and that all which were accustomed to be present were come In the third place had it been practised otherwise they think S. Paul should not have had so great cause to have charged the Corinthians of having received the Bread and the Cup of the Lord unworthily nor to command them to examine themselves before they come unto the Lords Table because by this reckoning the disorder he charges them with should have happened after the Celebration of the Sacrament and not before So that the Apostle should only have had cause to blame the disorder of their Feast without mingling therewith any discourse of the Sacrament yet nevertheless he doth the quite contrary for he insists much more upon the Sacrament than upon all the rest which doth evidently shew that these first Christians assembled for their Feasts of Charity began this Solemnity by the common Meal which they made all together and did end it by the Sacrament of the Eucharist whereof they did communicate after they had ended Supper after which the company was dismissed Unto all these proofs they add the marks of that ancient Custom which remained in the V. Century Tertullian saith in some of his Works That the Eucharist was celebrated at supper time Tertul. de corona c. 3. as Rigaut and Rhenanus confess upon the place But although that the practice of celebrating it also in the Morning was already very frequent in the Church I cannot see how it can be concluded from the words of this Learned African that the Celebration was made after the Meal rather than before no more than by what is observed by S. Cyprian about forty years after for disputing against those who celebrated the Sacrament in the Morning with Water and urging them with the Example of our Lord who did his with Wine he said Cypr. Ep. 63. that they happily imagined to be quit under colour That at Supper Wine was offered in the Cup. All that can be inferr'd from these two passages of Antiquity is That in those times the Eucharist was celebrated conjointly with the Agapes or Feasts of Charity but in such a manner that it was also very frequently celebrated and most commonly in the Morning and by consequence fasting Also is it not therein the marks of the ancient custom before mentioned are sought as also in what is said by S. Austin in the beginning of the V. Century Aug. Ep. 118. c. 7. That some were wont to receive the Sacrament after Meal time but upon one day of the year only to wit Thursday before Easter Concil Carth. 3. c 29. as is expresly observed by the Third Council of Carthage assembled at the same time ordering that this Sacrament should alwaies be celebrated fasting excepting only the day that our Lord's Supper is celebrated that is to say the day whereon Commemoration is made every year of the Supper of our Lord which is as every body knows upon Holy Thursday But as this Rule would serve as a Law only in Africa there were other Churches which used thus not on that day precisely but every week on Saturday And indeed two ancient Church Historians Socrates and Sozomen Socr. l. 5. c. 21. Grac. 22. Sozom. l. 7. c. 19. who wrote some years after the death of S. Austir inform us That the Christians of Egypt those of Thebais and about Alexandria in several Cities and Villages did
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
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 p●●●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
it and in saying of the Wine that it is his Blood who will question it and who will say it is not his Blood Ibid. He teacheth him that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood but to the end that he should not stagger at it Ibid. he conducts him unto the Metaphorical and Figurative Sense when he saith in the same place The Body is given unto you in the Figure of Bread and the Blood in the Type of Wine And if he saith unto him besides That we shall be Bearers of Christ when we have his Body and Blood distributed into our Members See here what he adds to let him see how that is done Jesus Christ said unto the Jews If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you But they not understanding it spiritually were offended and forsook him thinking that he would have them eat human Flesh The old Law also had Shew-bread which are not now used because they appertained unto the ancient Dispensation but under the new the heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifieth both Body and Soul for as the Bread regards the Body so also the Word doth regard the Soul In fine he gives also this other Instruction unto his Neophyte Hold for certain that the Bread which is seen Id. ibid. p. 2●9 is not Bread although the Relish judgeth it to be Bread but believe that it is the Body of Jesus Christ and that the Wine which is seen is not Wine although the Taste think so but that it is the Blood of Jesus Christ These Words already begin to inform him That there is Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and that the Sight and Taste do both testifie the same the Infallibility and Certainty of which Testimony the Fathers have asserted But because St. Cyril's Design in so speaking unto him was to instruct him that he should not look upon them as bare Bread and bare Wine but as the efficacious Sacraments of the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. P. 237. which they fail not to communicate unto those who worthily participate of them He told him a little before Do not consider them as bare Bread and Wine for by these Words he plainly presupposeth that it is Bread and Wine as he presupposeth elsewhere that it is Water and Oyl when he saith of Baptism Do not look at the bare Water Id. Catech. 3. illum p. 16. Mystag 3. p. 235. consider not this Washing as of common Water beware of thinking that it is common Oyl Thence it is that he likens the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist by Consecration unto what befals the Oyl of Chrism by Benediction to the end his Catechumeny may be perswaded that it is a Change of the same Nature Id. Mystag 3. p. 235. As saith he the Bread of the Sacrament after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer common Bread but the Body of Jesus Christ So also this holy Chrism is not bare Oyl or if it may be so said common after Invocation but it is a Gift and Grace of Jesus Christ And to compleat this Instruction Id. Mystag 5. p. 244. he tells him in the fifth Catechism you hear a Divine Melody which to invite you to the Communion of the holy Mysteries sings these Words Taste and see how good the Lord is Think you that you are commanded to make this Tryal with the Mouth of the Body not at all but rather with an undoubted Faith which changeth not for you are not bid to taste the Bread and Wine but the Antitype or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ As St. Cyril ended his Course St. Gaudentius was called to the Bishoprick of Bressia in Italy he also composed a kind of Catechism for his Neophytes Gaudent tract 2. de rat Sacram Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 14. wherein he speaks unto them after this manner In the shadow of the Legal Passover there was not one but several Lambs slain there was one slain for every House one alone not being sufficient for all the People because it was the Figure and not the Passion it self of our Lord. The Figure is not the Substance but the Imitation of the Truth In this Truth then whereof we are perswaded one died for all and the same being offered in all the Churches doth nourish in or by the Mystery of Bread and Wine being believed he vivifies and being consecrated he sanctifies those which consecrate it is the Flesh of the Lamb it is his Blood for the Bread which came down from Heaven said the Bread which I will give is my Flesh and I will give it for the Life of the World and his Blood is also well expressed by the Species of Wine because when himself saith in the Gospel I am the true Vine he sufficiently declares that all the Wine offered in the Figure of his Passion is his Blood In this whole Discourse he teacheth them in the Death of Jesus Christ to search the Body and Substance of what had been prefigured by the Lambs of the Jews and if he speaks unto them of offering it again he intended not to understand it of a real Immolation because all Christians have always believed and all do still believe that Jesus Christ was never truly sacrificed but upon the Cross and that he cannot be any more sacrificed because he cannot die again They might then easily understand that St. Gandentius spake unto them of an improper Sacrifice which consists in the Representation of that which was made on the Cross For 't is in this Sense St. Aug. Ep. 23. Gaud. Serm. 19. p. 72. Austin saith That he is every day offered in Sacrament and in Figure And Gaudentius himself That we offer the Sufferings of the Passion of Jesus Christ in Figure of his Body and of his Blood Besides in telling them that he is immolated who was consecrated He plainly shews them that it is done not in the Person of Jesus Christ but in his Sacrament else he should have instilled into these Catechumenes two Doctrines which would directly contradict Christian Piety one is That Jesus Christ is less than him that consecrates him Cyril Alex. de Trin. dial 6. p. 558 t. 5. Heb 7.7 For as St. Cyril of Alexandria saith What is sanctified is sanctified by a greater and more excellent thing than it is by Nature according to what is said by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that which is less is blessed by the greater The other is That Jesus Christ should not have been always holy For as the same Cyril again saith Id. ibid. p. 595. Reason will absolutely perswade us to say That that which is said to be sanctified hath not ever been holy Therefore our Gaudentius declares unto them in the same Catechism That Jesus Christ commanded to offer the
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 i● 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
have been horrible Lyers in denying that they did eat Human Flesh without ever excepting the Sacrament they betrayed their own Judgment and erring shamefully in this Point they rendred themselves unworthy of being believed in what they have transmitted unto us touching the Faith and Belief of the Church But when on the other Hand I consider their Candor and Sincerity their Piety Zeal and the great Inclinations they had to glorifie God by their Death and the little Account they made of their Lives I dare not accuse them of Prevarication nor of Hypocrisie I too much honour their Memory and have too great a Love for their Vertue God forbid saith he that I should ever do them so great Injury or have any evil Thoughts of them because I own their Proceedings to be sincere and always accompanied with Truth as for my particular I leave it unto indifferent Persons to judge of the Consequence that hath been made of their Conduct But if the Silence of the Fathers hath served to shew what was the Belief of the ancient Church touching the Point of the Eucharist what the Holy Fathers have spoken against the Gods of the Gentiles will no less discover it In the first place they reproach them that by Consecration which consisted in certain precise Words and Formalities they rendred the Divinity which they adored present in the Image and inclosed him as one may say in his Statue as hath been shewed in the 7th Chapter of the first Part whereunto I will only add these Words of St. Chrysostom Chrysost Hom. in Christ nat t. 5. p. 477. Is it not an exceeding great Folly to introduce their Gods into Wood and Stone and into Statues of a low Price and to shut them up as it were in Prison and yet to think that they do nor say nothing that is amiss Let the Reader judge if the Fathers would have spoke after this manner if they had been of the same Belief the Latin Church is of and if they had not given their Enemies some Advantage over them In the second place 1 Apol. 2. p. 69. St. Justin Martyr 2 L. 5. p. 91. the Author of the Recognitions 3 Ad Deme● p. 201. St. Cyprian 4 Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. Arnobius 5 Inst l. 2. c. 4. Lactantius 6 Homil. 57. in Genes t. 2. Tertul. Apol. c. 13. St. Chrysostom do tell them their Gods may be stollen and that they should watch them and lock them up safe In truth saith the Protestant it would be hard to excuse them of Impudence and want of Judgment for these holy Doctors to have insulted after this manner over the Vanities of the Gods of the Heathen if they had believed of the Sacrament what is believed by the Latin Church because it is most certain that the Host of the Roman Catholicks which they look upon as their God and Saviour is carefully kept under Lock and Key and is subject and in danger to be stollen In fine Tertullian deriding the Domestick Heathen Gods saith amongst other things That sometimes they gave them in pawn Every particular Christian might have done the same by the Sacrament because at that time they were permitted to carry it home to their Houses and keep it And Cardinal Du Perron saith Du Perr de l' Euch. l. 3. c. 29. p. 918. upon the Report of Paul Jovius and Gennebrard That for certain St. Lewis King of France left an Host for Pledg of the Ransom which he had promised the Sultan of Egypt for granting him his Liberty There be others which have observed Obs●rvat upon the History of Chalcondyle that Vladislaus King of Hungary who was slain at the Battel of Varn Ann. 1444 also gave one unto Amurath the second Emperor of the Turks for a Pledg of his Faith upon the concluding of peace with him It is not very likely that Tertullian who was of a wise and very solid Judgment should make Reproaches against his Enemies which they might have retorted upon himself if he had believed that the Eucharist is our God and our Redeemer he sheweth then in doing so that he believed not so as the Latin Church believes at this present These are the Inferences which the Protestants draw from what hath been written in this Chapter CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what hath passed in regard of Hereticks either referring unto the Customs of some of them or in reference to their Silence or in fine of the Holy Fathers disputing against them THE Emperors Valentinian and Marcian Collect. Rom. bipart i. p. 104. speaking of Hereticks said thus The Enemies of our Religion have obliged us to seek God more carefully to find him more manifestly for the Light that shineth after Darkness seems to be greater and drink is most pleasant unto those that are a thirst as rest is most agreeable unto those which be weary In effect Hereticks have formerly as it were challenged the Holy Fathers unto the Combate and have invited them unto the occasion of meditating more particularly of the Truth of the Mysteries which they attacked therefore as they were obliged to stand the closer upon their Guard having to do with Enemies which took all advantages against the purity of our Religion I believe it may be safely said that of all the Works of these Holy Doctors there are scarce any more solid and more compleat than their Polemicks I mean the Books they wrote against these Enemies of Christianity it is true they had no Controversy with Hereticks upon the point of the Sacrament but nevertheless because the Holy Fathers do sometimes employ this Divine Mistery to refute some of their Heresies we will not omit drawing from those places some Light for illustrating the matter which we examine but before we proceed so far we will endeavour to explain some Inductions from certain Customs practised by some of them and of their Silence As to the former of these two Heads we see in the second Chapter of the first part that the Heretick Marc pretended to consecrate Challices wherein there was Wine and even White Wine as some think and that insisting very long upon the Words of Invocation and Prayer he made it appear red and of a Purple Colour to the end it should be believed that the Divinity which he called Grace should from the highest Heavens distil his Blood into the Cup by means of his Invocation whereupon it is said that if the Catholicks of his time had believed that the Wine of the Sacred Cup was changed by the vertue of Consecration into the real substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ the imposture of this Deceiver would not have been so much regarded by those miserable Wretches which he seduced for they might have said unto him that he took a great deal of pains to little purpose in making the Blood of the God which he preached come into the Cup seeing that the Catholicks and Orthodox without
Friars transport him into the great Church and to interr him more honourably near the Altar with this Epitaph which is to be seen in the History of William of Malmesbury Guliel Malms l. 2. c. 5. Here lieth John the holy Philosopher who in his life was enriched with marvellous Learning and who at last had the honour to ascend by Martyrdom unto the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign everlastingly The same Historian said in the same place He was esteemed a Martyr which I do not say by way of doubt to do wrong unto this holy Soul And after his death he was put into the Catalogue of Saints for Thomas Fuller in his Ecclesiastical History of England saith that he was accounted a Martyr of Jesus Christ Histor Eccles Angl. l. 2. p. 119. and that his Anniversary Commemoration was celebrated the 4th of the Ides of November in the Martyrology printed at Antwerp Anno 1586. by the Command of Gregory the Thirteenth He adds That it was Baronius that put him out of the Martyrology out of hatred because he had written against the Real Presence alledging upon this Subject Henry Fitz Simond in 2. Edit Catal. S.S. Hibern who defends the Action of Baronius and saith That there was preparing even in his time an Apology for justifying this Proceeding Bishop Usher also testifieth That in the Catalogue of Saints buried in England drawn out of ancient English Monuments Usser de Eccl. Christian success statu c. 20. by a Friar of Canterbury in the time of Anselm that is in the beginning of the XII Century there are these words St. Adelm and John the Wise are recorded to be laid in the place called Adelmisbirig that is to say Malmesbury Molanus Professor of Divinity in the University of Lovain hath left this in Writing in his Appendix in the Martyrology of Ussuard John Erigenius Martyr Molan Appen ad Usuard littera l. translated the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dennis He was afterwards by the Command of the Popes put in the number of the Martyrs of Jesus Christ Hector Deidonat in his History of Scotland Which words have been inserted in the Appendix of the Martyrology of the Gallican Church which was left us by the Bishop of Thoul having recorded in the Supplement at the 4th of the Ides of November the Commemoration which is made of St. John Surnamed Erigenius Martyr kill'd at Malmesbury by some young Debauchees See here exactly what the Man was that wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald as Ratramn also did as we are given to understand by a Letter of Berengarius written unto one Richard who had some Access unto King Philip. In this Letter printed some years past by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery he desires him to speak for him unto this Prince to the end he would be pleased to repair by his Liberality the Losses and Damages which he had unjustly sustained After which he adds Epistola Berengarii ad Richard t. 2. Spicil p. 510. If he doth not do it yet nevertheless I shall be ready to prove by the Scriptures unto his Majesty and those whom he shall appoint and to make appear that John Erigenius was very unjustly condemned by the Council at Verceil and Paschas very unjustly vindicated And afterwards To the end the King should not reject this service of my fidelity he may know that what John Erigenius hath written he wrote it at the desire and by order of Charles the Great he means the Bald one of his Predecessors who was as affectionate unto Religious things as he was valiant in his Expeditions lest the folly of ignorant and carnal men should prevail And he commanded John that learned Man to collect from the Scriptures what might check this folly Whence it follows saith he that the King is obliged to take up the Defence of the Deceased against the Slanders of those alive not to shew himself unworthy of the Succession and Throne of his Illustrious Predecessors that desired this Service of this learned Man not to scatter Darkness over the Light of the Truth but to inform himself carefully in the Knowledge of the holy Scriptures Berengarius complains of the Condemnation of John at the Council of Verceil in the year 1050. because it was there his Book was read and condemned to be burnt about two hundred years after he wrote it as we are informed by Lanfranc who owns him to be an Adversary of Paschas whereof he was himself a great favourer Therefore Berengarius wrote to him Tereng Ep. ad Lan●ranc If John whose Judgment we approve touching the Sacrament be esteemed by you to be a Heretick you must also hold for Hereticks St. Jerome St. Ambrose and St. Austin not to mention others That which renders John Erigenius's Testimony the more Authentick in this Debate is for having had four Enemies to wit the learned Church of Lyons Florus its Deacon Prudens Bishop of Troys the Councils of Valencia and of Langres which spared him not upon the matter of Predestination it is very likely they would have less spared him upon the Subject of the Eucharist had he differed from the Belief generally received in the Church upon so important a Point as is that of the holy Sacrament This truth will yet be more evident if we consider that many do believe Prudens Bishop of Troys and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons two Enemies which his Opinion of Predestination had stirred up against him were also opposite unto the Opinion of Paschas so that it hapned unto those People much after the same manner as we have seen it hath done in our days unto those called Jansenists and Molinists for however they be divided in the matters of Predestination and free Grace yet nevertheless both the one and the other still retain the great point of the real presence of the Latin Church so although Prudens and Florus did censure what John wrote of Predestination yet for all that they were well agreed as to what concerned the Sacrament Prudens indeed hath writ nothing or at least there is nothing of his come unto our knowledge But the Archbishop Hincmar suffers us not to be ignorant of what Prudens believed when joyning him with John Erigenius against whom nevertheless he observes he wrote upon the Subject of Predestination he saith that they both held Hinemar de praedest cap 31. That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and the real Blood of our Saviour but only the memorial of his true Body and Blood And when I speak of Prudens I speak of one of the greatest Ornaments of his Age in Piety and Learning and of a Man whose memory is Annually Honoured with great Solemnity I shall content my self with relating the character which the Bishop of Thoul gives of him in the Martyrology of France the 6th day of April Martyrol Gallican Andr du Saussay 5. Id. April
said by Arnobius in the beginning of the Fourth Century this Christian Orator having related at the end of his Sixth Book that the Pagans were wont to make grievous reproaches against the Christians and to call them Atheists because they did not sacrifice He thus begins his Seventh Book What then will some say Arnob. contr gent. lib. 7. init think you that no Sacrifice at all ought to be made There ought indeed none to be made saith he to the end to give you the opinion of your Varro and not ours only Lactantius his Contemporary and of the same profession Lactant. instit l. 6. c. 25. having undertaken to treat of a Sacrifice therein considers two things The Gift and the Sacrifice it self And he saith That the one and the other ought to be incorporeal that is Spiritual to be offered unto God that the integrity of the soul is the Oblation that the Praise and Hymn is the Sacrifice That if God is invisible he must then be served with invisible things He approves the Maxime of Trismegistus That the Benediction only is the Sacrifice of the true God And thence he concludes That the highest manner of serving God is the praise offered unto him by the mouth of a just man And elsewhere he saith That he will shew what is the orue Sacrifice of God and the truest manner of serving him And see here how he doth it He saith first That God doth not require of us either Sacrifices or perfumes or other the like presents that for incorporeal that is Spiritual Natures there must be an incorporeal Sacrifice that is to say Spiritual And afterwards What is it then Id. Epitem● c. 2. saith he that God requires of man but the service of the understanding which is pure and holy for as for the things done with the Fingers or that are without the man they are not a true Sacrifice the true Sacrifice is what proceeds out of the heart and not what is taken out of the Coffer ● it is what 's offered not with the hand but with the heart it is the agreeable Sacrifice which the soul offers of it self In fine he concludes that righteousness is the only thing which God requires of us and that it is therein the service and Sacrifice consists which God desires Cyril Alex. l. 10. contr Julian t. 6 p. 343. It will not be unnecessary to join unto these Witnesses S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria who refutes the Writing published against the Christians by Julian the Apostate about seventy years before in which Writing this foul Deserter of the Truth taxed them amongst other things that they approached not unto the Sacrifices and Oblations of the Altars and that they did not sacrifice yet this wicked wretch was not ignorant of what was practised in the Worship and Service of the Church and therefore this reproach must needs have some shew of truth otherwise he had exposed himself unto the scorn and contempt of all the World And S. Cyril answering in order unto all that this Apostate had spewed out against the Religion of Jesus Christ would not have failed to have cried O the Impostor if the Christians of his time that is of the Fifth Century had truly sacrificed and if they had amongst them real Sacrifices Let us then see and without prejudice exactly examine what S. Cyril replyed unto this Wretch's reproach Ibid. p. 344. B. He freely confesseth that Christians do not sacrifice any more Because the types and figures having given place unto the truth we are commanded to consecrate unto God Almighty a pure and spiritual service Ibid. p. 345. B. Vnto fire which formerly came down from Heaven upon the Sacrifices and which we have not now he opposeth the Holy Ghost Ibid. C. which proceeding from the Father by the Son comes and illuminates the Church Vnto Oxen Sheep Pidgeons Doves unto the Fruits Meal and Oyl of the Israelites be opposeth our spiritual and reasonable Oblations And explaining unto us wherein they consist and their nature and quality We offer unto God saith he an Odour of a sweet savour all manner of vertue or truth Faith Hope Charity Justice Temperance Obedience Humility a continual Praise and Thanksgiving of the Lord and his works and all the other vertues for this Sacrifice purely Spiritual agrees well with God whose Nature is purely simple and immaterial the life and actions of a truly good man are the perfumes of a reasonable service And having alledged some passages of the holy Scriptures to confirm this Doctrine He concludes as he began Ibid. p. 346. C. We sacrifice unto God saith he Spiritual things and instead of material fire we are filled with the Holy Ghost From this same Fountain proceeds another Doctrine of these first Conducters of the Christian Churches which consists in instructing Believers and teaching them what had succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law I do not find after an exact scrutiny that they alledge or insist upon the Sacrament but they are contented to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritutal Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the truly propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together In regard of the former the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Const Apost l. 2. c. 25. said That unto the Sacrifices of the Law succeeded prayers vows and giving of thanks and that the First fruits Tythes and portions and gifts of those times are now changed into the Oblations which the Bishops offer unto God through Jesus Christ who died for all He means the Oblations of Bread and Wine which Believers made and generally all things presented by them unto God in behalf of the Christian people Thence it is that he saith also elsewhere Id. l. 6. c. 23. That instead of Sacrifices which were made by shedding of blood Jesus Christ hath given to us a reasonable Sacrifice Mystical and unbloody which is celebrated in remembrance of his death by the Symbols of his Body and Blood In which words indeed he makes mention of the Eucharist but as of a Mystical and Spiritual Sacrifice and in the same sense which he said That our Sacrifices at present are prayers and giving of thanks Origen in all his Homilies upon Leviticus doth very exactly after his manner seek for all the mystical significations of the ancient Sacrifices but I do not find that he doth once speak of a propitiatory Sacrifice offered every day unto God by Christians Origen Hom. 2. in Levit. In the second Homily he mentions at large the means which we have under the Gospel besides that of holy Baptism to obtain the remission of our sins Ib. Hom. 5. but amongst all those means I do not find the Sacrifice of the Eucharist In the fifth he shews how the Ministers of the Gospel do make propitiation for the sins of the people but he only alledges for that the instructions 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
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
tells us without falling into a great sin whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance From all which he concludes in favour of the steeped Sacrament and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steept in Wine saying That pious men had prudently directed that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry as our Lord had done but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord and that by this means it should happen that according to the precept of our Saviour we should eat his Flesh and drink his Blood and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter might avoid the danger And he gives for a reason of this conduct That we eat dry and drink liquid what goes down the throat after having received it in the mouth either together or separately And because some considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Judas did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament he saith there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him because the actions which have a different occasion cannot agree well together Afterwards taking with many others the Decree of the Council of Braga of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament for a Decree of Pope Julius he saith this Decree is no longer of force with modern persons and that the customs of the Church which surpasse all others as well in reason as in authority hath overcome this ancient Constitution that it should not be thought strange because the Decrees of other Popes are changed for the like and sometimes upon smaller occasions But although this Author of the XII Century of whom Cardinal Cusa cites something in Cassander in his Liturgies gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread as establish'd in his time in the West it cannot be said that it was universally received in all Churches without exception In fine besides what we alledged out of the Micrologue and of Pope Paschal who made his Decree in the XII Century Arnold of Bonneval contemporary with S. Bernard in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord in S. Cyprian's Works sheweth us sufficiently that in the same XII Century wherein he lived the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people when he saith Apud Cypr. p. 329. ult edit vid. p. 330. It was under the Doctor Christ Jesus that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World that Christians should drink Blood whereof the use was so strictly prohibited by the Authority of the ancient Law for the Law forbids eating of Blood and the Gospel commands to drink it And again We drink Blood Jesus Christ himself commanding it being partakers by and with him of everlasting life And at the conclusion of the Treatise he with several other Doctors of the Church who lived before him in that Believers are partakers of one Bread and of one Cup doth search a type of their union Ibid. p. 33● or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus who is the head of this Divine Body We also saith he being made his Body are tied and bound unto our head both by the Sacrament and by the matter of the Sacrament and being members one of another we mutually render each other the duties of love we communicate by charity we participate with eating one and the same meat and drink one and the same drink which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval Peter de Celles Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims who lived at the end of the XII Century for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline which is come to light but within these seven or eight years he speaks in this manner The communication of the Body of Christ T. 3. Spicil p. 99. and of the Blood of Christ poured forth to wit of the Lamb without spot purifieth us from all guilt and from all sin Let us say something more formal Peter of Tarantes Apud Cassand de Commun sub utraque specie p. 1043. afterwards Pope under the name of Innocent IV. writes That the most considerable as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar do receive the Sacrament under both kinds William of Montelaudana in sundry places saith he They communicate with the Bread and Wine that is to say with the whole Sacrament And Peter de Palude testifies that in his time It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species Richard de Mediavilla was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution All these saith Cassander lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place that Thomas Aquinas who defends the use of communicating under one kind doth not say that this custom was universally received but in some Churches only And to say the truth Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind there were several Churches that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices by means whereof they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord as Beatus Rhenanus p. 438. testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds p. 1036. both of them in their time having seen of these Quills or little Pipes which were used for communicating the Laity Let us descend yet lower and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self not indeed of the People but of all the Cardinal Deacons for Vrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar in his Pontifical Habit wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubrick and in fine he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do T. 4. p. 306. Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders Anno 1378. by Pilei●de Prata Archbishop of Ravenna and Cardinal in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery But as from the
11. After his coming we shall have no need of Signs or Symbols of his Body because the Body it self shall appear It was also the meaning of St. Austin if I mistake not when he said Aug. Serm. 9. de divers Id. in Psal 37. That we shall not receive the Eucharist when we are come unto Christ himself and that we have begun to reign Eternally with him he said also elsewhere That no Body remembers what is not present A Maxim grounded upon the Light of Reason De memor reminisc c. 1. De Invent. l. 2. for 't is by this Principle the Philosopher said that the Memory is not of things present and the Prince of Eloquence That the Memory is that whereby one remembers things which are past I never think of these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body but I deplore with grief and sorrow of Heart the State of Christians which have made the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted to be the Bond of their Love and Union the occasion of their Hatred and the sorrowful matter of their sad Divisions and as I should be over-joy'd to contribute any thing to disabuse those which are in Errour by giving the Words the Explication which they ought to have I thought one of the best means to effect it was diligently to search in what sense the Holy Fathers have taken them and in what manner they understood them for I make no question but a belief agreed upon by Christians at all times and universally received at all times in all the Climates of the Christian World is Catholick Orthodox and by consequence worthy to be retained in the Church as an Apostolical Truth Therefore I have applied my self unto this Inquiry to endeavour to find in their Works their true and real Thoughts and because for the most part in their Homilies and popular Exhortations they are transported with the fervour of Zeal and the motions of Piety which often made them use Hyperbolical Expressions fit for the Pulpit and suitable unto Orators which should be pathetical and feeling I have not stopt at these sorts of Works I have chiefly examined Commentaries and Expositions where for the most part they speak Dogmatically and in cold Blood and the true and genuine Thoughts of those which write or expound may be seen And but that I mean exactly to keep within the Bounds prescribed at the beginning of this second Part I might continue my Inquiry unto the XIIth Century which would give us the Testimonies of Zonaras a Greek Canonist and of Rupert de Duitz as the IXth doth those of Raban of Christian Druthmar and of Bertram Laying then aside these five Testimonies not to infringe the Law I willingly imposed on my self I 'le begin vvith Clement of Alexandria Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. who lived at the end of the second Century Jesus Christ said he blessed Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine the holy Liquor of Joy represents by Alegory the Word to wit with regard to his Blood which was shed for many for the Remission of Sins From Clement of Alexandria I will pass unto Theophilus of Antioch Theoph. Anti. och in Matth. who wrote in the same Age When Jesus Christ saith he said This is my Body he called Bread which is made of many Grains his Body whereby he would represent the People which he hath taken unto himself Tertul. l. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. Cyprian ep 76. The third shall be Tertullian which saith That Jesus Christ having taken Bread and distributed it unto his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body The fourth is St. Cyprian When the Lord saith he doth call the Bread made of several grains of Wheat his Body he signifieth thereby the faithful People whose Sins he bore inasmuch as it was but one Body The fifth is St. Jerome Hieron Com. in Matth. c. 26. who dyed in the year of our Lord 420 As they were at Supper saith he Jesus took Bread blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the New Testament for the remission of Sins When the Typical Passover was accomplished and that Jesus Christ had eaten with the Apostles the Flesh of the Lamb he took Bread which strengthneth Man's Heart and proceeds on to the true Sacrament of the Passover to the end that as Melchisedek Priest of the most High God had offered Bread and Wine to represent him so he also should represent the Truth of his Body and of his Blood The sixth is St. Austin contemporary with St. Jerome and dyed about eleven years after him The Lord made no difficulty to say August contr Adim c. 12. This is my Body when he gave the Symbol of his Body The seventh is Theodoret Our Lord saith he made an Exchange of Names Theod Dial. 1. and gave unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body and in the same place tells us in Truth whereof the Holy Food is the Sign and Figure Is it of the Divinity of Jesus Christ or of his Body and Blood Id. ibid. It is evident 't is of the things whereof they have their Names for the Lord having taken the Sign said not This is my Divinity but This is my Body and afterwards This is my Blood The eighth is Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa who assisted at the Fifth Oecumenical Council about the middle of the sixth Century Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. We do call saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery or the Sacrament of his Body and Blood From whence it is also that the Lord himself called the Bread and the Cup which he blessed and gave unto his Disciples his Body and his Blood The ninth is St. Isidor Bishop of Sevill in Spain Isid Hist o●igin l 6. c 19. We call saith he by the Command of Christ himself his Body and Blood that which being sanctified of the Fruits of the Earth is consecrated and made a Sacrament The tenth is Bede that bright Star of the English Church which finished his Course Anno 735. Beda Comm● in Marc. 14. Jesus Christ saith he said unto his Disciples This is my Body because Bread strengthens the Heart of Man and Wine doth increase Blood in the Body it is for this reason that Bread represents mystically the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood The eleventh is a Council of 338 Bishops Concil Constantinop in act
to the Scorn of the Enemies of Christianity and have given them Occasion to have derided the Holiness of our Mysteries I could add unto all that we have said in the first place the Simplicity with which the primitive Christians celebrated the Sacrament as we shall perceive by Justin Martyr and the Liturgy of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite for it is very like if they had believed that the Sacrament is the real Body of Jesus Christ they would have used more Ceremony in the Celebration Secondly The Form of Consecration used in the ancient Church as well in the East as the West by Prayers Invocations and giving Thanks as hath been shewn in the seventh Chapter of the first Part doth shew in all likelihood that the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion was not believed because this Conversion could not be made without the abolishing the Substances of Bread and Wine and that Prayers and Benedictions never destroy the Creatures Moreover if what was consecrated were not Holy before Consecration as the Holy Fathers informed us in the same Chapter this Consecration could not happen unto Jesus Christ neither as God nor as Man not as God for in this regard he is Holiness it self not as Man because in this Regard he was ever Holy Besides if this Consecration only retired the Elements of Bread and Wine from their common natural Use to employ them in a religious and holy Use as they have also declared unto us it cannot be seen that this Effect of Consecration can subsist with the Ruin and Abolishment of these Elements For the Use of any Thing be it Prophane or Holy doth always presuppose its Truth and Existency otherwise it were useless in Religion and Nature The Latin Church hath also laid aside this Form of Consecration which she attributed some Ages past unto these Words This is my Body wisely foreseeing that whilst Consecration was made to depend upon Prayers and giving Thanks the substantial Conversion would scarcely be believed I will end this Chapter by another Consideration drawn from the Reasons and Motives which obliged the Holy Fathers to give unto the Sacrament the Name of Sacrifice according to the Enquiry we made in Chap. VIII of the first Part where we have at large proved by their proper Testimonies that they have given it this Title by reason of the Bread and Wine which Communicants presented upon the Holy Table of the Church for the Celebration of the Sacrament and by reason of the Oblation which was made unto God of this Bread and Wine at the instant of Consecration and afterwards Moreover they also called it so because we there render Thanks unto God for bestowing upon us his well beloved Son so that it is an Act of our Thankfulness unto the Father and the Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death because the Sacrament serves us now instead of the Legal Sacrifices being our external Worship under the Dispensation of the Gospel as Sacrifices was that of the Jews under the Oeconomy of the Law And in sine because it is the Memorial of the truly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross These are the Reasons and Motives of this Name of Sacrifice which the ancient Doctors have given to the Sacrament and which we have largely insisted upon in the before-mentioned Chapter The Protestants hence infer two Things first That all these Reasons and Motives remove from the Minds of Christians the Idea of a real Sacrifice and makes them conceive that of a Sacrifice improperly so called Thence it is that when the Jews and Pagans reproached them that they had neither Altars nor Sacrifices they freely confessed it shewing thereby that if they had given unto the Eucharist the Name of Sacrifice and unto the Holy Table the Name of Altar it was but improperly and by abuse of Language Thence also it is that when they instruct those within and that they teach them what hath succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law they contented themselves to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritual Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together and that there should rest no Scruple in the Minds of the People which they instructed touching the Nature and Quality of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church they unanimously depose at all Times and in all Places that it is an Oblation of Bread and Wine It is also what they were induced to believe because there was but one Altar or one Eucharistical Table in each Church and that the Sacrament was celebrated but once a Day For had they considered the Sacrament as a real Sacrifice they could not have had too many Altars nor too often offer the Sacrifice because in the often doing it there came the greater Benefit and Comfort unto their Souls It is also the Instruction which they drew from Believers being obliged to communicate and that those were made to depart out of the Church which did not communicate in that they never celebrated the Eucharist without Communicants and that Oblations were not received but from those which were admitted unto the holy Sacrament Why should that be if it had been a real Sacrifice seeing one might have assisted with Profit although one communicated not as is now practised in the Latin Church The second thing they infer is That seeing they have not looked upon the Eucharist as a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead they have looked upon it as a Sacrament of Communion only and a Sacrament which is the Memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death and where there is distributed unto the Communicants Bread and Wine for a Pledge of their Salvation For therein is distributed what is there offered unto God after Consecration Now the Holy Fathers testifie That there is offered unto God Bread and Wine Gifts and Fruits of the Earth the first Fruits of his Creatures Food which he bestows upon us the same things which Melchizedeck offered the Symbols and Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So it is they have formally expressed themselves in this eighth Chapter which I desire the Reader to peruse over again to see if these two Inductions are lawful and natural CHAP. VII Continuation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and the Inferences of Protestants BEsides what hath been hitherto said it is observ'd that there be certain Occasions wherein the Holy Fathers should have omitted the Names of Figure Antitype Sacrament if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Christ himself nevertheless they have done the quite contrary For instance The Author of Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 7. c. 26. gives us a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving for the Communion where he makes the Communicants say We give thee Thanks O Father for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us and for his precious Body whereof we
you cannot understand then you may now say unto me seeing you have commanded us to believe explain unto us what it is to the end we might understand for this Thought may be in every body's Mind We know of whom Jesus Christ our Lord took Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was nursed in his Infancy that he was fed that he grew that he attained the Age of Manhood that he suffered Persecution of the Jews that he was nailed to the Cross that he there died and was buried that he rose the third Day that he ascended into Heaven when he was pleased to go thither that he lifted up his Body from whence he shall come to judg the quick and the dead and that he is now sitting on the right Hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is what we see and another is that we understand that which is seen is a bodily Species that which we understand hath a spiritual Fruit If then you would know what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to St. Paul the Apostle which said unto Believers You are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members your Sacrament is laid upon the Lord's Table and you there receive your Mystery You say Amen unto what you are and you thereto subscribe by your Answer It is said unto you The Body of Jesus Christ and you answer Amen be Members then of Jesus Christ that your Amen may be true But why all this to the Bread let us not add here nothing of our own but let us farther hear the same Apostle speaking of this Sacrament We which are many are one Bread and one Body understand this and rejoice for here is nothing but Unity Piety Charity one Bread and one Body although we be many Observe that the Bread is not made of one Grain but of many When you were exorcised you passed as it were under the Mill when you were baptised you were as it were kneaded and when you received the fire of the Holy Ghost you were baked like Bread Be then what you see and receive what you are See here what the Apostle hath said of Bread whereby he sufficiently shews without repeating it what we should believe in regard of the Cup for as to make this visible Species of Bread several Grains are reduced into one Body to represent what the Scripture saith of Believers they were but one Heart and one Soul in God It is also the same of Wine consider how it is one several Grapes are in a Bunch but their Liquor is mingled all into one Body so it is Christ hath represented us so it is he hath made us his and that he hath consecrated upon the holy Table the Mystery of Unity and of our Peace So it was they instructed in the ancient Church the new Baptised they were told that what they see upon the Holy Table was Bread and their own Eyes were called to witness this Truth They were taught that this Bread was the natural Body of Jesus Christ as it was his mystical and moral Body that is to say his Church because it is the Sacrament both of the one and the other and that in the Sacrament must carefully be distinguished the Substance of the Symbols which are visible and corporeal from the Benefit which accrues unto the believing Soul and which is a Thing invisible and spiritual that faithful Believers are although for mystical Reasons the very same thing which they see upon the mystical Table that is to say Bread according to what the Apostle saith we are one Bread and that they do receive truly that which they see mystically Now let the Reader judg if these Catechisms and these Instructions are for the Use of Roman Catholicks or for the Use of Protestants as for my particular I 'le pass unto a new Consideration CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Doctrines of the Holy Fathers drawn by Protestants from some Customs of the Ancient Church THere are two sorts of Language used in the Society and Commerce of Men to communicate unto each other their Thoughts and Intentions I mean Words and Actions The Language of Actions is silent indeed yet nevertheless very intelligible because Actions I speak of those authorized by publick Use are for the most part as significant as Words It is not then to be thought strange if we do relate what Inferences the Protestants draw from certain Customs which were practised by the ancient Church and which we have at large established in the first Part Therefore we will look upon them in this as established and will content our selves in barely mentioning them one after another to infer from each of them what may lawfully be deduced In Africa in St. Austin's time they communicated after Meat Thursday before Easter and in several Churches in Egypt every Saturday in the Year at Evening after having made a good Meal Without speaking of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time where some think the same was practis'd what Belief could those People have of the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is no very easie matter to think that they believed it to be the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh it self else it must be confessed that they were guilty of an horrible Profanation to lodg in a Stomach full of Meats and it may be sometimes even to excess the precious Body of the Saviour of Mankind the only Object of their Worship and Adoration Nevertheless none of the ancient Writers have condemned this Practice those which have treated of it have spoken as of an innocent Custom which had no hurt in it and which moreover was authorized by the Example of Jesus Christ himself Therefore when the third Council of Carthage commanded to celebrate the Sacrament fasting it excepted the Thursday before Easter whereon it permitted to participate every Year after the Meal An evident Proof say some that there was no Crime in this Custom whereas it would have been intolerable if they had believed then the same of the Sacrament as the Latin Church now doth belive of it Therefore no Body can justly blame the Severity of its Laws when it is so strictly prohibited to communicate otherwise than Fasting The ancient Church for a long time used Patens and Chalices of Glass and we do not find that these first Christians ever made any difficulty of putting the Sacrament in Glass-Chalices nor that they were ever blamed that did it On the contrary some of those which used this Practice were commended for it nevertheless we cannot say that these ancient Believers were less circumspect than we are in the Celebration of the Sacrament Wherefore then was it that they feared not so much spilling of it in that Occasion as the Latin Church hath done some Ages past Let this Difference be well considered for saith the Protestant I am much deceived if
any Magick or Enchantment did what he pretended to do by the help of his Sorceries in casting a Mist before the Eyes of those that were present and that by pronouncing of these Words This is my Body This is my Blood they change the Wine of the Cup into the very Blood of the God which they adore Nevertheless St. Irencus nor St. Epiphanius which have narrowly enough examined the Heresy of this Deceiver and all that he did in the celebration of the Mysteries nor any one else that I hear of have not made him this Objection to expose unto the sight of the whole World the folly of his enterprise which shews as the Protestants say that the Orthodox Christians did not then believe that what was in the consecrated Cup was the real Blood of Jesus Christ In the same Chapter of the first part we mentioned the Ascodrutes or Ascodrupites which rejected both Baptism and the Eucharist saying That invisible things should not be represented by visible things nor incorporeal things by sensible and corporal and that Images and Figures ought not to be made upon Earth How could the Holy Fathers grapple with these Hereticks or condemn as a Heresy that which they taught that the Symbols of Spiritual and Heavenly Things ought not to be sensible nor corporal if Catholicks had not in their Sacraments Symbols of this Nature For it would have been unjust to condemn that for a Heresy in others which we believe and approve our selves or how should these Hereticks have abstained from the celebration of Baptism and the Eucharist if the Orthodox had believed with them that there was nothing sensible nor corporal in the one nor the other of these two Sacraments for what made them lay aside these Sacraments was the substance of the Symbols which were corporal and visible and as the same reason which made them deny Baptism made them also reject the celebration of the Sacrament this was the reason that they did not find the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament no less visible and corporal than the Water of the other so that the Holy Fathers opposing their Heresy refute it alike both for the one and the other Sacrament and in disputing against it they own that the substance of the Symbols are sensible and visible in both for in this respect they make no distinction betwixt Baptism and the Eucharist this is the conclusion of the Protestant As touching the silence of Hereticks it is almost of the same force with that of the Gentiles because the same Truths which were the Object of the Scorn and Contempt of Pagans were also the subject of the slander and contradiction of Hereticks some whereof denied the truth of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ as Marcion and several others which attributed unto him an imaginary Body a Shadow and Figure of a Body teaching that the Son of God did not become Man and that he manifested himself unto Man only in a false shape not having a true Body but one in shew Others have denied his Divinity as Ebion Cerinthus Artemon and others which maintained that our Jesus was not God but Man only and that he did not begin to be but when he was born of the Holy Virgin two Mysteries which we have seen whereof the Jews and Pagans both made light The Cross of Christ which was the stumbling block of the Jews and the scorn of the Heathen was also contradicted by Hereticks who were not ashamed to say that Jesus Christ had not truly suffered but that he either put another Man in his stead or avoided the fury of those which crucified him by this seeming Body wherewith they say he was invested * The Resurrection of the Body which was esteemed a Story and Fable by the Gentiles also offended exceedingly some Hereticks as the Gnosticks the Marcionites and some others And to speak in a Word there was scarce any one Article of our Faith which in the first Ages of Christianity was not traversed by some Heresy or that met not with some contradiction amongst Christians themselves What likelihood then say they is there that if the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and all the Consequences which necessarily depend of it had been taught by Christians and received into the Articles of their Faith but it would have received some attempt by Hereticks who not having disowned the use of their Senses nor of their Reason could not choose as they think but have disputed against them especially when they should have considered that they would have denied the testimony of their Senses and the clearest light of their Reason Nevertheless we cannot find in any Monument of the ancient Doctors of the Church that the Hereticks ever contested with the Catholicks and Orthodox upon the point of the Eucharist it is indeed true that some rejected the celebration of the Sacrament tho upon different Motives but that they charged the Church touching the substantial conversion of the Symbols of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ there is not one to be found especially of those which have owned the truth of the Human Nature of the Son of God at least no such thing is to be seen in their Writings nor in the divers Catalogues of Heresies that still remain nor in the Polemical Writings of the Holy Doctors against Hereticks for as for those mentioned by the Author of the Letter unto those of Smyrna under the Name of St. Ignatius of whom we have spoken in the third Chapter of the first part besides it is very uncertain if there were ever any such they denied the Mystery of the Incarnation and did not confess the truth of the humanity of Jesus Christ they rejected the Sacrament the celebration whereof is a kind of confessing and owning the truth of his Human Nature but neither they nor any others have complained against the belief of the Church upon the subject of the Sacrament they have not armed against her nor have separated from her Communion upon account of this Divine Mystery neither did the Church ever thunder out Anathema's nor Excommunications upon this Subject From whence say some proceeds so universal a Silence and so great tranquillity upon so important an Article which since Paschas his time that is to say the IXth Century hath suffered such an infinite number of Contradictions in the West for this Friar of Corby no sooner published his Opinion but there opposed against him all the Learned Men of that Age and it will appear in the course of this Treatise that ever since that time the Doctrine of the real presence hath never been without a great many Opposers and Adversaries which for that reason have been Excommunicated and esteemed Hereticks by the Latin Church When I make this reflection in my self saith the Protestant that the Minds of Men have been at all times much of one and the same Temper and been ever almost of the same Disposition and that besides the
Adversary without at the same time giving mortal blows to the Eucharist of Orthodox Christians of his time if it had been the same with that of the Latins But because those which know the rare Genius of Tertullian will never accuse him of so great Imprudence it must of necessity be concluded that the belief of the Church of his time upon the point of the Sacrament was quite contrary unto that of the Latin Church they think one cannot chuse but make this conclusion which I leave unto the Reader 's Liberty And from this Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion I proceed unto that which the ancient Church had against the Encratites which detesting Wine as a Diabolical thing and sinful to be used did celebrate the Mysteries with bare Water What have the Holy Fathers said unto them how have they refuted this Heresy have they said unto them that our Saviour having employed Wine to the matter of this Sacrament bare Water cannot be converted into the Blood of Jesus Christ have they further said to them that the aversion they had against Wine should not hinder them from using it in the celebration of the Eucharist because though it were Wine before Consecration yet it was not after the substance of it being changed by the vertue of Consecration into the substance of the real Blood of Jesus Christ and that so 't is no longer Wine which we drink but the real Blood of the Saviour of the World they have said nothing of all this unto them but then what have they said unto them they have constantly represented that Jesus Christ Offered Wine which be gave and drank thereof Which they prove by these Words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until the day I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom It is in this manner that Clemens of Alexandria St. Epiphanius and St. Chrysostom argued against these Hereticks as hath been shewn in the second Chapter of the first part But it is enough spoken to this matter it is time to conclude this Chapter and by the same means I will conclude the Proofs drawn from the Disputes of the. Holy Fathers against Hereticks by the consideration of what passed betwixt them and the Eutychians The Heresy of the Eutychians following the same Track of the most part of others sought out Artifices and Invention the easier to insinuate it self into the Minds of Men thereby to make the greater Progress For although for the most part they declared there was two Natures in Jesus Christ but that at the instant of his being received up into the Heavenly Glory the Human Nature was changed into the Nature or Substance of the Divine Nature yet nevertheless I conceive to speak truly their Heresy was not much different in this point from the Heresy of Marcion and his Companions which formerly denied the Truth of Christ's Human Nature and only attributed unto him a Shew and Appearance And what makes me think so is that the ancient Doctors of the Church do testify that Eutyches did teach that Jesus Christ took nothing of the substance of the Holy Virgin but having brought I know not what Body of his own from his Heavenly Father he only passed through the Womb of the Blessed Virgin as through a Channel I will not insist upon alledging all the Passages of the Fathers which mention this it shall suffice to instance in some few Feriand Diacon ad Anato He would not confess saith the Deacon Ferrand that the Son was consubstantial with his Mother for he denied that the Holy Virgin had communicated unto the only Son of God which was to be born of her by the vertue of the Holy Ghost the substance of his Flesh And Vigilius an African saith Diac. Vigil adv Eutych l. 3. c. 3. alibi that he assured the Word was so made Flesh that it only passed through the Womb of the Virgin as Water passeth through a Conduit but that he did not believe that he took any thing of her which was of the Nature of our Flesh And Theodoret treating historically of this Heresy which he so learnedly hath refuted in his Writings Theod. haeret Fabul l. 4. 13. p. 246. t. 4. Eutyches saith he taught that God the Word took nothing of the Human Nature of the Virgin Mary but that he was steadily changed and made Flesh I use his ridiculous Expressions that he only passed through the Body of the Virgin and that it was the incomprehensible Divinity of the only Son of God which had been crucified buried and raised from the Dead Therefore the Count Marcellin said in his History Ma cell Cem. in Chronol Theodoret Bishop of Cyr wrote of the Incarnation of Christ against the Priest Eutyches and against Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which asserted that Jesus Christ had not Human Flesh St. Prosper also observes in his Prosp in Chronol ad Consul Astur Protog that this Arch Heretick said That Jesus Christ our Lord Son of the Blessed Virgin partaked not of the substance of his Mother but that in the likeness of Man he had only the Nature of the Son of God This as I conceive is the exact Opinion of the Eutychians conformable in this point with Marcion therefore I find that the Holy Fathers which disputed against them have employed the Sacrament against them in the same sence and the same manner as those which preceded them had done against the Marcionites I mean that they proved by this Sacrament the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ as commonly the truth of a thing is proved by its Image Theod. dial 2. p. 84. t. 4. and by its Picture An Image say they must of necessity have its Original for Painters do imitate Nature and delineate things which they do see if then the Divine Mysteries are the Figures or Anti-types of a true Body it follows that our Saviour hath now a Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with the Divine Glory It is the reasoning of Theodoret in his second Dialogue which he repeats again in two other places I cannot comprehend saith the Protestant the meaning of this ancient Doctor if the Doctrine of the real Conversion at that time was an Article of Faith in the Church wherefore to alledg the Sacrament as an Image and a Figure to prove the verity of the Body of Christ if it were really and truly the very Body it self I cannot understand this Difficulty but in freely confessing that Christians at that time did not know nor believe this real Conversion whence it was that Theodoret did argue against the Eutychians just as Tertullian had done before against the Marcionites The Evidence of this Truth will yet better appear if it be considered that there was an universal Peace amongst the Orthodox and the Eutychians touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Peace had been incompatible with the belief of the substantial Conversion which the
may happen in going about to adjust some ancient expressions with his new Opinion to make his disguise succeed the better He proceeded by way of Explication it shall suffice to say that it seems it may be so gathered from the words of his Letter unto Frudegard Although saith he I have writ nothing in this Book Pasch ep ad Frude p. 1●25 which I have dedicated unto a certain young Man which might be worthy the Reader nevertheless as I am informed I have excited several persons to the understanding of this Mystery Thence it is that in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord he speaks of his Explication as of an admirable thing and whereof sufficient heed had not yet been taken Id de corp sang Dom. c. 1. To the end saith he I might yet say something more admirable But the chief is to know wherein his opinion did consist Those that will a little consider his Writings may observe he taught That what is received in the Sacrament is the same Flesh of that which was born of the Virgin Mary Id ibid. and which suffered Death for us Although saith he the Figure of Bread and Wine doth remain yet you must absolutely believe that after Consecration it is nothing but the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Truth it self said unto his Disciples It is my Flesh for the Life of the World and to say something more admirable It is no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered upon the Cross and which is raised out of the Sepulchre So it is that he explains himself also again in the 4th Chapter of the same Book and several times in his Letter unto Frudegard It is the testimony that an Anonymus Author gives us which Father Cellot hath published Aut Anonym l. de Euchar. apud Cellot in append histor Gostech op 7. and which was one of his Adherents Paschas saith he establisheth under the name of St. Ambrose That what is received at the Altar is no other Flesh than that born of the Virgin Mary which suffered on the Cross which was raised out of the Grave and is at present offered for the Life of the World Against which Rabanus in his Letter to the Abbot Egilon sufficiently doth argue In fine we shall be informed by Rabanus and by Ratramn that it was the Opinion of Paschas and that nothing should be wanting to the establishing of his Opinion he wrote two Books of the Virgins being delivered of Child which Books had always gone in the name of Ildefons Archbishop of Tolledo T. 1. Spicileg praes ad Ratiam and are at this time under that name in the last Edition of the Library of the holy Fathers But Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath informed us by the help of Manuscripts that Paschas was the true Author of them In these two Books he teacheth that the blessed Virgin was Delivered after an extraordinary and miraculous manner and that Jesus Christ was not born after the common course of Nature but that he came out of the Womb of this blessed Maid without any opening and not as Tertullian saith in some of his Writings Lege patefacti Corporis But as Bertram or Ratramn refuted the ground of the Doctrine of Paschas so he also refuted this progress of it by a little Treatise he wrote on purpose on the Birth of Jesus Christ wherein several times he qualifies with the name of Heresie the Opinion which he refutes whereas I do not find that he ever gave this name unto what his Adversary had taught of the Sacrament which gives me occasion to make this conjecture which I freely submit unto the Reader 's Judgment to wit That Paschas having proceeded in what he wrote of the Sacrament by way of Explication and as one that did seek for the true knowledge of this Mystery His Adversaries did not call this Doctrine Heresie how erroneous soever they knew him to be in other ther things because in the Church it was not the custom to call any single error Heresie unless it was attended with Obstinacy But Ratramn having seen the Books of the Virgins Delivery which were written after what he had taught of the Sacrament and as he drew near his Death Ratram de nativit Christ c. 4.5.9 t. 1. Specileg or as he saith himself in the Preface of Dom Luke d'Achery Multo jam senio confectus And having thereby judged That he was not now a man that desired to be instructed but was strongly confirmed in the Opinion he had taught and which he endeavoured to support by establishing the consequences which might best suit with his Principles he made no scruple to render this of which we speak odious in calling it Heresie but after all whatever my conjecture may be Paschas de corp sang Dom. c. 14. it is certain that Paschas omitted nothing that might set off his Opinion not Visions it self and Apparitions of Jesus Christ during the Celebration of the Sacrament not fearing to be jeered that he was the first that bethought himself of speaking of these kinds of Apparitions unknown unto Christians for above 800. years seeing that in effect there is no certain Author found that hath made any mention of them yet that hindred not but Cardinal Bellarmine and Father Sirmond consider'd him as the first that cleared and explained the Mystery of the Sacrament Bellarm. de script Eccles This Author saith Bellarmine was the first that wrote seriously and amply of the truth of the body and blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist And Sirmond Sirmond in vita Paschas operibus ciuprae●ixa He first of all so explained the true sense of the Catholick Church that he open'd the way unto all others that have since written of the same matter But so it is that if the belief of Paschas was the Ancient Belief of the Church he deserv'd to be loaden with blessings and thanks for having so happily laboured for the Instruction and Edification of Christians and in all likelihood no body would have dared to contradict or oppose the Doctrine which he published or if any one undertook so to do he should make himself the Object of hatred and aversion unto all the World It is then requisite to know how men carryed it towards him after that he had published his Opinion If we enquire of himself he will inform us that he was accused of departing from the common Belief and of having rashly spread abroad the thoughts of a young head for see here how he writes unto his intimate Friend Frudegard Pasch Ep. ad Frudegard pag. 1632. You have saith he at the end of this little Book the Sentences of Catholick Fathers succinctly noted by which you may see that it was not out of a hasty fit that I formerly meditated these things in my younger days but that I
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
Perfidious Stercoranist saith he you believe that the participation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour breaks the Fast of Love and Ecclesiastical Abstinences believing absolutely that the Heavenly Food as well as the Earthly is sent out backwards by the stinking and sordid ejection of the belly Alger confirms the testimony of Humbert Algerus de Sacram l. 2. c. 1. t. 6 Bibl. Pat. p. 320. and declares positively That the Greeks are of the Opinion of those which he calls Stercoranists that is to say of those which hold that the substance of Bread doth remain after Consecration and that in regard of the substance of it it is subject unto the same fate of our common food which was exactly the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas and afterwards of Berengarius and his followers Cellot in append Miscel opusc 7. p. 5● Father Cellot in his Notes upon an Anonymous Treatise in the Appendix of his History of Gotteschal confirms the same thing saying That the Error of the Greeks consists in their saying That the Ecclesiastical Fast is broken by receiving of the Eucharist and that they believe the Sacrament is digested and that it is evacuated like saith he unto the Stercoranists which we have in detestation The same Cardinal de Blanch-Selva Humbertus ubi supra p. 247. also reproacheth them that they take not heed of the Crums of the holy Bread which fall to the ground either in breaking or receiving of it whereunto he adds Some amongst you do eat the remainder of the Oblation like common bread sometimes even unto excess and if they cannot eat all they bury it or cast it into a Well All which things do not well accord with the Doctrine nor with the practice of the Latins But this is not yet all we have to say of the Belief of the Greek Church in the XI Century In the Memorials of Sigismund Liber touching the affairs of Muscovy Printed at Basil Anno 1571. there is a Letter of one John Metropolitan of Russia unto the Archbishop of Rome written as near as I can judge in this Century or it may be afterwards for he makes some mention of the contention betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching leavened or unleavened Bread In this Letter he very amply declares that what our Lord gave his Disciples was Bread Sigismund liber r●rum Moscovit p. 32. He did not give them Wafers saith he but bread when he said See the Bread which I give unto you Leo Allatius in his Diatribe of the Simeons makes mention of one Simeon prefect of the Monastery of St. Mamant in Xerocerco who flourished in the middle of the XI Century in great reputation of Holiness and Learning He was indeed accused of holding some errors concerning the Vision of God in this Life and of the Union of Believers with him but that hindred not but that he was followed by most of the Greeks the errors now spoken of did not regard the Sacrament and had no relation unto the Eucharist Therefore although he had some Enemies yet neither he nor his followers were ever taxed to have erred in the matter of the Sacrament This Simeon at the time that the Doctrine of Berengarius was Condemned at Verceil taught in the East That the Sacrament was one thing and that the Body of Christ was another thing and that those which participated unworthily of the Sacrament could not receive the Body of the Son of God In fine Allatius making up the accompt of the works of this Simeon Allatius de Simeonibus p. 163. speaks of a certain Hymn the title whereof was That whosoever liveth without the knowledge of God is dead in the midst of those which live in the knowledge of him and that those which participate unworthily of the Mysteries cannot receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ It were to be wished that Allatius had given us the whole Hymn as well as the Argument but however this Argument contains a Doctrine manifestly contrary unto that of the Latins in favour of whom by consequence it is very unlike that Theophylact should declare seeing he was of the Greek Church and lived in the XI Century at which time the Greeks believed and taught what is above written yet let every body judge sincerely and freely without any other interest than that of truth which I endeavour to represent in this History which informs us that it was in this Age that they begun to introduce the Communion under one kind and to change the form of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Churches of the West as hath been discoursed at large in the First Part. CHAP. XVIII A Continuation of the History of the Eucharist or the State of the XII and XIII Centuries THe Opinion of Paschas having been in fine publickly Authorised in the XI Century there needs no farther enquiry be made to know if it obtain'd the Victory over its Adversaries the thing being without any difficulty the establishing of this Doctrine being a manifest condemnation of that which was opposite unto it it will suffice then to understand what were the consequences and to what effect so many Decrees in favour of the Opinion of Paschas and contrary unto that of which Berengarius and his followers so stoutly maintained did work upon the minds of men for during all the XI Century the minds of Men were divided and notwithstanding the decisions of several Councils there was in all parts infinite numbers of People which made open profession of the Doctrine which Berengarius taught and which was exactly that of the Adversaries of Paschas therefore the very Enemies of Berengarius told us in the foregoing Chapter That all France Italy and England was full of his Doctrine In fine the party which rejected the Determination of Gregory the VII against Berengarius was so considerable that Urban the Second was constrained to condemn anew the Opinion of Berengarius in another Council held at Plaisance Anno 1095. Berthold ad aunum 1095. as Bertholdus has observed in his Appendix unto Herman Contract for relating all things that were translated in this Council of Plaisance which was celebrated in his time he saith amongst other things that the Doctrine of Berengarius was there again condemned after having been so several times before But as the former Determinations could not impose silence upon the Disciples of Berengarius I mean those which embraced the same Doctrine which obliged Urban to condemn them again in the year 1095. seven years after the Decease of Berengarius so also the condemnation of Urban the Second had not power sufficient to silence them seeing that in the beginning of the XII Century Bruno Archbishop of Treves expell'd great numbers of them out of his Diocess as is testified by Monsieur de Thou in the Epistle Dedicatory of his History It is true that instead of the year 1060. whereto he assigns the action of this Prelate it
their Opinions makes all the Accusations contrary thereunto to be void because we cannot judge of the Faith of a Society and of a Communion but by the Confession which it makes to the prejudice whereof nothing more can lawfully be charged upon it It seems to me to be the true means certainly to judge of the Belief of those of whom we speak and of the Accusations which have been laid to their charge Peter of Cluny writing against the Petrobrusians that is to say against the Disciples of Peter de Bruis or against the Albigensis saith That the report is Peter Cluny contra Petrobrus that they believe neither in Jesus Christ nor in the Prophets nor Apostles and that they deny the Old and New Testament that they reject the whole Canon of the Scriptures Which nevertheless I will not believe saith he nor accuse them of things so uncertain Which Proceeding so far appeared very just and reasonable for a Christian's Charity should not be suspicious And in fine see here what they declared in the Year 1120. Hist of Albing by Paul Perrin c. 1. l. 3. forty years before Waldo appeared It is evident say they both by the Old and New Testament that a Christian is obliged by the Commandment enjoyned him that he should depart from Antichrist which they prove by sundry passages of Esay Jeremiah Ezekiel of Leviticus Numbers Exodus Deuteronomy of St. Matthew St. John and the Revelations The report was also as the same Peter de Cluny saith That they denied that little Children under a reasonable age could be saved by the Baptism of Jesus Christ Nevertheless I only can find this in their Confession Ubi supra c. 4. What is not necessary in the Administration of Baptism are the Exorcisms blowing the sign of the Cross upon the breast and face of the Infant the Salt which is put into the mouth and the Spittle put into their ears and nose c. And about eighty or ninety years after Waldo began to appear Reynerus one of their greatest Enemies Cap 5. 3. gives them this Testimony They commonly have by heart the Text of the new Testament and good part of the old they have the old and new Testament translated into the vulgar Tongue and so they do teach and learn it I saw and heard one of their Peasants who repeated word by word the Book of Job and several others of them who repeated perfectly all the New Testament And elsewhere Cap. 4. all other kind of Sects saith he are monstrous by reason of the Blasphemies which they audaciously offer against God but as for the Sect of the Leonists that is to say the Waldensis they have a great appearance of piety because they live uprightly and justly in the sight of Men and have a sound Belief for all that concerns God and of all the Articles which are contained in the Creed If those people had good and sound thoughts touching God and a right Belief of all the Articles of the Apostle's Creed as their very Adversaries do confess as well as their own Confession of Faith it is impossible they should either be Arians or Manicheans It must then be said that those which charged them with both these Heresies were very ill informed of their Belief And to say the truth Reynerus their Persecutor hath spoken so much in their commendation that he sufficiently warrants them from the impiety of Manes and the Heresie of Arius Also in the same Treatise he carefully distinguisheth them from the Catharians and Manicheans Cap. 6. for he saith That there was not in the whole World above four thousand Catharians Men and Women but as for the Believers they were without number for so it is he calls the Walaensis Cap. 1. 12. as also doth Pilichdorphius who wrote against them and observes that the Waldensis rejected several Sects of Hereticks which were then in the World Hist Albin c. 2. In Prol. chron And Peter de Vaux-Sernay and William de Puy-Lawrans Authors of that Age make a difference betwixt the Albigensis and the Waldensis and the Manicheans and Arians Thence it is that neither Pilichdorfius nor Bernard Abbot de Fon-caude nor Emery do not accuse them of Manicheism nor of Arianism in the List of the Errors which they impute unto them which consists chiefly in denying most of the Doctrines of the Latin Church which the Protestants do also reject Certainly William de Newbridge although their great Enemy cleareth them from all suspition of these two Impieties Rerum Angl. l. 2. c. 13. when speaking of the Albigensis under the name of Publicans which passed from Gascoygne into England he saith Being examined by order upon the Articles of their Faith they answered very well as to what regarded the Essence of the chief Physitian but ill as to the Remedies whereby he is pleased to heal humane Infirmities that is to say the Divine Sacraments All these considerations makes me not approve the proceedings of Mariana and of Gretzer who to make believe that these Christians were really guilty of the abominations of Manes and the Blasphemies of Arius have chang'd the title of certain Authors which they have published and which have written not only against the Albigensis and Waldensis but also against others for instance Luke 〈◊〉 Tude had given this Title unto his Book Of the life to come and of Controversies of Faith But Mariana to make the Readers believe this work only regarded the Albigensis hath given it this Title In Ep. ad Carvajalium Cauricus Episcop Against the Error of the Albigensis And in his Letter unto Carvajalius I purpose saith he to publish Luke de Tude his Dispute against the Hereticks of his time that is to say the Albigensis for this Sect was strong in the days of Luke Reynerius had thus entituled his Book A Treatise touching Hereticks And Gretzer hath given it this inscription Against the Waldensis Although the Author doth testifie that he writeth also against others which were of Opinions different from those of the Waldensis And whereas Everard de Bethuna was content with this Title Antihaeresis that is to say against Heresies In which Treatise he refutes chiefly the Mannicheans without naming them the same Gretzer hath made no scruple to intitle it Against the Waldensis Bernard de Fon-caude gave this name unto his Treatise Against the Waldensis and against the Arians so evidently distinguishing in that manner the Waldensis from the Arians but Gretzer contented himself with this only against the Waldensis In fine Ermingard had placed this Title to his Book Against the Hereticks which believe and say that this World and all visible things are not the work of God but of the Devil that is to say against the Manicheans and Gretzer hath placed over each page against the Waldensis But this kind of conduct is so far from rendring those people more odious according to the intention of those which do it
them when they were most spoken of and which is Printed with Reynerius and Pilichdorffius observes amongst other things that they called themselves Brethren Bibl. Patr. t. 4. edit 4. p. 819. By this and other Writings saith he it is necessary to prevent the Hereticks the Waldensis c. amongst them they call the Hereticks Brethren It is then of the Waldensis in all probability that Platina Secretary unto the Popes doth speak in the life of Boniface the VIII when marking the year 1302. that is to say the second year after the Institution of the Jubilees by Boniface In Bonifacio VIII There are some that write that at that time Boniface caused to be dis-interred and burnt the Body of one Herman which was reputed at Ferrara to be a Saint 20 years before but having made a strict inquiry into his Heresie I am inclined to believe that he was of the number of the Fraticelli which Sect increased very much at that time In Clement V. And in the Life of Clement V. at Novara saith he Dulcin and Margret invented a new Heresie which allowed Men and Women to cohabit together and to satisfie their filthy lusts These were called Fraticelli Clement set about suppressing of them and speedily dispatcht thither Soldiers under the conduct of an Apostolical Legat who finding them setled in the Alps destroyed them some by the Sword some by Famine and some by Cold and other Cruelties And as for Dulcin and Margret being taken alive they were dismembred and having burnt their Bones the Ashes was flung into the Air. Decad. 2. lib. 9 ad ann 1307. Blondus saith the same with Platina Sabellius writes that some seem to make a distinction from these latter and the former but in the main speaking of those which were called Fratelli Fraterculi Fratricelli whom as he saith were spread abroad into several Cities of Italy in some whereof there was some remaining in his time that is to say Enead 9. l. 7. in the last Century He reproacheth them of Nocturnal meetings putting out of Candles unlawful lying together the cruel murder of Children begotten and born in these Criminal Copulations In a word all that was charged upon the Primitive Christians although the most innocent and pure of all mankind as hath been observed in our First Part and according unto what is said by Minutius Felix in his Octavius Whereto might be added what is written by Monsieur de Thoul in his History that the same Crimes were imputed unto the Protestants of France when they separated themselves from the Communion of the Latins I say then to return unto those which were called Fratelli that if they were Waldensis as it is most probable they were without great injustice the testimony of Sabellicus a late Author ought not to be preferred before Authors of the same Age and their Enemies who in the precedent Chapter as hath been shewed have declared very favourably of their Life and Conversations what aversion soever they had against them And as touching their Faith they fully acquitted them from all suspition of Arianism or of Manicheanism and declared that they had sound and good Opinions as to what regarded the Essence of God and all the Symbol of the Apostles Creed But let us yet see what this Anonymous Author will tell us which but now informed us Bibl. Patr. Tom 4. part 2. p. 8. 19 820. that they called one another Brethren for having observed That they preached in private unto a few persons in some Corner of a House and for the most part by Night in all likelihood to avoid persecutions he adds That they pronounced pernicious Doctrines against the truth of the Roman Church under a pretext and shew of sweet and holy Doctrines c. Therefore although they teach some truths as these That it is not lawful to Steal nor commit Adultery nor Slander nor Cheat nor Lye c. yet they instill amongst these guilded Sentences the wicked poison of Heretical Articles which have been condemned by the Holy Church of Rome they seduce the ignorant hinder Souls from Salvation and introduce infinite Evils And proceeding afterwards to the particularizing these Heretical Articles condemned by the Church of Rome Ibid. p. 820 821 825 827. they are found to be the same which are disowned by the Protestants at this day for instance The Invocation of Saints Humane Traditions Indulgences and some others as we were informed in the foregoing Chapter and by their Confessions of Faith and by the Testimonies of Writers of their times their Adversaries That they believed of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the very same that those called Calvinists do believe of it I do not here say any thing of the Bull which Clement the V. made for the observation of the Feast of the Sacrament Instituted by Urban the IV. nor of the Institution of the Procession because I shall be obliged to speak of them when I come to treat of the Worship I will only observe that besides the Waldensis and Albigensis there was at Herbipolis about the year 1340. one Conrad Hagar who as appears by the Bull of Otho Bishop of the place as Hospinian observes confessed that during the space of 24 years Hist Sacram. l. 4. c 13. catalog testium verit l. 18. he had believed and taught that the Mass was not a Sacrifice that it was not profitable unto the Quick nor the Dead and that therefore no body ought to Celebrate it But that was nothing in regard of the noise which John Wickliff Doctor in the University of Oxford and Professor in Divinity made in England about the middle of the XIV Century The Friar Walsingham who hated him mortally for having spoken freely against those of his Order and who represents him as having many followers at Oxford and elsewhere chargeth him amongst other things of teaching In Edwardo III ad an 1377 T. 2. c. 19. 20. That the Eucharist after Consecration is not the real Body of Jesus Christ but the Figure And Thomas Waldensis He believes absolutely saith he that the Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist and that after a kind of Figurative Speech it is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Body of Jesus Christ is only in Heaven as to its nature and substance and in the Sacrament figuratively as John Baptist was said to be Elias the Rock Christ and the seven Ears of Corn seven years And Widford which undertook to refute Wickliff by order of Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury lays down for the first Article he intended to handle In sasciculo rer expetend sugiend p. 96. Apud Usser de success statu Christ Eccles c. 3. That the substance of Bread remains upon the Altar after Consecration and that it ceaseth not to be Bread And Wickliff affirmed in a Manuscript Treatise of Thomas Waldensis which was in the hands of Dr. Usher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland That
all the Changes and Alterations which have thereupon ensued and the many Disputes and Contests which have frequently hapned in Europe from Paschas until Berengarius and from Berengarius until the great separation of the Protestants The method proposed by us necessarily requires that we should employ this Third Part in examining the Worship I mean to consider the dispositions and preparations which should go before the Celebration of the Sacrament and of the inclinations and motions of the Soul of the Communicant either towards God and Jesus Christ or in respect of the Sacrament it self that we should examine the great question of Latrie and that we should endeavour to discover what the Church hath from time to time required of those which approach'd unto the holy Table to participate of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For it must not be imagined that these first Christians which abounded with Zeal and Piety contented themselves in Celebrating this Divine Sacrament with indifferency and meerly for fashion sake and only to declare what they believed of the Nature of the Symbols of their use and employment and that they omitted the necessary preparations both for celebrating and for worthily partaking thereof In fine the abode which I made in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity and the inspection which for some years I made into the Records and Registers which contain the Laws and Customs of this great Empire have informed me that this great and sublime Mystery is not Celebrated and that none presume to Communicate without great preparation devotion and respect And that the People of that Country made the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating his Sacrament and that of the Apostles in Communicating the model of their Celebration whereunto nevertheless in process of time they added several Ceremonies which had not been used at first and the words of this same Saviour the foundation of their Doctrine and of their Faith upon this important Article of Religion They had also considered the Commemoration that the Lord and afterwards his Apostle commands us to make of his Person and of his Death and the proof and examination which this latter requires of us as the fountain and principle of all the dispositions necessary for Celebrating and for Conimunicating Having therefore treated at large of the two first Heads we are indispensibly obliged to treat of the third point thereby to finish and compleat this History And because the Celebration precedes the Communion and that the actions of him that Celebrates goes before them of the Communicant we will first treat of the preparations incumbent upon him which doth Celebrate the Holy Sacrament CHAP. I. Of the Preparations which precede the Celebration WHen Jesus Christ did Celebrate his Eucharist the Evangelists do not mention that he prepared himself by any Ceremony they only declare That after the Supper of the Passover was ended he took Bread and that having prayed unto his Father over this Bread he broke it and distributed it unto his Disciples I only say that at the very instant there is no question to be made but that he lifted up his Soul unto his Father to beseech him that he would make this Sacrament which he went about to Institute for a Seal of his Covenant saving and efficacious unto his Children unto the end of the World And that taking the Bread to make it a sign of his Body he did it with that reverence which of it self shewed that he went about doing something that was of great weight and moment The Evangelists nor St. Paul make no mention at all of any preparation accompanied with many external Ceremonies our Saviour designing to institute this Mystery with much plainness and simplicity agreeable unto the Nature of the Gospel the Worship whereof was to be wholly Spiritual and Divine according unto what Jesus Christ said unto the woman of Samaria That God is a Spirit and he must be worshipped by them which serve him in spirit and in truth About six or seven score years after the Conductors of the Christian Churches used no other Ceremony in the Celebration of the holy Sacrament for St. Justin Martyr St. Justin Martyr Apol. 2. who gives an ample description of the exteriour form of Celebrating the Sacrament which was observed in his time prescribes no other preparation unto us on behalf of the Pastor before the Sacrament but only that when the Sermon made unto the People was ended reading some portion of the holy Scriptures he made a prayer unto God and that when prayer was finished the Believers having saluted each other with the kiss of Charity there was presented unto him Bread Wine and Water over which things he prayed unto God to Consecrate them and the People having answered Amen the distribution was made unto the Communicants by the Ministry of the Deacons Nothing can be seen more simple nor more agreeable unto the Institution of this Sacrament then the manner that was used in Celebrating of it in the days of St. Justin seeing there is no mention made of any preparation made by him that Celebrates in order unto this holy Action being content to prepare and dispose himself thereunto in private by ardent and zealous prayers unto God that he would be pleased to enable him by his Grace to Celebrate this Venerable Sacrament with the Gravity Reverence and Devotion befitting so illustrious a Monument of his great kindness and love But this great simplicity was not to the liking of those which came after They thought God was to be served with more pomp and that the splendor of outward Ceremonies would advance the Dignity of the Mysteries of his Religion It often happens that we think God is like our own selves and that because we naturally love outward pomp and are exceedingly inclined unto Pageantries we fondly conceit that it is the same with the Almighty and that the Service which we address unto him would be much more acceptable for being beautified and enriched with a great many Ceremonies and attended with many mystical actions into which deep search must be made to understand their sense and meaning This is indeed the Spring and Original cause of all those which in process of time have been introduced by Men in the Celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist But because we here only enquire into those which Celebrate and of the preparations which they ought to make for this holy Action we must to prosecute our design consider what is hapned in this preparation since Justin Martyr In the Constitutions which go in the Apostles names there is a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Eucharist wherein after Prayers unto God for the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents for those which are ready to receive Baptism and for the faithful And after having dismissed all those which by the Laws of the Church could not be present at the Celebration of Divine Mysteries the Deacons did present upon the Altar Constit