remonstrances by the which in converting sinners God is pleased to become favourable and propitious unto them and in the Ninth Ib. Hem. 9. he doth not apply the duty and functions of the legal Sacrifices for offering Sacrifices but unto Believers who offer spiritual Sacrifices unto God Id. Hom. 17. in Jos And in another place making an antithesis and comparison of the Jewish Worship with the Christian he places the Altar and Sacrificer of the Christians in the Heavens without making mention of any other Altar Zeno of Verona having asserted Zeno Veron Hom. in Psal 49. there were three kinds of Sacrifices that of the Jews of the Gentiles and of Christians he understands the Sacrifice of the latter of that of Malachi and expounds it to be a Sacrifice of praise and of a spiritual Sacrifice of our own selves Greg. Nazian orat 1. Sacrifice saith he unto God a Sacrifice of thanksgiving and present your bodies a living Sacrifice well pleasing unto God Gregory Nazianzen could have no other meaning when he affirmed as an undoubted truth that the Sacrifice of praise and a contrite heart is the only Sacrifice which God requires of us And S. Ambrose doth he not say That under the Law there were Sacrifices for sins but that at present they be Sacrifices of Repentance Ambros Ep. 59. Therefore it is that the Authour of the Commentaries upon the Psalms inserted in S. Jerome's Works placeth no other Sacrifices Hieron in Ps 49 50.9â— instead of those of the Law but spiritual Sacrifices and the Oblation of our own selves but there is nothing to be found in the Writings of the Ancients neither more excellent nor richer upon this Subject than these excellent words of the admirable S. Chrysostome We have saith he our Sacrifice in Heaven Chrysost Hom. 11. in cap. 6. ad Hebr. our Priest and our Sacrifice let us offer such Sacrifices as may be offered in that Sanctuary not Sheep and Oxen not Blood and Fat as heretofore all these things are abolished and a reasonable service is brought in in their place and what is a reasonable service the things which proceed from the soul the things which come from the Mind God saith he is a Spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth things which have no need of a Body of Organs and of place as modesty Id. ibid. temperancee alms-deeds long-suffering patience and humility And a little after he adds That there be also other Oblations which are true Sacrifices to wit the bodies of holy Martyrs As to the second regard Origen considering the Sacrifice of the Cross and looking upon it as the Body the fulness and substance of all the typical and figurative Sacrifices of the Law he opposes it unto them as that only which they did represent and which was to be the only true Sacrifice of the Christian Religion for having observed Origen in Num. Hom. 17. That the venom of the Devil is expell'd by the Sacrifices offered unto God he adds that whilst the time admitted of it Sacrifice was opposed against Sacrifice but when the true Sacrifice and Lamb without spot came to take away the sins of the World those Sacrifices which were successively offered unto God then seemed needless seeing that by one only Sacrifice Chrysost in Joan. Hom. 17. the whole Worship of Devils was destroyed And S. Chrysostome having said That Jesus Christ taketh away the sins of the World without being often crucified gives this reason for saith he he offered one sole Sacrifice for sins but he alwayes cleanseth us by this sole Sacrifice Id. Hom. 13 in c. â— ad Hebr. And elsewhere When you are told that Jesus Christ is a Priest do not imagine that he alwayes doth the Function for he did it once and then sat down and rested And thereupon having observed That standing related unto the humiliation of our Lord and that as he continued not a Servant so also he continued not a Sacrificer He thus continues his Discourse That shews the greatness of the Sacrifice because it sufficed being but One and having been offered but once and a little after There is no other Sacrifice one alone hath cleansed us and without this Sacrifice saith he Hell fire could not be avoided Therefore the Apostle turns these words every way One Priest one Sacrifice fearing lest some thinking there were several should sin boldly and without fear S. Austin was of the same Judgment Aug. de Trinit l. 4. c. 13. seeing he taught That the Lord washed abolished and extinguished by his Death which is the sole only and true Sacrifice offered for us Id. contr advers leg l. 1. c. 18. all manner of sins and offences for the which we were justly held under the Empire of Principalities and Powers to be tormented for them that the Sacrifice of the Cross is the only Sacrifice whereof all the ancient Sacrifices were but shadows Idem contr Faust l. 20. c. 18. the sole only and true Sacrifice by which Jesus Christ shed his blood for us that the Sacrifice which David offered to the end God should forgive the sins of his people was but a shadow of that which was for to come to signifie that by one only Sacrifice which had been represented by the types of the Law God should spiritually provide for the salvation of his people for it is Jesus Christ himself who was given up saith the Apostle for our sins and which rose again for our Justification hence it is also that he saith that Christ our Passover is slain S. Prosper doth not come short of S. Austin when he makes this question Prosp in Ps 129. What else is the Propitiation but the Sacrifice and what the Sacrifice but the death of the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the World The Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews attributed to Primasius but which we have already noted to be of Haymon of Alberstad or Remy of Auxerr doth frequently press the unity of the Sacrifice of the Cross without telling us that there is any other Primas in c. 5. Hebr. t. 1. Bibl. Pat. Id. inc 7. extr as upon the Fifth Chapter he seeks in Jesus Christ the accomplishment inasmuch as there is but once in all the Scriptures mention made of the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck and he finds it in that the Lord gave himself once to be sacrificed for us And in the same Treatise speaking of the Sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered for our sins he saith That he did it once and no more because he dyed once for our sins Id. in c. 10. and now dieth no more That the Apostle sheweth the great value of the Death of Christ in that it was but once and that it sufficeth to take away the sins of Believers for ever That Christ who is our Sacrifice was not offered a second time that it was done once and
besides what they have already told us of the local presence of Christ in Heaven and his absence from Earth in regard of his Body and his Human Nature the presence whereof they have constantly opposed unto the Presence of his Divine Nature they have formally declared themselves against the Polutopie of his Divine Body I mean against his presence in divers places at one and the same time Fulgent ad Trasim l. 2. c. 17. for they positively say That the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when he is upon Earth leaving Earth when it goes up to Heaven that he is every where as God but that he is in Heaven as Man and that he is in a certain place in Heaven Aug. Fp. 57. sub finem Ep. Id de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 29. Id. tract 31. in Joan. Vigil contr Eutyck l. 4. c. 14. after the manner of being of a true Body That there is no corporal Nature that can be wholly and intirely in Heaven and wholly upon Earth at once That Jesus Christ as Man according to the Body is in one place and that he so departs from a place that he is no longer in the place from whence he parted when he is gone to another place That when the Body of the Lord was upon Earth it was not in Heaven and in like manner being now in Heaven doubtless it is not upon Earth and that 't is so certain it is not there that in regard of it we look that Christ shall come from Heaven Bertram de Nativ Christ c. 3. t. 1. Spicileg Dacher p. 323. That altho Jesus Christ is every where present according to the property of his Divinity he is but in one place according to the dimensions of his Body because that which is local is not in all places but it goes unto some other place when it hath left the place where it was before Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 82. Therefore St. Justin Martyr proved it as an Article of the Faith of Christians in his time That the Father Creator of the World having raised the Christ from the Dead was to raise him up to Heaven and there to keep or retain him until he had slain the Devils his Enemies and that the number of the good and vertuous which he foreknew should be accomplished that is to say until the day of the general Resurrection this is what the Protestants say Secondly according to the Doctrine of the Latins the Body of Jesus Christ must exist in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without occupying any space if the Fathers were of this Opinion they would not have failed to have left us proofs in their Writings or if they were obliged to say the contrary of Bodies in general and when they considered them in the Order of Nature they would doubtless have brought some exception touching the glorious Body of our Lord Jesus they were too prudent and too wise to forget so considerable a Circumstance the silence whereof might have been of very dangerous consequence and have done notable prejudice unto their Doctrine so that having exactly considered what they have said of Bodies in general and in regarding what they be naturally it appears they have made no Exception for the Body of Christ it follows then of necessity as the Protestants say that they believed not that it could exist after the manner of a Spirit that is to say invisibly and without filling a space according to the measure of its dimensions this is what I could discover in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which we have remaining touching this Question which is that the Holy Fathers testify That 't is impossible that that which hath neither Bounds Cyril Alexan. de Trinit c. 3. t. 6. Aug. l. 83. quaest q. 51. t. 4. alibi Fulgent deâ— de ad Pet. c. 3. nor Limits nor Figure and which cannot be handled nor seen can be a Body That all Bodies be they what they will take up space and place by its compass And that every thing continues in the state wherein God put it when he made it it not being the property of a Body to exist after the manner of Spirits The Protestants think it was in these kinds of Occasions that the ancient Doctors of the Church ought to have 〈◊〉 if they had any other Opinion of the Body of Christ and that altho they so determined the manner of existing of Bodies yet that they acknowledged another wholly peculiar unto the Body of Christ after the Resurrection after the which he may be in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without taking up of any space and without that each part of this Divine Body should answer unto each part of the place which should be proportioned unto its greatness and compass Nevertheless the Truth is say they that no such thing hath ever been found in their Writings and that no exception can be found for the Body of our glorious Redeemer Shall we say that they have therein wanted Wisdom and Conduct but they think this would be to stop the course of their Glory and to slander the great Reputation they have acquired in the Church of God that it would render them useless in the Controversies which divide Christians in the West because upon each point in dispute some of either side may tax them with the like thing and make them Parties It were much better say they to confess sincerely that they believed not that the Body of Jesus Christ could exist after the manner of a Spirit nor any other manner than as Bodies are wont to exist because that after his Resurrection he would have his Apostles know by seeing and feeling that he had a true Body In the third place it is another Consequence of the Belief of the Latin Church that the Body of Jesus Christ which was formed so long agoe in the Womb of the Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost is made every day by pronouncing these Words unto which the Latins attribute the Consecration of the Sacrament I will not here examine the divers Means by which it is pretended to be done my design not permitting it because I compose an Historical Treatise as far as the Subject will permit me and do endeavour as much as possible may be to avoid any thing that savours of Dispute and Controversy I will then only say that if the Holy Fathers were of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist they could not avoid allowing as true this third Consequence which necessarily depends of it Yet nevertheless having read their Works I find they held for an undoubted Maxim Athenag legat pro Christ Tertul. contr Hermog c. 19. Just Martyr sect 17.23.43.59 p. 44. Orig. in Exod. Hom 6. Hilar. l. 12. de Trin. in Psal 138. Athanas contr Aâ—riau orat 3. That what is made was not
greater value was chosen to make their Chalices but of greater and less price according to the substance and stock of each Church but at first in sundry places they were made of Glass or of Wood as will appear and to speak the truth if at Rome in the beginning of the III. Century they used Glass Chalices it is very probable they did so in many other places Now that they used such at Rome at that time may be gathered from some passages of Tertullian for answering an argument which the Catholicks drew from a picture they had in their Chalices and which represented the good Shepherd carying the lost Sheep upon his back Put in practice saith he the very Pictures of your Chalices Tertul. de pudic c. 7. Ibid. c. 10 and to mark that these Chalices were Glass he opposeth unto this Painting The writing of the Shepherd which cannot be blotted out Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse towards the end of the IV. Century and at the beginning of the V. made use of no other Chalices but of Glass S. Jerom who presseth him very much Hieron ep 4. extr saith amongst other things of him That nothing is richer than him which carries the Body of our Lord in a little wicker Basket and his blood in a Glass In the VI. Century Cyprian not the famous Bishop of Carthage which was dead three hundred years before but another Cyprian a French Man Vi◠〈◊〉 Arel Author of the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who died towards the middle of the VI. Century observing as an action worthy of commendation that he redeemed a great many Slaves with the Gold and Silver of the Church saying that a great many praised him for so doing but would not follow his example he adds The blood of Christ is it not in a Glass And although this Author saith there were many who would not imitate him in an Action which they could not but commend yet I cannot be perswaded but that there were to be found other good Bishops who considering as Exuperius of Tholouse and S. Caesarius of Arles that the riches of the Church are the Patrimony of the Poor did in suffering and calamitous times imploy all the Gold and Silver of their Churches either to sustain their Poor or redeem Captives and that they had rather make use of Chalices of Glass as those did than to be wanting in this necessary duty of Christian charity Greg. 1. dialog l. 1. c. 7. In the Dialogues of Gregory the first there is mention of one Donatus who by his Prayers mended a Glass Chalice which had been broke but let us hear what Cardinal Baronius saith upon this Subject Baron Martyr Rom. 7. Agust The Chalices of Glass and Plates or Patins of Glass were antiently made use of in Livine Service there is mention made of Plates of Glass in the Pontifical in the life of Pope Zephyrin of a Glass Chalice in the 4th Epistle of S. Jerom to Rusticus speaking of S. Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse and also our French Cyprian in the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who flourished in the time of Theodorick King of Italy Is not saith he the Blood of Christ kept in a Glass for it seemeth that Glass Chalices have been used ever since the Apostles days whence 't is that Mark the Heretick who lived presently after their days to imitate the Catholick Church using a Glass Chalice in his divine Service betwitched the people with certain impostures and by Sorcery making the Wine which looked white in the Glass to turn Red by his slights so that the Wine seemed to be changed into Blood but in the Council of Rheems held under Charles the great Glass Chalices were forbidden and that very reasonably because of the danger there was in that brittle stuff you have thereupon the Canon ut Calix de Consecrat distinct 1. as also the Chalices of wood are forbidden in the Canon Vasa in quibus in the same distinction Binius relates almost the very same thing upon the life of Pope Zephyrin What Baronius saith of the prohibiting of Glass Chalices in the Reign of Charlemain T. 1. Concil p. 96. in one of the Councils of Rheems he takes from the Canonist Gratian whose authority is not always to be allowed no more than the other Collectors of Canons for as Monsieur de Launoy a Doctor of Sorbon hath judiciously observed in his Treatise of the times antiently appointed for administring holy Baptism Cap. 9. p. 184. The Antient Collectors do change and cut off from the Canons of Councils what things they suppose either to be abolished and useless or different from the customs of their times They have saith he fitted the Antient Canons to the discipline of their own times Ibid. And Cardinal Bellarmine in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers In Grat. ad an 1145. saith in particular of Gratian That he had not well chosen the Authors from whence he had gathered his Decrees and he instances in some examples which he pretends to be so many mistakes in the Author and indeed to return to the prohibition of Glass Chalicesby a Council of Rheems we find no such matter if my memory fail not in any of the Councils held under Charlemain although we have a great number of them as for Wooden Chalices we have at this time the Canon whence Gratian took it it is the 18. of the council of Trybur assembled Anno 895. Tom. 7. Concil p. 151. That for the future no Priest dare presume in any wise to consecrate in Chalices of Wood the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. But the Council doth observe in the same Canon that Boniface Bishop of Mayence being asked if it were lawful to consecrate the Sacraments in Vessels of Wood he made this answer Heretofore Golden Priests made use of Wooden Chalices and now on the contrary Wooden Priests do use Golden Chalices But it is plainly evident by what hath been said that Chalices of Glass and of Wood were used in the Church for the space of eight or nine hundred years and what is said of Chalices may also be said of Plates or Patins whereupon we have said was put the Bread of the Sacrament they were at least broad round Vessels a little hollow which cannot be resembled to any thing better than Dishes which were greater or less according to the number of Communicants The Latin Church doth not suffer Consecration to be made in any thing but a Gold or Silver Chalice or at least of Pewter and a Council of Albi assembled Anno. 1254 commanded all Churches whose Rents amounted yearly unto fifteen livres French Money to have a Silver Chalice T. 2. Spâ—cil c. 12. p. 638. I deny not but in the four first Ages of Christianity several Churches had Silver Chalices and it may be also of Gold such as whereof in all likelihood those were spoken of by Optatus Bishop of
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. Epitemâ— 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 â— 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
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. 33â— or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus who is the head of this Divine Body We also saith he being made his Body are tied and bound unto our head both by the Sacrament and by the matter of the Sacrament and being members one of another we mutually render each other the duties of love we communicate by charity we participate with eating one and the same meat and drink one and the same drink which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval Peter de Celles Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims who lived at the end of the XII Century for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline which is come to light but within these seven or eight years he speaks in this manner The communication of the Body of Christ T. 3. Spicil p. 99. and of the Blood of Christ poured forth to wit of the Lamb without spot purifieth us from all guilt and from all sin Let us say something more formal Peter of Tarantes Apud Cassand de Commun sub utraque specie p. 1043. afterwards Pope under the name of Innocent IV. writes That the most considerable as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar do receive the Sacrament under both kinds William of Montelaudana in sundry places saith he They communicate with the Bread and Wine that is to say with the whole Sacrament And Peter de Palude testifies that in his time It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species Richard de Mediavilla was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution All these saith Cassander lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place that Thomas Aquinas who defends the use of communicating under one kind doth not say that this custom was universally received but in some Churches only And to say the truth Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind there were several Churches that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices by means whereof they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord as Beatus Rhenanus p. 438. testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds p. 1036. both of them in their time having seen of these Quills or little Pipes which were used for communicating the Laity Let us descend yet lower and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self not indeed of the People but of all the Cardinal Deacons for Vrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar in his Pontifical Habit wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubrick and in fine he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do T. 4. p. 306. Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders Anno 1378. by Pileiâ—de Prata Archbishop of Ravenna and Cardinal in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery But as from the
11. After his coming we shall have no need of Signs or Symbols of his Body because the Body it self shall appear It was also the meaning of St. Austin if I mistake not when he said Aug. Serm. 9. de divers Id. in Psal 37. That we shall not receive the Eucharist when we are come unto Christ himself and that we have begun to reign Eternally with him he said also elsewhere That no Body remembers what is not present A Maxim grounded upon the Light of Reason De memor reminisc c. 1. De Invent. l. 2. for 't is by this Principle the Philosopher said that the Memory is not of things present and the Prince of Eloquence That the Memory is that whereby one remembers things which are past I never think of these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament This is my Body but I deplore with grief and sorrow of Heart the State of Christians which have made the Sacrament which our Saviour instituted to be the Bond of their Love and Union the occasion of their Hatred and the sorrowful matter of their sad Divisions and as I should be over-joy'd to contribute any thing to disabuse those which are in Errour by giving the Words the Explication which they ought to have I thought one of the best means to effect it was diligently to search in what sense the Holy Fathers have taken them and in what manner they understood them for I make no question but a belief agreed upon by Christians at all times and universally received at all times in all the Climates of the Christian World is Catholick Orthodox and by consequence worthy to be retained in the Church as an Apostolical Truth Therefore I have applied my self unto this Inquiry to endeavour to find in their Works their true and real Thoughts and because for the most part in their Homilies and popular Exhortations they are transported with the fervour of Zeal and the motions of Piety which often made them use Hyperbolical Expressions fit for the Pulpit and suitable unto Orators which should be pathetical and feeling I have not stopt at these sorts of Works I have chiefly examined Commentaries and Expositions where for the most part they speak Dogmatically and in cold Blood and the true and genuine Thoughts of those which write or expound may be seen And but that I mean exactly to keep within the Bounds prescribed at the beginning of this second Part I might continue my Inquiry unto the XIIth Century which would give us the Testimonies of Zonaras a Greek Canonist and of Rupert de Duitz as the IXth doth those of Raban of Christian Druthmar and of Bertram Laying then aside these five Testimonies not to infringe the Law I willingly imposed on my self I 'le begin vvith Clement of Alexandria Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. who lived at the end of the second Century Jesus Christ said he blessed Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Vine the holy Liquor of Joy represents by Alegory the Word to wit with regard to his Blood which was shed for many for the Remission of Sins From Clement of Alexandria I will pass unto Theophilus of Antioch Theoph. Anti. och in Matth. who wrote in the same Age When Jesus Christ saith he said This is my Body he called Bread which is made of many Grains his Body whereby he would represent the People which he hath taken unto himself Tertul. l. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. Cyprian ep 76. The third shall be Tertullian which saith That Jesus Christ having taken Bread and distributed it unto his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is to say the Figure of my Body The fourth is St. Cyprian When the Lord saith he doth call the Bread made of several grains of Wheat his Body he signifieth thereby the faithful People whose Sins he bore inasmuch as it was but one Body The fifth is St. Jerome Hieron Com. in Matth. c. 26. who dyed in the year of our Lord 420 As they were at Supper saith he Jesus took Bread blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body And taking the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the New Testament for the remission of Sins When the Typical Passover was accomplished and that Jesus Christ had eaten with the Apostles the Flesh of the Lamb he took Bread which strengthneth Man's Heart and proceeds on to the true Sacrament of the Passover to the end that as Melchisedek Priest of the most High God had offered Bread and Wine to represent him so he also should represent the Truth of his Body and of his Blood The sixth is St. Austin contemporary with St. Jerome and dyed about eleven years after him The Lord made no difficulty to say August contr Adim c. 12. This is my Body when he gave the Symbol of his Body The seventh is Theodoret Our Lord saith he made an Exchange of Names Theod Dial. 1. and gave unto his Body the Name of the Symbol and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body and in the same place tells us in Truth whereof the Holy Food is the Sign and Figure Is it of the Divinity of Jesus Christ or of his Body and Blood Id. ibid. It is evident 't is of the things whereof they have their Names for the Lord having taken the Sign said not This is my Divinity but This is my Body and afterwards This is my Blood The eighth is Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa who assisted at the Fifth Oecumenical Council about the middle of the sixth Century Facund l. 9. p. 404 405. We do call saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery or the Sacrament of his Body and Blood From whence it is also that the Lord himself called the Bread and the Cup which he blessed and gave unto his Disciples his Body and his Blood The ninth is St. Isidor Bishop of Sevill in Spain Isid Hist oâ—igin l 6. c 19. We call saith he by the Command of Christ himself his Body and Blood that which being sanctified of the Fruits of the Earth is consecrated and made a Sacrament The tenth is Bede that bright Star of the English Church which finished his Course Anno 735. Beda Commâ— in Marc. 14. Jesus Christ saith he said unto his Disciples This is my Body because Bread strengthens the Heart of Man and Wine doth increase Blood in the Body it is for this reason that Bread represents mystically the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his Blood The eleventh is a Council of 338 Bishops Concil Constantinop in act
and Commemoration of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that God in choosing this Type and not a humane Effigies intended to shun the danger of Idolatry they content not themselves to say that the Eucharist is an Image they declare That this Image is the substance of Bread they speak of Sacrificing this Image this chosen matter this Substance of Bread they pleased themselves in making a perpetual opposition betwixt the real Body of Jesus Christ and the Bread which is its Figure or Image they say That the one is his Body by Nature and the other his Body by Institution that the former is the matter of his humane substance without personal subsistence and the other a matter chosen that is to say the substance of Bread not having humane Features that the one is holy because it is Deified that the other is rendred holy by the Sanctification of Grace in fine That the one is his Flesh which he hath taken to himself and that he hath sanctified with a holiness proper unto himself and that the other is sanctified by the Grace of the Holy Ghost which by the Ministry of the Priest makes it holy whereas it was common And because the Fathers which preceded them were wont to consider the Sacrament as an Image of the Son of God these also will have it to be an express Image of this adorable Mystery in contemplation whereof we must lift up our Faith and bring down our Sins it s for this reason they say That there 's no other thing under Heaven nor any other Figure but that chosen by Jesus Christ to express the Image of his Incarnation and a little under they say That our Saviour's design in the Institution of the Sacrament was to represent and shew clearly unto Men the Mystery of his Oeconomy that is to say of his Incarnation therefore they thus conclude all their Discourse It hath been demonstrated that it is the true Figure of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our God If it be a true Image as they do assure it is necessary say some that the substance of Bread should remain after Sanctification to represent sincerely the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ the which is not abolished by his Union unto the Divine Nature they add unto all these considerations that the Council testifies that our Lord commanded us to make not his real Body but the Figure of his Body and of his Blood and in that Jesus Christ commanded that this Image should be of the substance of Bread without the lineaments of humane shape it was to prevent Idolatry An Argument which would be unworthy the Council if it had believed that the Bread after Consecration had been no longer Bread but the Body it self of the Saviour of the World which ought to be Religiously adored by reason of his personal Union with the Godhead very far from fearing of committing Idolatry in adoring of him Thus it is that many do argue from this testimony They lived thirty two years in the East under the Authority of this Council but in the year 787. the Empress Irene having a violent affection for Images caused a second Council to be assembled at Nice in Bythinia whither she caused to come People to her own liking as also that favoured Images insomuch as the better to accomplish her design she conferred the Patriarchship of Constantinople upon one Terrasius which being a Lay person could not according to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions be capable of enjoying this Dignity In this Council assembled at the desire and pleasure of the Empress who governed all things in the Minority of Constantine her Son was disannull'd all that had been done at Constantinople against Images and by the way they censured what the other Fathers had said That the Sacrament is an Image of the Body of Jesus Christ because said they it is his true Body and his true Blood and not an Image Concil Nican 2. act 6. t. 5. Conc p. 5â— 758. see here their very terms The Oblations are piously called Types that is to say Figures and Images by some of the holy Fathers before the perfection of Sanctification but after Sanctification they are called truly they are and are believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ And thereupon they censure those of Constantinople for calling the Eucharist an Image and to have instanced for destroying of Images the example of an Image which was not an Image but the Body and Blood I will not here make a comparison betwixt these two Councils in their full extent nor search into the parallels betwixt them I will say but little but what I shall say will suffice to satisfie the Reader Sirmond t. â— Concil Gall. p. 191. Not to mention what hath been observed by Father Sirmond that the second Council of Nice cannot have the name of an Oecumenical and Universal Council it appears in the first place that much simplicity and sincerity might be seen in that of Constantinople although we have but little of their Acts trasmitted unto us but what was done by their Enemies But in that of Nice I am obliged to say that there is Injustice to be found in that these Prelates do assure in a great many places that they had present in their Assembly the Legats of the three Patriarchs of the East whereas the certain truth is Conc. Nican 2. act 3. p. 594 595 596 597. that not one of the three Patriarchs of the East did send any Deputies thither but five or six Hermits of Palestine ignorant and unexperienced persons as they call themselves at the instance of the Deputies of the Patriarch Terrasius did depute two of their own number John and Thomas to assist at this Council of the Legates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria of Antioch and of Jerusalem I find no marks or mention the pieces inserted in the Acts of the Council testifie the same Secondly in the Council of Constantinople the Fathers whereof it was composed did not licentiously abuse the holy Scriptures to draw it to their party but I cannot forbear saying that it was quite otherwise in that of Nice where they took liberty miserably to wrest the Scriptures and to corrupt them to draw inferences in favour of Image Worship this is to be seen in several instances especially in all the fourth Session In the third place we do not see that the Fathers of Constantinople had recourse to so many and gross pieces as those of Nice Act. 2. p. 555. Act. 4. p. 622. who made use of them freely and without any scruple for the establishing of their Opinion as the Acts of Pope Sylvester in the second Session the Book of the Passion of an Image of Jesus Christ under the name of St. Athanasius although this ridiculous piece had been but newly invented Ibid. 642. Ibid. 649. no question but by some one that was for Worshipping of Images the obscene and filthy History of a Friar
on Paschas his side I know not precisely the time that he lived although it is very probable it was either at the latter end of the IX Century or it may be in the X. but I know he was not a stout Champion and that his Courage was not able to restore Paschas his Party if they had the fortune to be worsted Unto this day the name and quality of this Proselite is not known as also it is not known who or what Frudegard was if it be not inferred by Paschas calling him Brother and Fellow-Soldier that he was either a Friar or Abbot of some Monastery As for Hinâ—mar Arch-Bishop of Rheims incomparably better known than our Anonymous and more famous than Frudegard by his Dignity and Writings I find my self a little at a loss for when I consider that he saith with St. Cyprian and St. Austin 1 Hinem. de proedest c. 3. epilogi c. 1. That our Saviour recommended his Body and Blood in things that are reduced into one 2 Id. ibid. de cavend viriis c. 12. ad Hincm Laud. c. 48. That he reserves with St. Austin and St. Prosper the eating of the Flesh of Christ for Believers only 3 Id de non trina deitate c. 17. That he declares with the former that the Mystery of Bread passeth into a Sacrament 4 Id. de caven vit c. 11. And that he acknowledgeth with others That our Saviour hath left us the Sacrament as a Pledge of his Love and as a Memorial of his Person and of his Death as a Man travelling into a far Country should leave a Pledge unto his Friend I cannot tell if I should make him a Friend of Paschas whose Doctrine doth not agree well with what we have now mentioned But when on the other hand I find in his Writings some things which seem to favour the same Paschas I cannot tell how to make him his Adversary Id. de cavend vit c. 12. For example what he saith That Jesus Christ is every day consecrated upon his Table that he sanctifies his Sacrament and that he makes himself Id. de pradest â— 31. And that he observes that Prudens Bishop of Trois and John Scot or of Scotland or rather of Ireland said That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real body and blood of our Lord but only the memorial of his true body and blood Let the Reader then place Hincmar either amongst the Enemies of Paschas or amongst his Friends for my part I am very apt to believe that he was of his favourers I mean that he followed his Opinion in the point of the Eucharist which yet I do not affirm as a thing indubitable and which may not be questioned I will only say that I do not find that he was of any extraordinary esteem for if we believe Father Sirmond who otherwise was no Enemy unto him Archbishop Hincmar was wont to be deceived himself Sirm. de duob Dionys c. 4. Mauguin Hist Chron. p. 442. Apolog. pour les Saints Peres l. 5. p. 3. c. 5. and to deceive others If we believe Monsieur the President Mauguin he calls him a Deceiver and a Dissembler And if we will give Credit unto the description that is made of him in the Apologies of the holy Fathers Defenders of Free Will we shall find him to be both violent and ignorant a Deceiver scandalous and malicious a Calumniator and a Man full of Vanity These are the Colours wherein he is displayed in that excellent Work besides several others which I pass over in silence So that if Hincmar was such a person as these Gentlemen describe him to be I do not think he would render the Party very considerable in which side soever he is placed yet he cannot be denied the Knowledge of the ancient Canons if I mistake not wherein he was better skill'd than in that which is dogmatical and relating unto Divinity In the main see here two Followers of Paschas one of which to wit the Anonymous declares himself directly for him and the other I mean Hincmar though he makes not so formal a Declaration doth nevertheless in all probability follow his steps But in fine they are the only two which I can find to be of the Belief of Paschas in the IX Century if it were true that the Anonimous wrote in that Century whereas if he wrote after as Father Cellot inclines to think he did all the strength of this Friar and afterwards Abbot of Corby will consist in himself and Hincmar in the uncertainty we are in whether St. Austin or Paschas prevailed over Frudegard As for the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles which some attribute unto Haymon Bishop of Alberstadt others unto Remy Arch-bishop of Lyons and others in fine with greater probability unto Remy Friar of Auxerr I do not think he ought to be reckoned amongst the Friends nor Enemies of Paschas He did like those that seeing a Kingdom divided into two Factions take part with neither but think of making a third Party for he would neither follow the Party of Paschas nor the Belief of those which argued against him but would establish in the West as far as I can find the Opinion that Damascen had broached in the East of the Union of the Bread of the Sacrament with the Divinity to make by means of this Union one sole Body with the true Body of our Saviour as we have shewed in speaking of Damascen And this is the reason that we here place Remy of Auxerr although he lived not according to all Circumstances but at the end of the IX Century and to say the truth because he had a middle Opinion betwixt that of Paschas and that of his Adversaries we cannot appoint him a fitter place than this to the end that as he disturbed not the Depositions of Paschas his Friends neither should he trouble the Testimony of his Adversaries That the Opinion of Remy is such as we say I hope the Candid Reader will believe it to be so when he shall see what we here produce of his Commentaries upon the 10th and 11th Chapters of the First to the Corinthians and of his Exposition of the Cannon of the Mass ' The Flesh saith he which the Word took in the Womb of the Virgin into the Unity of his Person Remig. Altiss comment in â— ad Corin. c. 10. and the Bread which is Consecrated in the Church are one Body of Jesus Christ for as this Flesh is the Body of Jesus Christ so also this Bread passeth into the Body of Jesus Christ and they be not two Bodies but one Body for the fulness of the Godhead which was in that Body filleth also this Bread and the same Godhead of the Son which is in them filleth the Body of Jesus Christ which is Consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the World and causeth that it is one sole Body of
Church That it was a Leaden Age an Iron and unhappy Age an Age of Darkness Ignorance Superstition and Obscurity whereas his Adversary esteems it to be an Age of Light an Age of Grace and Benediction For my particular although I know that he which esteems it an Age of Darkness is supported by the Authority of all or at least the greatest number of Historians which have written of it especially of Baronius Gennebrard and Bellarmine and that so far he hath not said any thing of his own And that the reasons of his Adversary which represents it as an Age of Learning and Benediction do not appear unto me of sufficient force to invalidate what he hath established upon the report of Historians I will however make a third party in this rencounter and hold the mean betwixt these two extreams I say that I will not absolutely follow the Historians which represent it wholly dark and ignorant nor the Author of the Perpetuity which represents it all light and glorious For if I do not make it an Age wholly Light neither will I esteem it to be wholly Darkness If I judge it not to be an Age of Grace neither do I conceive it to be one altogether unfortunate If it appear not unto me to be wholly an Age of Benediction neither doth it appear to be only an Age of Malediction In a word if I look not upon it to be an Age of Hillary's of Athanasius's of Basills of Gregory's and of Ambroses or as an Age of Chrisostoms of Jeromes and of Austins yet I do not regard it as an Age of Bareletes of Maillards and of Menots I do not liken it unto a fair Summers day when the Heavens being free from Clouds the Sun shineth in its full force and communicates unto us without any Obstruction his Light and Heat but unto a Winters day which being dark and the Air full of thick Clouds deprives us of the sight of the Sun yet not totally of its Light so that we have still left us sufficient to direct us although it may not be always enough to hinder us from stumbling In like manner say some during the X. Century the Sins of Men having made a thick Cloud betwixt the Sun of Righteousness and them he communicated not unto them fully the Light of his healthful Beams although he imparted unto them sufficient to avoid the Errors which cannot be believed without Ruin and to embrace the Truth the knowledge whereof is necessary to Salvation What likelihood say some is there that having shed forth so much Light upon the IX Century for the defence of the Truth that Men should on a suddain be plunged into Darkness But what likelihood is there also that the same Craces with the same freedom should be continued to be dispensed unto Men when it was seen that they began to abuse them and that the Flesh gaining by little and little the Victory over the Spirit they degenerated insensibly from the truth of their Belief and the purity of their Devotion Nevertheless as God is infinitely good and that he never leaves himself without witness of doing good unto Men however unthankful and ungrateful they be so if he dispensed not sufficient Knowledge unto the Men of the X. Century to oppose the Opinion of Paschas with the same vigour as it was opposed in the IX yet he dispensed them so much as to hinder it from being established all that Age as shall be shewed in the progress of this History But in the first place it will be necessary to relate what is said by William of Malmesbury De gestis Pontific Anglor 〈◊〉 of Odo Arch-bishop of Canterbury who lived in this Age He so confirmed saith he several persons which doubted of the truth of the Body of our Lord that he shewed them the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh and the Wine of the Cup changed into Blood and afterwards he made them return unto their natural form and rendred them proper for the life of Men. This is the only Author of the X. Century that is come to our knowledge which publickly declared himself for the Opinion of Paschas whereas the Historian's Relation sheweth that there were several that were of a contrary Judgment and who had no small inclination to profess it openly besides the method of this Prelate to make them receive his Opinion seems unto many to be but a story made at random either by Odo himself or by the Friar which wrote the History of it and they heartily wish that Christians would not use these kind of Prodigies to prove the truth of the Doctrines of their Religion saying that Unbelievers are dis-satisfied and those which believe and are enlightned and that are pious can receive no Edification thereby And they make no question but that Paschas rendred his Doctrine suspicious unto most persons by the pretended Miracles that he made use of to establish it because this kind of proceeding shewed plainly that he found neither in the Scriptures nor Traditions Reasons strong enough to defend it seeing he had recourse unto these prodigious Apparitions But whatever this Arch-Bishop of Canterbury could do for the promoting the Doctrine of Paschas in England his endeavours had not all the success he could have wished the contrary Doctrine which had been so well planted in this Kingdom until the Year 883. by John Erigenius one of the greatest Adversaries of Paschas there continuing still and being publickly preached In fine Alfric which some also esteem to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and others Bishop of Cride after having been Abbot of Malmesbury a Man learned according to those times in a Sermon under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury thus spake of the Sacrament In notis Vheloci in histor Bedae Anglo-Sax l. 4. c. 24. about the Year 940. The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body wherein he suffered but the Body whereof he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body This is my Blood He adds That the Bread is his Body as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water of the Desert was If this Sermon was one of Wulfin's according to the Title the Year 840. as we have computed it doth not ill agree with it But if it be Alfric's we must descend lower towards the end of the X. Century Apud Usser de dhristian Eccles success statu c. 2. p. 54. There is another which some cite under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury and others attribute unto Alfric wherein the Author useth the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood as the Manna which fell from Heaven and the Water which flowed from the Rock If these two Sermons are of two several Authors we have already two Witnesses directly
Constance and at the which he saith he was present Tom. 1. fol. 9. reports a publick Testimony of the University of Prague touching the purity of the Belief of this man wherein is declared that Hus had denied the things whereof he had been accused unto the Pope especially that he had ever taught That the material substance of Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar The Author also reporteth Ibid. fol. 12. that John Hus was heard in open Council the 7th of June and that he confessed That the Bread is transubstantiated and that the Body of Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary which suffered and was crucified c. is truly really and wholly in the Sacrament And as a certain English Man said that Hus disguised his Opinion just as Wickliff had formerly done in England he answered That he spake sincerely and from his heart Which need not much be questioned when it must be observ'd Tom. 2. so 344. that Hus was a man full of candor and sincerity It is related in the acts of his Passion for that 's the Title given them in his Works that these things but now mentioned and others of the like Nature are reported of him But besides these proofs there is also found amongst John Hus his Letters Num. 65. Tom. 1. fol. 8. a very favourable testimony given by the University of Prague unto him and Jerom after their Death that is to say the 23d of May Anno 1416. and in Num. 66. a Summary of the belief of the Comminalty of Prague composed of the followers of John Hus wherein they formally establish the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Concomitants saying That Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples his Body and Blood miraculously hid under the Species of Bread and Wine Ib. num 66. And alledging a passage under the name of Leo which imports That the Blood is received with the Body under the species of Bread and the Body with the Blood under the species of Wine that nevertheless the Blood is not eaten under the species of Bread as the Bread is not drank under that of Wine I will add to conclude unto all these considerations two other circumstances In the first place that the Taborites which had a great Veneration for John Hus although they were of a contrary Judgment unto him upon the point of the Sacrament mention him often in their Confession of Faith upon the Articles which he either held or favoured but upon the point of Transubstantiation they alledge nothing of his In the second place that in regard of Wickliff who was much esteemed by Hus he declares positively in his Writings against Stephen Palets his greatest Enemy Tom. 1. p. 264. A. that he did imbrace what there was of truth in the Writings of John Wickliff Doctor in Divinity not because he said it but because it was agreeable unto the Holy Scriptures and unto Reason but if he taught any Error he intended not to follow him nor any one else therein And in full Council Ibid. fol. 13. being charged with the 40 Articles of Wickliff condemned by the Fathers of Constance he said that he adhered not unto Wickliffs Errors confessing nevertheless that he could have wished the Archbishop of Prague had not condemned them after the manner that he had condemned them declares Ibid. fol. 13. B. that he never obstinately defended them although he approved not that they should be condemned before that the Justice of their condemnation was shewed by reasons taken from the Holy Scriptures In fine he defends himself particularly upon each of these Articles limiting explaining or distinguishing them without any heed being thereunto given by the Council and what there is besides very strange in the business that answering in his Writings unto the Objections of his Adversaries which had been before of his side but were become his Enemies Tom. 1. so 255. 265. p. 292. unto fol. 321. he never toucheth the Article of Transubstantiation yet it is not likely that having been his Friends they could be ignorant of his Opinion upon this weighty point nor that they could have been silent if John's belief had been contrary unto that of the Church of Rome As for Jerom of Prague besides the intimate friendship which was betwixt him and John Hus which continued until their Death as it had been carefully improved in their life especially by the conformity of their Faith and Manners there is to be seen in the same Works a Discourse wherein the Author saith the same of Jerom Tom. 2. so 356. which he had done of Hus for he writes that one of his Adversaries having said there was a report That he believed that the substance of Bread remained upon the Altar he made this answer I believe the Bread is at the Bakers and not in the Sacrament of the Altar Poggius Florent ad Leonard Aretin in fascicul rerum expeton fugiend fol. 152. Which agrees very well with what is written by Pogge the Florentine unto his Friend Leonard Aretin Jerom saith he being examined what he believed touching the Sacrament answered That by Nature it was Bread but at the instant of Consecration and afterwards it was the true Body of Jesus Christ that he believed it to be so and all the rest according as the Church believed And some body having replyed it is reported that thou teachest that the Bread remaineth after Consecration he answered the Bread remaineth at the Bakers house This is the sum of the belief of John Hus and of Jerom of Prague touching the subject of the Sacrament Nevertheless the Council of Constance caused them to be burnt alive they endured this punishment with wonderful patience according to the relation of Pogge the Florentine an Eye witness and of Eneas Sylvius which speaks thus They both dyed very contentedly and drew near unto the Stake as cheerfully as if they were going unto a Banquet without letting fall a word as might express any thing of grief or sorrow when the Flames began to seize them they sang a Hymn the sound whereof could scarce be stopped by the noise of the Fire It is said That never any Philosopher suffered Death so constantly as these Men endured the punishment of the Flames The Death of these two Men served only to confirm the Taborites in their Opinions and inspired them with Zeal for its defence and of making publick and open profession thereof in Bohemia not but there was found in other parts those which professed the same Doctrine for Baleus reports upon the relation of Thomas Gasconius and of Leland that in the year 1457. Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England Had ill Opinions touching the Sacrament and that he maintained the Doctrine of Wickliff Centur. 8. Auth. 19. but that he was compelled to renounce and moreover was deprived of his Bishoprick It is very probable he had followers in his Diocess yet
in the XIII that it was not then given in the Latin Church but amongst persons of the same Sex I say that Men kissed each other and also Women the like And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted that is the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers but they being penned variously according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants we forbear inserting them in this place to endeavour to discover in prosecuting our design whether the holy Fathers which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined WEll to explain a matter and to give it the full demonstration which it requires the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chiefly depend Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers it self the first thing we should do is carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself and his Sacrament for the question is not whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped all Christians are agreed upon this point But whether the Sacrament should be adored that is to say that which the Priest holds in his hands and which is commonly called the Hostie and the Sacrament for it appears to me that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question Sess 13. c. 5. when it defined That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable and that his Flesh it self deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce as well as the Roman Catholicks for say they in coming unto the holy Table one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant humbles it self in his presence and doth truly adore him An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works What we read saith he in the Gospel Hom. 5. in divers t. 2. p. 285. ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures or after two manner of ways viz. When holy men beloved of God which govern the Churches enter under your Roof then our Lord doth enter by them and you should believe that you receive our Saviour When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food the Bread of Life I say and the Cup you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof Humble your selves therefore and in imitation of the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for wheresoever he enters unworthily he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him He saith That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers and that we should humble our selves in receiving as well his Servants as his Sacrament to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one and which sendeth unto us the others confessing that we are not worthy of this favour St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning for see here what is said by the first Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12 We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries and the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christs being present in the Sacrament because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore we will joyn unto St. Ambrose St. Austin who saith Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ In Psal 98. until he hath first adored him How say some is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters for speaking of things sensible and corporeal I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly he saith That they ought not to be adored although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore Ep. 119. ad Januar cap. 6. The Water and Oyle of Baptism the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration without speaking one word of the Sacrament by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man but you also know the vertue and all the dispensation of it and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished Being well informed of all these Mysteries let us then stir up our selves let us be seized with astonishment and let us testifie yet greater respect then was shewed by the Wise men
is no less important to the clearing of the matter whereof we treat It concerns the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not barely signifie to Adore but also Venerate and respect the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants do confess it so yet that doth not hinder but that we will produce some Instances of the latter signification because the former findeth no Obstruction 1 Lib. 1. ep 136. lib. 4. ep 27. Isidor of Damicta speaks in this sense of the adorable Gospels a term which he useth again in speaking of the Sepulchre of Jesus Christ which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 2 Tom. 4. Concil pag. 107. E. Clergy of Apame in the lower Syria speaking of Temples in general in the 5th action of the Synod held at Constantinople under Agapetus and under Menna applieth also unto them the term now in question as also the Emperour 3 Novel 6. Justinian doth unto Baptism 4 Homil. 4. de ascens Chr. tom 6. St. Chrysostom unto the Feast of Easter 5 Homil. 49. in Matt. p. 439. and unto the person of John Baptist It is also in the same signification this word must be taken when it is applied unto Emperors and Emperesses which are sometimes called Adorable that is worthy of respect and veneration as even in the Acts of the 6 Part. 1. pag. 26.27 tom 3. Concil p. 28.29 Council of Chalcedon And even there also is mention made of the 7 Ibid. p. 26.27 adorable Altar and of the adoration of Venerable places and so in an infinite number of places which need not be recited This word then having divers significations it is but just and right when it is found in discourse to explain it according to the Nature of the subject then in hand for example if there be mention of the three persons of the blessed Trinity it must necessarily be translated by that of adoring because the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost be objects worthy of our Adoration but if things truly Sacred and Religious are spoken of but yet nevertheless are not to speak in a proper sense adorable it is to be translated by venerated and respected for by this means it will be easie to resolve and clear all the difficulties which seem to entangle this matter according unto which if any of the Ancients treating of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist make use of the term which we examine it will not be difficult unto us to understand that his design is not that we should adore them but only that we should venerate them and that we should respect them as Sacraments which Jesus Christ hath instituted for the saving of our Souls especially if this Writer doth formally declare that the Bread and Wine do not change their Substance by Consecration In acting by this principle we need only hear Theodoret to understand what he means to say unto us Dialog â— p. â—5 The Mystical Symbols saith he do not change their own nature after Consecration but they remain in their former substance in their first Figure and in their first shape they are visible and palpable such as they were before but it is conceived by the understanding that they are what they have been made and they are believed and venerated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being what they are believed to be Theodoret doth positively testifie That the Consecration doth not take from the Symbols of the Eucharist their Substance their Form nor their Figure Besides he assureth in the same place that they be Images and mystical Symbols whereof the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth and the Original And elsewhere he saith Dialog 1. That our Saviour hath honoured the visible Symbols with calling them by the name of his Body and Blood not by changing their Nature but in adding Grace unto Nature After declarations so formal and positive say some the Greek word cannot be translated by Adore but by Venerate else it must be said that Theodoret is fallen into the highest excess of folly to adore what he confessed was but Bread in its proper nature and substance but because we are obliged to judge more favourably of him the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be translated are venerated are respected and not are adored They also think the Reader will be very much confirmed in this Opinion if these other words of this Author be considered writing in another Dialogue against the Eutychean Hereticks and speaking thus unto them Dialog 3. p. 127. If the Body of Jesus Christ seem a vile thing unto you and inconsiderable how is it that you do nevertheless esteem his Figure to be venerable and saving for how can an Original whose Type is venerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worthy of Honour be it self vile and despicable They observe that these words do also manifestly shew that there is not here meant a true and proper adoration but a veneration honour and respect such as is due unto holy and sacred things And that he speaks also of venerating the Symbols in the nature of Figures which he distinguisheth from the Archtype and from the Original an opposition which justifies that the words of Theodoret cannot at all be understood neither here nor in the former testimony of a relative Adoration such as some do ground in relation to Images as if this ancient Doctor did teach a real Adoration of the Symbols of the Sacrament but so as it terminated in Jesus Christ instead of terminating in the Symbols themselves And in fine there be learned men amongst the Latins which do so explain themselves But some others do think that this Explication doth require to be made more plain for say they if it be only meant that in communicating we should adore Jesus Christ prostrate and as it may be said become vile in his sight as we do with reverence take his Sacrament there is no Christian but will agree thereunto although it is not as they think the meaning of Theodoret but if they intend this relative Adoration should so terminate in Jesus Christ as that the Symbols should also have their part it is to establish the quite contrary of what is said by Theodoret who leaves only a Respect and Veneration to be given unto the Sacrament And what they say of Theodoret they say in like manner of all others which have spoken of the Adorable Mysteries of the Adorable Communion and also of adoring the heavenly Gifts for they think Contr. Hermog c. 22. that because one expression is used that therefore the same Interpretation must be given as when Tertullian said I adore the fulness of the Scriptures that is to say I reverence and admire it I have a veneration and respect for it And St. Basil of Seleucia 1 Orat. 30. in illad faciam vos piscat hom That Rome vailing her Diadem adored the preaching of the Cross 2 Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p.
Doctors that spake after this manner it may be said that they did not remember to except the Sacrament of the Eucharist wherein the Accidents of Bread and Wine exist miraculously without their Subjects for tho this Reason was not very strong there being question of a Maxim equally received both by Jews and Gentiles at Athens and Jerusalem as well as by all Christians universally excepting those of the Latin Church which admit not of it in the point of the Sacrament Nevertheless with more appearance this neglect might be charged upon one or two Doctors rather than unto a Cloud of Witnesses which have testified without touching a great many others whose Testimonies we have omitted not to burden the Reader with too long a chain of Passages What likelihood saith the Protestant that so many learned illuminated prudent Persons should so universally positively and constantly teach That Accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects and that not one of them have excepted the Sacrament if they believed with the Latin Church that they did subsist in effect without their Subject I freely confess saith he that this proceeding surpriseth me and that I see no other reason of this obstinate silence but this it is that they owned the truth of this Maxim That Accidents cannot exist without their Subject in its full extent and without any Restriction which being so saith he it must be ingeniously confessed that they take not the course to favour with their Suffrages the Doctrine of a substantial Conversion seeing they have so absolutely and unanimously rejected one of its most important and necessary Consequences But besides all these Consequences which we have examined there is yet a sixth against which it is said the Holy Fathers have no less absolutely declared themselves It regards the deposition of our Senses against which the Latin Church doth oppose it self commanding not to believe them when they tell us that what we see upon the Holy Table and that what we receive there for the Comfort and Salvation of our Souls is Bread and Wine because it is not in effect neither the one or the other but appearances destitute of the Truth and that the Senses are deceived when they make us this false Report If the Holy Fathers were of this Opinion doubtless they would have had the same foresight I say they would have undervalued their Testimony as suspicious and deceitful at least in the subject of the Sacrament Let us then set about discovering what they have said the matter is well worth the pains and it well deserves the care of this Inquiry I have done it and very far from finding in their Writings any opposition against the report of the Senses I have observed that they have established their Testimony as certain and infallible and that they assure us by the Mouth of Tertullian That otherwise it would be to overthrow the whole state of Nature Te â—â—de anim s. 17. and disturb the course of our Life and even darken the Providence of God it self which by this reckoning should have given the oversight the knowledg the dispensation and enjoyment of all his Works unto lying and deceitful Masters that is unto our Senses And having chastised the Impudence of the new Academy which condemned the belief of the Senses he passeth from Philosophers unto Christians saying As for us we are not permitted no we are not suffered to question the truth of our Senses fearing least that in the things of Jesus Christ we should not take the liberty to question our Faith which he treateth at large and he proves the Faith and truth of their Testimony especially what regards this Subject he saith That the sight and hearing of the Apostles were faithful in what they reported of the Glory of our Lord when he was transfigured upon the Mount that the taste of Wine at the Marriage of Cana altho it was Water before was no less faithful as also the touching which Thomas made He alledges the Testimony of St. John saying That they declared of the Word of Life what they had heard and seen with their Eyes and their Hands had handled their Testimony saith he should then be false if the sentiment of the Eyes the Ears the Hands is of a Nature capable of Lying that is to say if these three Senses can be deceived in the Report which they make Tertul. contr Marc. l. 3. c. 8 10 11. l. 4. c. 18. alibi â— Iren. l. 3. c. 20. l. 5. c 1. Epiphan haeâ—â—l 42. Thence also it is that the same Tertullian St. Irenaeus St. Epiphanius disputing either against Marcion in particular or in general against the Hereticks Docetes and Putatives of which number Marcion was and all denied the truth of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and of his Death and Sufferings attributing unto him only a Shadow and Resemblance of a Body Thence it is I say that they often call to their aid the Testimony and deposition of the Senses to prove against these Hereticks the truth of our Saviour's Human Nature and the certainty of his Sacrifice and Death which makes Protestants say Is it possible that Men which do so powerfully establish the inviolable Fidelity of the deposition of the Sences and that clear their Testimony from any suspicion of Fraud or Deceit not to trouble the order of Nature nor to ruine the commerce and society amongst Men but above all not to shake the solid Foundation of the Religion of Jesus Christ Is it possible that those People could have been of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament for every one knows this Church declares it self against the simplicity of their Testimony that they accuse of Infidelity these faithful Witnesses and endeavour to deprive them of being believed amongst Christians because that being persuaded of their Verity and the Truth of their Deposition it will have much adoe to support and defend it self and yet more difficulty of insinuating into the Minds of those which do not question the belief of them But it may be some will say probably the Fathers have excepted in this Dispute of the Testimony of the Senses the Sacrament of the Eucharist as a particular thing and which ought not to be reckoned along with the rest if it be so it is not fit to keep it secret nor to argue against the Faith of the Latins of what they have said in behalf of the Senses this difficulty which may easily be fancied in the minds of many hath obliged me exactly to enquire into their Writings if they have not said any thing which may inform us of their Intentions and having made a strict search into all parts I find they have established the Fidelity of this same Testimony of the Senses in what relates to the Sacrament August Serm. ad Insent What you see saith St. Austin is Bread as also your Eyes do report and testify And Tertullian in the same place which gives us the
Testimony but now alledged amongst the things whereof he fears that Truth may be endangered if the Faith of the Senses are mistrusted he mentions expresly the Wine of the Sacrament Tert. de anim Christians saith he are not permitted to call the Testimony of their Senses in question fearing least they should say that Jesus Christ tasted some other savour than that of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood He alledges to defend the Fidelity of the Senses the Savour of the Wine of the Sacrament but say they it cannot be imagined that he could have reasoned after that manner if he had believed what the Latins now believe because according to their Hypothesis our Senses are grosly deceived in taking that to be Wine which is nothing less than Wine but another substance infinitely different Shall we then conclude say they that he indiscreetly betray'd his Cause and that he ignorantly chose for a convincing Proof that which was an unsurmountable Difficulty but should we say so we should undoubtedly draw upon us all the Learned who look'd upon him as one of the greatest Wits of his Time whose Mind being so enlightned and his Judgment so solid could not be charged with such a Mistake and not to call his great Reputation in question they had rather conclude according to all appearance that he was not of the belief of the present Latin Church which I refer unto the Reader 's Discretion but that nothing may be wanting to the clearing the question we now treat of and not to make the Holy Fathers contradict one another it must be observed that they considered two things as some say in the Sacrament of Christians I mean the sign and the thing signified As for the thing signified all the World agree that it falls not under the Senses and that so we should not expect that they should render us any Testimony It is Faith that must instruct and give us a Testimony it is of Faith to direct and apply to us the Efficacy and Vertue As to the Signs and Symbols they also say that they have therein also distinguished two things the Substance and their Nature and their Use and Employment that is to say the quality of the Sacraments wherewith they are qualified by favour of the Benediction For example in Baptism they pretend that Water which is the Symbol hath two Relations one of the bare Element of the Nature which keeps its Substance and the other of the Sacrament of Religion which Consecration gives it It is the same in the Eucharist for besides the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Signs and Symbols they bear the quality of Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and it is Grace which God adds unto Nature Now to apply this unto our Subject they say that the Senses being Organs purely Natural they cannot lift themselves above Nature nor make us a true report of what doth not depend upon their Laws but whilst they keep within the bounds of their Nature and that they undertake nothing beyond their Strength and the Priviledges granted unto them their Testimony is infallible and their Deposition true and certain therefore when they shew us that the Water in Baptism is truly Water according to its Substance and the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist but Bread and Wine also in regard of their Substance they judge that we ought to believe them after what the Fathers have told us because then they do not pass the limits that God hath set them but when they will pass further and tell us that the Water of Baptism is but bare Water and the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but bare Bread and Wine we should command their silence because they pass beyond their Bounds and passing beyond the Limits of Nature they take upon them to penetrate into the Mysteries of Grace which have been only given unto Faith to dispose of they also observe that 't is in these occasions that the same Fathers forbid us to hearken unto them or receive their Testimony and that 't is so must be understood the Author of the Book of them which are initiated in St. Ambrose What have you seen Ambros l. 3. de init c. 3. l. 4. saith he I have seen Water indeed but not Water only I also see the Deacons saying Service and the Bishop examining and consecrating for the Apostle hath taught you that before all things you should look not to the things seen which are temporary Ibid. but unto those which are invisible which be eternal and again believe not the Eyes of the Body only what is not seen is most seen because the one is Temporal and the other Eternal and that which is Eternal is not perceived by the Eyes but is seen by the Spirit and by the Understanding And the Author of the Book of Sacraments Apud Ambros l. 1. de Sacram. c. 3. You have seen what may be seen with the Eyes of the Body and human Perception but you have not seen the things which operate because they are invisible those which are not seen are much more considerable than those which are seen because the things which are visible are Temporal and the things invisible are Eternal And because there is this difference betwixt the Believer and the Unbeliever that the Unbeliever hath only the Eyes of the Body and of Nature whereas the Believer hath besides the Eyes of the Body and of Nature those of the Spirit and of Faith St. Chrysostom saith that the Infidel seeth only the substance of the Symbols staying at the exterior of the Sacraments but as for the Believer he understands the Excellency the Vertue and the Meaning that is to say with the Eyes of Faith when he seeth as well as the Unbeliever the matter and substance of the Symbols with the Eyes of Nature and of the Body Câ—rysost Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. p. 378. The Unbeliever saith he hearing mention made of Baptism thinks that it is but Water but as for me I do not only look upon what is seen I consider also the cleansing of the Soul which is done by the Holy Ghost he thinks that my Body only is washed and I do believe my Soul is also purified and sanctified for I do not judge by the bodily Eyes of what is seen but by those of the Understanding I hear the Body of Christ named I conceive it after one manner and the Unbeliever understands it after another Which he illustrates by this excellent Comparison An illiterate Person saith he receiving a Letter takes it only for Paper and Ink but a Person that understands Letters finds quite another thing he hears a Voice and speaks with a Person absent and will in his time say what he lists and will make himself to be understood by means of Letters It is the same with the Mysteries for Unbelievers understand nothing of what they hear spoken