Continuator of Sigebert doth inform us Supplem Chron. Sigeb ad an 1124. We shall not now say any more because that upon another Subject we shall be forc'd to inlarge upon this History which plainly shews that the Devil doth not cease from time to time to make his Attempts against this great mystery of Christian Religion knowing very well that 't is one of the most precious pledges of our blessed Jesus a Divine and efficacious seal of his gracious Covenant and an illustrious Memorial of his Sacrifice and Death wherein we find immortality and life Wherefore having armed Hereticks to combate this Divine Sacrament some after one manner some after another he stirred up the Jews and others to take occasion from the Sacrament to reproach Christians some to say that they had reduced all the Service of their Religion unto an Oblation of Bread or at least that they had invented a new Oblation others that they were worshippers of Ceres and Bacchus and that they religiously adored those imaginary Deities In fine Rabbi Benjamin in S. Isidore of Damieta Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401. urgeth this accusation against Christians That they had invented a new and strange Oblation in consecrating Bread unto God whereas the Law established Sacrifices in the Blood which S. Isidore doth not deny but only saith unto this Jew That he ought not to be ignorant That the Law it self consecrated the Shew-bread And others reproach the Orthodox in S. Austin That they served Ceres and Bacchus August contra Faust l. 20. c. 13. under pretence of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist whereunto this holy Father only replies That although this be Bread and Wine yet they do nothing refer unto those Heathen Idols It may be collected from a certain place in Tertullian that the Pagans did calumniate Christians for that they celebrated their Mysteries with Bread steept in the Blood of a young Child a calumny occasioned in all likelihood by the abominations of the Gnosticks for I am not certain whether in Tertullian's time there were of those Pepusians which as S. Austin doth report made the Bread of their Eucharist with the Blood of a Child of a year old which they drew from the body of the innocent Infant by pricking it all over with a Needle or some such sharp Instrument Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor c. 5. But see here what Tertullian writes unto his Wife touching one that had an unbelieving Husband The Husband shall not know what you eat in secret before all other meat and if he knows 't is Bread will not he conclude that 't is that there is so much stir about Upon which words the late Mr. Rigaut makes this observation in his Notes upon Tertullian When you take the Eucharist which you keep in your house shall he not know of it Will not he diligently inform himself what it is you eat in private before all other meat and if he knows it is Bread will not he presently say in himself That 't is that Bread which was said to be steept in the Blood of a little Child which Calumny at that time much troubled the Christians I said expresly that it seemeth it might be thus gathered from the words of this learned African for I would not positively affirm this Induction to be absolutely necessary especially when I consider that Tertâ—llian himself represents unto us the unbelieving Husband suspecting the Christian Wife to go about to poyson him Id. ibid. Will he saith he suffer these things without sighing and without being in doubt whether it be Bread or Poyson Therefore I leave the Reader at his liberty to incline unto which side he please But because a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand as our Saviour saith in the Gospel and that nothing is more pernicious unto a State than civil and intestine Wars there 's no question to be made but the Devil thought considerably to advance his design when he as it were armed and stirred up the Greek Church against the Latin Church touching the nature and quality of the Bread of the Eucharist the Greeks affirming That it was Leavened and the Latins on the contrary contending for the use of Unleavened Bread It must be granted the Greeks were mistaken in affirming that Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist with Leavened Bread for it is certain that when he did celebrate it there was no Leaven at all suffered to be kept amongst the people of Israel Thence it is that the holy Scripture calls those days The days of unleavened Bread What likelihood was there then that our Saviour should use Leavened Bread in his Sacrament seeing there was none in all Judea and that the Jews were not permitted to have any But it also must be confessed that the Latins were not wholly without Blame to be so self-will'd or obstinate in employing unleavened Bread in their Eucharist under a pretence that Jesus Christ used it in his making a general Rule of a particular Occasion which ought not in reason to be insisted upon For inasmuch as our Saviour used unleavened Bread it was through the custom of the time which suffered him not to have any other seeing there was no other in the whole Country But in the main the design of the Son of God being to give us in the Symboles of his Sacrament a Figure of the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood shed for the nourishment of our Souls by the relation they have unto the vertue of these two Elements for the nourishing our Bodies it is very evident that he would have the same Bread used to make his Eucharist and the same Wine which were commonly used for the preserving of life so that if there were any Christian Nation found which used Bread without Leven for their ordinary Food there is no question to be made but they may be permitted to use it for the celebration of the Sacrament and that they ought to make use of it But in all Countreys where Leavened Bread is used for the feeding of Men no other should be sought after for the Sacrament If the Bread be the Sacrament of the Body of Christ it is not so as leavened or unleavened but only as it is Bread fit to nourish us and as broken to represent unto us the painful Death of our Saviour upon the Cross therefore it is that it ought to be used according to the diversity of the places where one resides I say that no other Bread should be used in the Celebration of the Eucharist but the same Bread which is eaten for our common Food and when I say that the Latins are not wholly without blame in so scrupuloully observing the use of unleavened Bread I do not regard it simply but in respect of what hath been practised some Ages past for they used leavened Bread in their Sacrament a great while as other Christian Communions did the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist
Nourishment which we there receive but that the virtue which is in it quickeneth us As if he should say that this quickening doth not proceed from the proper Substance of Bread but from the virtue and enlivening efficacy wherewith our Lord according to his Promise doth accompany the lawful use of his Sacrament What he adds of Baptism doth sufficiently inform us of his meaning when he saith That it is not the Water alone which cleanseth us but that by the Water it perfects our Salvation by the Faith and Energy by Hope and the perfection of the Mysteries and the Invocation of Sanctification St. Gregory of Nysse if I mistake not explains himself fuller when he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament Greg. Nyss de B. pt Christ That being but common Things and of little worth before Consecration both the one and the other do operate excellently after Sanctification which is or comes from the Spirit It is in the same sense that St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch Victor MS. in c. 14. Marc. said That God having pitty of our Infirmities bestows or sends upon the Things presented or offered that is to say the Bread and Wine an enlivening virtue and doth change them into the efficacy of his Flesh It is this same power which St. Cyril in his Epistle to Caelosyrius calls the Virtue and Benediction Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Caeâ—â—â— t. 6. and the quickning Grace It is also the Doctrine of Theophylact as will appear when we examine the Belief of his Age which being beyond the ninth Century permits us not here to insert his Testimony but so it is that this virtue and efficacy whereof we speak Chrysost de Sacerd. l. 3. c. 4. t. 4. Id. de Coem Appel de resurrect Christ t. 5. Theod. Dial. 1. Gelas de duab nat is nothing else but the Grace mentioned by St. Chrysostom when he represents unto us the Priest praying that the Blessing might descend upon the Sacrifice that is to say upon the Sacrament And elsewhere he saith that it is the holy Ghost that gives this Grace and that without it the Mystical Body and Blood are not made And Theodoret a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom witnesseth that our Saviour added Grace unto the Nature of the Bread and Wine It is also for the same reason that Pope Gelasius saith That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are Things divine and that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature Iâ—d Hispal orig 1.6 And St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil That thâ—s divine Virtue operates inwardly the Benefit of the Sacraments that is to say the Salvation which God communicates unto us by the Ministry of the Sacraments Therefore it is that Raban Arch-bishop of Mayans in the ninth Century will have it called the virtue of the Sacrament and the Nourishment of our Souls But in fine it is unto this efficacy and virtue that is to be attributed all the great Praises which the holy Fathers give unto the Sacrament in the same manner as is imputed unto the power which our Saviour gives unto the use of Baptism whereof the same Fathers have delighted themselves in honouring this Sacrament of our new Birth their design having been to raise and advance the Dignity of these Mysteries and the admirable effects they produce by the Grace Benediction and Vertue which God bestows on them for the Salvation of Men. And it is in relation to this Efficacy and Vertue whereof we have treated that the Fathers call the Eucharist The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ saying that the Bread and Wine pass into his Body and Blood that they change and are transelemented into his Body and Blood They also use other expressions which in effect amount to the same all which the Latins expound to their advantage and which they make the chief ground of their Belief But because these last Expressions at first sight seem inconsistent with what they said unto us before that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine Bread which is broken that nourishes the Body which is converted into our Substance Bread which is inamate that is consumed in the celebration of the Sacrament whose Substance remains and that passeth as to its material part by the sordid way of our ordinary and common Food that this Bread and this Wine are the Signs the Symbols the Types the Antitypes the Sacraments the Figures the Images the Resemblances and the Representations of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not vain Figures and empty and void Signs without any effect and vertue but Signs and Sacraments replenished as may be said with all the Vertue and all the Efficacy of the Body broken and the Blood of our Lord poured out who having instituted them to be the Instruments and Organs of our Salvation doth accompany their lawful use with his Blessing and Grace to bestow upon us the Merits of the enlivening Sacrifice of his Death which Merit ought never to be separated from his Body seeing it was by the sufferings of his broken Body and his Blood poured out that he merited for us this quickning and saving Vertue For this Reason I say it will be very necessary to clear up this Difficulty and to remove this seeming Contradiction I say seeming for I make no question but the Fathers themselves will sufficiently inform us of their Intention and that we shall find in their Works Lights by which we shall safely conduct the Reader to the clear and distinct knowledg of the belief of the antient Church upon this Article of our Salvation Those who are any thing verst in reading their Works doubtless do observe that when they say the Sacrament is Bread and Wine they never intimate that it is a figurative improper and equivocal Expression and that it must not be taken according to the Letter neither do they say that the Sacrament is called Bread and Wine altho it is not so after Consecration because it was so in effect and still retains the Accidents and Likeness For my part I ingeniously confess that I have never found such Cautions or Advertisements in their Works Nevertheless Men having much difficulty to believe those things which resist the Testimony of their Senses and the light of Reason and the Holy Fathers affirming frequently that the Eucharist is true Bread and real Wine if say the Protestants they believed it was not Bread nor Wine though they called it so but the very Body and Blood of Christ they should have been so kind nay 't would have been their Duty to have informed their Readers and Hearers that they might avoid this Stone of Stumbling and Rock of Offence see here already say they a very considerable Information and which will be more if it be considered that when on the other Hand they say that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ c. They fail not to make
deceived that it hapned about they year 630. Hist Miscel l. 18. And because Anastatius wrote some time after there being yet in Egypt an Augustal Prefect it necessarily follows that he wrote about the year 637. And before the year 639. Hist Sarac in Omar that the Sarrazins entring into Egypt expelled the Augustal Prefect and made themselves Masters of the Country Which being granted the Reader may please to take notice that this Anastatius of whom we speak disputing against the Hereticks which held that the Body of Christ could not suffer from the first moment of his Conception brings in the Orthodox making this question to the Heretick Annasâ—at Sin in cap. 23. Tell me I pray the Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you offer and whereof you are partakers is it the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or common Bread as that which is sold in Markets or only a Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ as the Sacrifice of the Goat offered by the Jews Whereunto the Heretick having answered God forbid we should say that the Holy Communion is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ or bare Bread Anastatius replies We believe it to be so and confess it according to Christ's words to his Disciples when in the Mystical Supper he gave them the Bread of Life saying Take Eat this is my Body He also gave them the Cup saying This is my Blood He said not this is the Figure of my Body and Blood He is the first that deviated from the usual Expressions and that denied what all the holy Fathers before him had affirmed and some also after him as we have shewed in the Third Chapter of this Second Part And have shewn that these holy Fathers testifie That when our Lord gave his Eucharist to his Apostles he gave them the Figure of his Body Anastatius then denying what the others affirmed according to the Maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis his Opinion should be rejected as an Opinion private and peculiar to himself and we are firmly and constantly to hold and embrace the publick and universal Belief but because the words of Authors are favourably to be interpreted at least as much as may be some say it should be so done towards Anastatius and that 't is easie to give a good sense unto what he said He declares the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ he saith nothing as they think that being rightly understood but is very reasonable because it is most certain that the Sacrament is unto the faithful Soul instead of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that he truly communicates unto him this broken Body and this Blood poured out for his Consolation and Salvation and that it is changed as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks into the Efficacy of his Body If Anastatius say they erred in rejecting the word Sign and Figure the Fathers both before and after him having used it it cannot be believed that he hath changed any thing in the ground of the Doctrine they think so for several reasons in the first place he saith it is not simple Bread as is sold in the Markets for thus speaking is to acknowledge that it is Bread which by Consecration hath acquired the quality of an Efficacious and Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of whom for that reason it takes the name as it hath the virtue and efficacy in its lawful use as when the Fathers say of the Waters of Baptism and the Oyl of Chrisin Cyril Hieros Catech. 3. illum Mystag 3. that it is not common Water and common Oyl they deny not that it is Water and Oyl they only mean that it is Water and Oyl sanctified to be the Symboles of the washing and purifying our Souls by the Blood of Jesus Christ and by the Vertue of the Holy Ghost Secondly He declares that it is not a Figure as the Sacrifice of the Goat which the Jews offered that is a Type and Figure without efficacy and vertue having taken this name of Type and Figure for a Legal Figure and without Operation in which sense it is true that the Communion is not a Figure and bare Type destitute of the truth like the Types and Figures of the Law whereof he produceth an Example in the Sacrifice of the Goat In the third place he speaks of a Body of the Lord Which being kept in a Vessel corrupts in few days Id. Anast Ibid. c. 23. changeth and quite altereth of a Body and Blood which as he saith in another Chapter of the same Treatise may be broken divided Id. c. 13. Ibid. c. 13. and distrihuted in parcels broken with the Teeth changed poured out and drank And in the same Chapter he saith That the Body and Blood distributed unto the People saying The Body and Blood of our Lord God and Saviour is a Visible Body created and taken from the Earth They conclude then that if there was imprudence in his expressions there was no Error in his Doctrine and they are very much confirmed in this Opinion which I freely remit unto the judgment of others if they consider the Doctrine had received no Opposition in the East nor West Maxim in Nol. Dionys Arcop pag. 68. 75. 69. not in the East because in the time Anastatius wrote in his Desert Maximius Abbot of Constantinople whose Name was more famous and his Doctrine more eminent taught That the holy Bread and Cup of Benediction are Signs and sensible Symbols or Types of true things Symbols and not the truth that the things of the Old Testament were the Types those of the New Testament are the Antitypes but that the truth shall be in the state of the World to come This Author faithfully retains the ancient Expressions and Doctrine of those which went before him and he thus defines the word Symbol Id. in Interp. vocum The Symbol is a sensible thing taken for an intelligible thing as the Bread and Wine are taken for the Divine and immaterial Food Not in the West because in the same Age Anastatius lived Isid Hispal de Offic. Eccl. l. 1. c. 18. St. Isidor of Sevil said That the Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ that the Wine is his Blood that the Bread is called his Body Id. Origin l. 6. c. 19. because it strengthens the Body that the Wine resembles the Blood of Jesus Christ because it creates blood in the body Id. voca c. 26. de alleg in Genes c. 12. And that these two things which be visible pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body being Sanctified by the Holy Ghost That by the Commandment of the Lord we call the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that which being made of the fruits of the Earth is sanctified and becomes a Sacrament by the Invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost Id. in Genes
contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas who taught that the Eucharist was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary and which suffered upon the Cross But in these two Sermons the people are taught that it is not the same Flesh nor the same Body which suffered nor the same Blood which was shed for us You cannot but think those that said so were opposite unto Paschas and endeavoured to ruin his Belief and it may be also that of Odo Arch-Bishop of Canterbury if it be true that he did what William of Malmesbury wrote a long while after for there be a great many that think this Relation is very suspicious In the main Bishop Usher observes that the words which were but now alledged in the last Testimony have been stolen away by some perfidious hand from the Manuscript which was transported from the Church of Vigorn into the Library of the Benedictines College at Cambridge But besides these two Witnesses which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is to be seen a Sermon which was read unto the people every Year at Easter to preserve in their minds an Idea of the Belief which their Fathers had left them It is needless to transcribe it here at large some parts of it shall suffice which shewing that it was almost copied out of the Treatise of Ratramn of the Body and Blood of Christ they will by the same means shew that it contains a Doctrine opposite unto that of Paschas Liber Catholic serm Anglice recitandorum ad Bedam l. 5. c. 12. edit Anglo-Sax Latin seeing Ratramn was one of his declared Enemies There is great difference saith this Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered is born of the Flesh of Mary and is furnished with Blood Bones Skin Nerves and Humane Members and with a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is composed of several Grains without Blood without Bones and Members and without a Soul The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered death and which rose again shall never die any more it is eternal and cannot die but this Eucharist is temporal not eternal it is corruptible and divided into several parts broken by the teeth and goeth into the draft This Sacrament is a Pledge and a Figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth it self We hold this Pledge sacramentally until we do attain unto the Truth and then the Pledge shall be accomplished And a little before If we consider the Eucharist in a corporal manner we see that it is a corruptible and fading Creature but if we consider the spiritual vertue which is therein we know very well that there is life in it and that it gives immortality unto those which which receive it with Faith There is great difference between the invisible vertue of this holy Sacrament and the visible form of its proper Nature by Nature it is fading Bread and corruptible Wine but by the vertue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and his Blood not for all that corporally but spiritually that is to say in vertue and in efficacy Whereunto amounts what is said before The Bread and Wine which the Priests do consecrate Ibid. do outwardly offer one thing unto the eyes of the Body and another thing inwardly unto the eyes of the faithful Soul outwardly it is plainly seen it is Bread and Wine and it is judged to be such by its form and by its savour and nevertheless they be truly after Consecration his Body and Blood by a spiritual Sacrament And to the end the Hearers should be well persuaded they were the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ not in substance but in vertue the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine by Consecration is compared unto that which comes unto Children by Baptism and unto the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration Ibid. The Child of a Gentile is baptized yet it doth not change its outward form although it be changed inwardly It is led unto the Font full of sin by the disobedience of Adam and he is cleansed from all inwardly although he is nothing changed outwardly So also the Water of Baptism which is called the Fountain of Life in appearance is like unto other Waters and subject unto Corruption but the vertue of the Holy Ghost intervenes by Prayer unto this corruptible Water and by a spiritual vertue renders it fit to cleanse the Body and Soul from all sin Now we consider two things in this only Creature according to its true nature it is a corruptible Water but according to the spiritual mystery it hath a saving vertue It is well said that Jesus Christ did change by an invisible power the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but after the same manner that formerly he changed the Manna and the Water of the Rock into this same Body and and into this same Blood to wit because he made it the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood And again Ibid. What there is in the Sacrament that gives life proceeds from a spiritual Vertue and an invisible Operation therefore the Eucharist is called a Sacrament because one thing is therein seen and another thing is understood that which is seen is of a bodily Species that which is understood hath a spiritual Vertue And in another part of the Sermon expounding what Jesus Christ said of eating his Flesh in the 6th of St. John He commanded not to eat the Body which he had taken Ibid. nor to drink the Blood which he had shed for us but by this discourse he meant the Sacrament which is spiritually his Body and Blood for whosoever eateth him with a believing heart shall have this Life everlasting Under the Old Law Believers offered Sacrifices which represented the Body which Jesus Christ offered unto his Father for our sins but as for the Sacrament which is consecrated at the Altar of God it is the Commemoration of the Body which he offered and of the Blood which he shed for us as he himself commanded saying Do this in remembrance of me I am not ignorant that in this same Homily there is some miraculous Apparitions made mention of whereunto Christians had given some way since Paschas his time But that serves only to confirm the Observation that was made That although our Saviour had bestowed upon his Servants in the X. Century Light sufficient to avoid the most dangerous Errors yet he communicated not so great a measure unto them as to be safe from all sorts of Surprises in matters of Religion If from England we pass into the Country of Liege we shall there find Folcuin Abbot of the Monastery of Lobes who speaking of the Eucharistical Table Tom. 6. Spicil de Gestis Abbat Lob. p. 573 saith That it is the Table whereupon
designed to ordain Reader Dominico interim legit nobis id est auspicatus est pacem dicit dedicat lectionem which Mr Rigaut did not understand no more than Mr Lombert who followed the Sentiment of Mr Rigaut in the fair and exact Translation which he hath given us of this Father 5. Upon the Letter of the Council of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosatia 6. Upon the Tenth persecution which shall be found more exactly describ'd than in all the former Histories because Monsieur L'ARROQVE hath borrow'd great helps from Lactantius his Treatise de Mortibus Persecutorum published of late by Mr Baluze 7. De Sacerdotibus secundi Ordinis Archidiaconis 8. De Ordinibus ex quibus Episcopi sumebantur 9. De Epistolis Tractoriis 10. De Natura veteris Ecclesiae 11. De Energumenis c. 12. De Paenitentibus eorumque gradibus 13. De Antiquo ritu dimittendi ab Ecclesia Catechumenos Energumenos paenitentes 14. De dupliti Catechumenorum genere 15. De tempore quo obtinere caepit in Ecclesia orientali haec loquendi formula EPISCOPVS DEI GRATIA ET SEDES APOSTOLICAE 16. De pluralitate beneficiorum ut vulgo loquuntur 17. De Nudipedalibus As he from whom we expect these pieces of Ecclesiastical History is endow'd with much wit and learning it needs not be fear'd that they will in his hands lose any thing of their luster and beauty All we have hitherto said refers unto the Wisdom of Monsieur L'ARROQVE which indeed is a very vast and spacious Field but should we speak of the qualities of his Soul we should have much more matter to insist on He had a Soul so sincere as is scarcely to be found in this Age he without envy beheld the merits of other learned persons and esteemed their good qualities he was a great and strict observer of Discipline and contented not himself to declaim in the Pulpit against Vice in general but persecuted it in all places running the hazard of creating himself Enemies by the security of his life he preached by example and discover'd a true Christian Constancy in all the troubles of his life he discharged his Duty with so much exactness that he would never discontinue performing his Function during an Ague which held him ten Months after his being call'd to Saumur I say he would neither discontinue the Duties of his Ministry nor those of his studies although the Physitians told him that a distemper which often had fits of 36 hours would not be removed if he did not give himself some repose The Troubles of the Churches of France these last years were incomparably more grievous unto him than any particular Afflictions unto his own Family could have been and should these Misfortunes continue what Cicero said of another may be said of him Ii rempublicam casus sequuti sunt ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a Diis immortalibus vita sed donata mors esse videatur THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST PART I. Containing the exteriour Form of Celebration CHAP. I. Wherein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament THE first thing that presents it self in the Celebration of the Eucharist is the matter of the Sacrament that is to say the Bread and Wine for three of the Evangelists and St. Paul testifie that Jesus Christ took Bread and a Cup wherein there was Wine and that he called the Wine the fruit of the Vine All the Holy Fathers unanimously avouch the same all the Liturgies which are come to our hands depose the same seeing we find these two Elements imployed in this mystery and the form of Celebration proposed unto us by St. Justin Martyr the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks the pretended Denis the Arcopagite in his Hierarchy and generally all those which have writ on this subject suffer us not to doubt of it as neither doth the defence which the Fathers and Councils have made of offering any thing else but Bread and Wine in celebrating the Sacrament Also all Christians generally agree herein therefore it would be superfluous to stand to prove it seeing the thing is clear and it is granted by all the World and all Christian Societies are agreed on this Subject It will only be necessary to consider that Jesus Christ which is the Wisdom of the Eternal Father and who never did any thing but with a Wisdom and Conduct worthy of himself did not chuse Bread and Wine to make them Symbols of his body and blood but that he was thereunto induced for considerable Reasons Nevertheless I will not now stand to examine the Reasons which obliged him to make this choice I refer that unto Divines whose drift it is to inquire into this matter it will serve our turn to say that our Saviour having a design by means of his Sacraments to raise up the minds of Christians unto the consideration of the comforts they find in his blessed Communion he made choice of Elements which had some likeness and relation unto those things which they were to signifie and represent as for Instance When he instituted the Sacrament of Baptism which is the Sacrament whereby we are born into his Church he made choice of water to be the sign and symbol of it because it is proper to represent the vertue of his Blood and of his Spirit for the purifying of our souls for as water hath the quality of cleansing our bodies from all uncleanness so also the Blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ have the vertue the force and efficacy of washing and purifying our souls from all filthiness and impurities therefore it is that the Apostle calls Baptism the washing of Regeneration â—it 3. that is of our New Birth and for that reason it is that he saith elsewhere Eph. 5. that Christ hath cleansed the Church by the washing of water by the Word in like manner when he instituted the Eucharist which is another Sacrament of his Covenant whereby he gives unto us life after having given us our being he chose Bread and Wine to represent unto us the vertue of his Sacrifice and of his Death and which is the food of our souls For as Bread Wine are food very proper for nourishing the body and for preserving this mortal and perishing life even so his Body broken and his Blood poured out do divinely feed and nourish our souls and do admirably preserve this heavenly and Spiritual life whereof we enjoy even here below some fore-tastes and first-fruits the accomplishment whereof we shall one day receive to our comfort in Heaven And it is in regard of this wonderful effect John 6. that his Flesh is meat indeed and his Blood is drink indeed and that those who eat this Flesh and drink this Blood have life everlasting and that they shall be raised unto glory and immortality in the last day Nevertheless it must be granted that the relation and resemblance which the
Ambr. de fide l. 1. c. 4. Id. in Psal 118. serm 12. Ibid. serm 13. No Body can be his own Image And elsewhere he opposeth the Image and the Sign unto the Substance It is the Image saith he and not the Truth And again These are Signs and not the Substance Gregory of Nazianzen in his Treatise of Faith against the Arrians whereof we have only Ruffin's Translation unjustly attributed to St. Ambrose Greg. Nazian de fid vel orat 49. p. 729. Id. orat 13. 37. Id. orat 36. as appears by St. Austin's 111th Letter The Resemblance saith he is one Thing and the Truth another for Man was also made after the Image and Likeness of God yet he is not God Accordingly he declares elsewhere that the Image never attains to the Original and that the nature of an Image consists in the representing of the Arch-type Gregory of Nyss Brother unto the great St. Basil spake the same Greg. Nâ—ss de anim refur Gaudent tr 2. in Exod. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 1. Theod in Dan. l. 2. c. 2. Claud. de stat anim l. 1. c. 5. The Image saith he would be no more an Image if it were quite the same with that whereof it is an Image It is in the same sense St. Gaudentius said That the Figure is not the Verity but the resemblance of the Verity And St. Austin in his Treatise of the Trinity What can be more absurd than to say that an Image is the Image of it self And Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel The Image hath the Features and not the Things themselves Claâ—dian Mammert Priest of Vienna One Thing saith he is the Truth and another Thing the Image of the Truth And we have already heard Maximius Scholar of the pretended Denis the Areopagite saying These things are Symbols Maxim in c. 3. Hieros Eccles but they are not the Substance There be some which treating of the Eucharist with regard to the Body of Jesus Christ have not forborn these kind of Expresons as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice If saith he it be the Image of the Body Synod Nic. 2. Act. 6. Niceph. de cherub c. 6. t. 4. Bibl. Patr. it cannot be the divine Body it self And Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople How is it that one and the same Thing is called the Body and the Image of Jesus Christ for that which is the Image of any one cannot be his Body and that which is the Body cannot be the Image because every Image is a thing different from that whereof it is an Image And we shall see in due Time that it was in the ninth Century the Doctrine taught by Ratran Bertram de corp sang Dom. That the Earnest and Image is Earnest and Image of something c. that is that they refer not unto themselves but unto another But what may some say is that all you have observed in travelling in the Dominions of Ecclesiastical Antiquity The Registers of that Kingdom do they contain no other Laws and have you found no other Maximes in its Records Is it possible that the wise and prudent Councellors who in the several Ages have had the Government and Conduct of it have agreed to speak so meanly of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and consider'd this great and sublime Mystery but as the Image the Figure the Type the Symbol of the Body and Blood of our Lord as if a Believer under the Gospel were to feed his Soul only with empty and vain Figures with Images without efficacy and with Sacraments without any virtue Reader have but a little patience and you shall see that the holy Fathers have not abandoned their Belief unto Scorn or Calumny and that they very prudently prevented the Reproaches which would have been made against them What likelihood is there that Persons of so much Light and Knowledg as the antient Doctors of the Church were should speak meanly of the venerable Mystery of the holy Sacrament they who so valued and commended and highly praised the holy Scriptures which St. Paul calls the Power of God unto Salvation unto those which believe Rom. â— 16 and who have consider'd it as the powerful and efficacious Instrument of the Conversion and Salvation of Men which made St. Justin Martyr writing against Tryphon the Jew to say Just Martyr contra Tryph. We have not believed vain Fables and Words which cannot profit but which are full of the Spirit of God and grow into Grace for as he observed a little before the Words of our Saviour have in them something which command a Respect and Fear and they are able to shame those which turn from the right way whereas those which exercise themselves therein find Comfort and Peace What appearance is there that these same Fathers which have given unto Baptism one of the Sacraments of the New Testament which the Apostle calls the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. Gal. 3. and wherein he assures that we put on Jesus Christ such great high and magnificent Commendations and Encomiums calling it the Remedy which drives away all Evils the Death of Sin the Chariot which carries to Heaven the Deluge of Sin the Scattering of Darkness the Key of the Kingdom of Heaven the Inlargement from Slavery the Breaking of Bonds the putting on of Incorruption Grace Salvation Life the Remedy the Antidote that which leads to Immortality the Water of Life the Waters which can extinguish the Fire to come and which bring Salvation the best and most excellent of the Gifts of God and several other Elogies of this Nature I say what likelihood is there that they should have had any meaner lower or less honourable thoughts of the holy Sacrament and that after the Apostle's Declaration 1 Cor. 10. That the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless are the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ that they should look only upon this Sacrament as an empty and bare Sign without any effect or virtue without raising their Contemplations any higher Alas God forbid we should ever do them the Injustice as to think so In short if they taught that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are Images and Figures they judged them not to be empty Figures which had no other use nor virtue but to set before our Eyes some form that may be like the Original whereof they are Figures like the Images and Pictures which are to be seen in Painters and Carvers Shops they have firmly believed that they are Signs instituted by God and consequently accompanied with his Grace and Benediction which makes them efficacious unto those which receive them worthily and that with holy dispositions draw near unto the Mystical Table And if I mistake not this is what St. Epiphanius means when speaking of this Sacrament he saith Epiph. in pan exposit fid That the Bread is the Food or
Antio in Marc. Seeing our Saviour hath said This is my Body This is my Blood those which offer or present the Bread must esteem after Prayer and Consecration that 't is the Body of Christ and participate of it and that also the Cup is instead of his Blood But I see nothing more positive and formal hereupon than what is said by Proclus Bishop of Constantinople in one of his Orations Proclus Orat. 17. where he exhorts his Hearers to imitate the Piety and Devotion of the wise Men which went to worship the Child Jesus in the Manger at Bethlehem for after having represented unto them that instead of Bethlehem they had the Church instead of a Stable the House of God and instead of a Manger the Altar or Communion-Table he adds instead of the Child we embrace the Bread which was blessed by the Infant And it shall appear in its place that Amalarius was very near of this Opinion when he taught That the Sacrament is that which is sacrificed instead of Jesus Christ But because the Fathers which say That the Bread and Wine are the Body of Jesus Christ say also that they pass and are changed into the Body and Blood they have taken care to explain unto us these latter Expressions as they also have fully done the former for they tell us that when they say That when the Bread and Wine pass into the Body and Blood of Christ they mean that they pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood This is the Explication which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil gives us in these Words Isid Hispal de offic Eccles l. 1. c. 18. The Bread which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ who saith I am the true Vine but the Bread because it strengthenâ— the Body is for this Reason called the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine because it increaseth Blood in the Body for that cause refers unto the Blood of Jesus Christ now these two things are visible yet nevertheless being sanctified by the Holy Ghost they pass into the Sacrament of the divine Body It was also the Opinion of Bede Bed Hom. deâ— Sant in Epiphan Jesus Christ saith he daily washeth us in his Blood when we renew at the Altar the remembrance of his holy Passion when the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost Raban Bishop of Mayans was of his mind but we may not speak of him now And when these same Fathers say That the Bread and Wine are changed and converted into the Body and Blood of our Lord they also tell us that it is into the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body It is in this sense that Theodotus said Apud Clem. Alex. p. 800. Vict. in Marc. 14. Manus That the Bread is changed into a spiritual Vertue St. Cyril of Alexandria cited by Victor of Antioch speaks yet plainer God saith he taking pity of our Infirmities communicates into the things offered an enlivening Vertue and changeth them into the Efficacy of his Flesh whereunto amounts what hath been already said by Theodoret Theod. Dial. 1. That Jesus Christ hath honoured the Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding his Grace unto their Nature It is for that Reason he adds Ibid. That the Lord made an exchange of Names giving unto his Body the Name of Bread and unto the Bread the Name of his Body to the end saith he that those which participate of the Divine Mysteries should not stop at things which are seen but that by the change of Names they should believe the change which is made by his Grace It is just what Ephraim Apud Phot. God 229. Patriarch of Antioch intended by these Words The Sacrament doth not change the outward Form but it remains inseparable from the hidden Grace as it is in Baptism Ammon cat in Joan. 3.5 For as Ammenius saith The material Water is changed into a divine Vertue I think no other sense can be given unto these words of the 338 Bishop assembled in the Council at Constantinople Anno 754 In Conc. Nicaen 2. Act. 6. against Images As the natural Body of Jesus Christ is Holy because it was Deified so also this here which is his Body by Institution he speaks of the Substance of Bread and which is his Image is Holy as being made Divine by an Institution of Grace But we will retrench having voluntarily prescribed our selves this Law to avoid Confusion therefore it shall suffice to observe That from all these Considerations of the Holy Fathers which we have alledged there results two Doctrines from their Writings both which have been their Foundation for the Vertue and Efficacy which they attribute unto the Sacsament the first is that they regard it as a Sacrament which not only barely signifies but which also exhibits and communicates unto the believing Soul the thing which it signifies I mean the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ This is it which made St. Chrysostom say explaining these Words Chrysost Hom. â—4 in 1 ad Cor. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ wherefore did he not say that it is the Participation because he would give something more to be understood and shew a great Union For we not only communicate in that whereof we receive and take but also in that we are united for as this Body is united unto Jesus Christ so are we also united unto him by this Bread This was also the Judgment of St. Macarius when he said Macar Hom. 27. Dionys c. 3. Hier. Eceles That in participating of this visible Bread the Flesh of Christ is spiritually eaten And also of the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy who calls the Bread and Wine the venerable Symbols whereby Jesus Christ is represented and whereby we enjoy him And of Victor of Antioch Vict. Antioch in Marc. c. 14. By the Symbol of Bread saith he we are made to participate of the Body of Christ and by the Cup we partake of his Blood St. Fulgentius had no other meaning when he thus read the words of St. Paul Fulg. de Baptis Aethiop the Breads which we break are they not the participation of the Body of the Lord. And in another place which we find in the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian he declares himself so fully that nothing can be said more expresly unto the Subject in hand The participation it self saith he of the Body and Blood of our Lord Id. ex l. 8. Fragm 28. when we eat his Bread and drink his Cup intimates this unto us to wit that we should dye to the World from hence it is they oppose the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord by means of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto the participation of
Devils by the eating of Meats consecrated unto Idols The Author of the Commentaries of St. Paul's Epistles in St. Jerom's Works interpreting these Words The Bread which we break c. makes this Observation Apud Hieron in c. 10.1 Cor. In like manner it appears that the Idolatrous Bread is the participation of Devils and upon these you cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils c. You cannot saith he be partakers of God and of Devils Theodoret said something of this kind upon these Words Theod in c. 10.1 Cor. t. 3. You cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table c. How saith he can it be that we should communicate of the Lord by his precious Body and Blood and that we should also communicate of Devils in eating what hath been offered unto Idols It was also the Language of Primasius an African Bishop Primas in c. 10. 1 Cor. t. 1 Bib. Patr. who makes these Reflections upon the same Words Even so the Bread of Idols is the participation of Devils you cannot have Fellowship with God and Devils Ibid. because you would participate of both Tables Sedulius speaks almost the same The second Doctrine which results from the Hypothesis of the Fathers is That considering that the Death of Christ is the cause of our Life which Life consists in the Sanctification of our Souls by means whereof we have Communion with God which is the lively Fountain of Life and therefore before Conversion we are said to be dead they have attributed unto the Sacrament the vertue of sanctifying and quickning us This is the sense of Theophilue of Alexandria Theoph. Ep. Pasch 2. saying That we break the Bread of the Lord for our Sanctification Hilary Deacon of Rome or the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose be he whom it will assures us Apud Ambros in c. 11.1 Cor That altho this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a Spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which draw near with Devotion and which receive it with respect Gelas de duab nat Christ Pope Gelasius testifies That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ render us partakers of the Divine Nature Aug. tract 27. in Joan. In Anaceph Therefore St. Austin will have us to eat and drink of it for the participation of the Holy Ghost Therefore it is St. Epiphanius saith That there is in the Bread a vertue to vivify us which is that influence of Life mentioned by St. Cyril CHAP. IV. A Continuance of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers ALthough the Holy Fathers have hitherto sufficiently explained themselves and that they have fully declared what was their Belief touching the Nature of the Eucharist in saying That it is true Bread and true Wine and that this Bread and Wine are the Signs the Images and the Figures of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Signs accompanied if it may be so said with the Majesty of his own Person and filled with the quickning Vertue of his Divine Body broken for us called his Body and Blood by reason of the Resemblance because they are the Symbols and Sacraments the Memorials of his Person and of his Death because they are unto us instead of his Body and Blood and pass into a Sacrament of this holy Body and precious Blood and are changed into their Efficacy and Vertue nevertheless if we can discover what were the Consequences of this Doctrine I doubt not but it will yet receive greater Illustration For as it is impossisible that they should have believed the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ without admitting the three following Doctrines to wit the eating of the Flesh of Christ with the Mouth of the Body the eating of this same Flesh by the Wicked as well as the Just and the Human Presence of Christ upon Earth So it is also impossible they should deny these three Positions without rejecting this substantial Conversion Therefore I suppose it is necessary to enquire exactly what they herein believed for if they have received them as Articles of their Belief it will be a great Conjecture in Favour of the substantial Conversion notwithstanding what they have already declared But if on the other hand they have rejected them or been far from admitting of them it will be a very great Conjecture to the contrary and at the same Time a strong Confirmation of what they have deposed in the precedent Chapters To begin then our Enquiry by the first of these three Points I mean by the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ I say if we consult Clement of Alexandria we shall find he makes a long Discourse in the first Book of his Pedagoge and that in all that Discourse he considers Jesus Christ either as the Milk of Children that is to say those which are Children in Knowledge or as the Meat of firm grown Men that is more advanced in Knowledge but always as a Spiritual Food and mystical Nourishment which requires to be eaten after the same manner as appears by what he saith of the Birth and Regeneration of the new People of the Swadling-cloths wherein he wraps them of the Growth for which he appoints them this Food and in that he makes our Hearts to be the Palace and Temple of the Son of God Hereunto particularly relates what he saith that the Lord in these Words of the Gospel of St. John Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. c 6. Id. ibid. Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood speaks of Faith and of the Promise by an illustrious Allegory as by Meats whereby the Church which is composed of many Members is nourished and getteth growth and what he adds afterwards the Milk fit and necessary for this Child is the Body of Jesus Christ Id. ibid. which by the Word doth feed the new People whom our Lord himself hath begotten with bodily Pangs and wrapped as young Infants in his precious Blood and in fine this pious and excellent Exclamation O wonderful Mistery Id. ibid. it commands us to put off the old and carnal Corruption as also the old Nourishment to the end that leading a new Life which is that of Jesus Christ and that receiving him into us if it were possible we should lay him up in us and lodge the Saviour in our Hearts And elsewhere he saith That 't is to drink the Blood of Christ to be Partaker of the Incorruption of our Lord which he attributes to the entring of the Holy Ghost into our Hearts Tertul. de Resurrect Tertullian also speaketh yet more clearly explaining figuratively and metaphorically all that excellent Discourse which we read in the sixth of St. John where our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood Although saith he our Saviour saith that the Flesh profiteth nothing the Meaning
them carnally profiteth nothing at all by them It is carnal to be concerned how he came down from Heaven and to account him the Son of Joseph and how he will give us his Flesh to eat These Things I say are all carnal which ought to be understood mystically and spiritually Ibid. And how should they understand what it was to eat his Flesh They should have staid a convenient Time and not have gone away have enquired and not despaired the words which I have said unto you are Spirit and Life that is they be Divine and spiritual they have nothing of the Flesh nor no natural Consequence they are exempt from all these Necessities and above the Law of all things here below When he saith the Flesh profiteth nothing he speaks it not of his true Flesh but of those which understand the Things which are spoken in a carnal Manner And what is it to understand carnally It is barely to look upon the Things which are spoken without judging any farther For Things which are seen are not so to be judged of but to consider all the Mysteries with the Eye of the Understanding And again Those that is the Jews understood carnally and with human Thoughts and these that is the Apostles spiritually and by Faith therefore Jesus Christ said The Words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit Do not think that my Doctrine is subject to the Consequence and Necessity of things spiritual things will not suffer to be subjected unto earthly Laws St. Austin is so copious and abundant upon this Subject that I should fear tiring the Reader if I should undertake to report all that he saith It shall then suffice not to weary you with a long Chain of Passages to make choice of some of the clearest and to this purpose I 'le begin with the famous Testimony which is seen in the third Book of Christian Doctrine Aug. de Doctrin Christ l. 3. c. 16. If it be a Command that forbids any Crime or Wickedness or that commands any Charity or Utility the Proposition is not figurative but if it seems to command any Crime or Wickedness or that it forbids any Utility or Good it is figurative If saith Jesus Christ you eat not the Flesh of the Son of God and drink not his Blood you have no Life in you He seems to command some Wickedness or a Crime it is therefore a Figure which commads us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and profitably to remember that his Flesh was crucified and broken for us Id. de verb. Dâ—m Serm. 33. tr 25. in Joan. Id. in Joan. tract 26. Id. tract 1. â—n Ep. Joan. Unto this excellent Passage I 'le add these Advertisements which he gives us Prepare not the Mouth but the Heart wherefore do you prepare the Teeth and the Belly believe and you have eaten him And what he saith elsewhere to believe in him is to eat the living Bread he that believes in him eats he is invisibly fatned because he is invisibly regenerated And again Id. in Joan. tract 26. They have shed the Blood of Jesus Christ when they persecuted him and they drank it when they believed And again This is the Bread which came down from Heaven to the end that whosoever eateth thereof should not die that is to be understood as to the Vertue of the Sacrament Ibid. and not as to the visible Sacrament it is to be understood of him that eateth inwardly not outwardly which eats in his Heart and not grinds with the Teeth Again This then is to eat this Meat Id. in Psal 98. and to drink this Drink to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell in them And in fine upon the 98th Psalm understand spiritually what I have said unto you you shall not eat this Body which you see and shall not drink the Blood which they will shed that will crucifie me I have given you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood will quicken you and if it be necessary to be celebrated visibly yet it must be understood invisibly Fulgent Serm. de dupl Nativ This was also the Mind of St. Fulgentius younger than St. Austin but an African as well as him and moreover a great Follower of his Doctrine to the end saith he that Man might eat the Bread of Angels the Creator of Angels was made Man feeding both the one and the other and yet remaining intire O how excellent is this Bread which feedeth Angels by the Sight to the end they may be satisfied with him in his Kingdom and which feedeth us by Faith so that we should not faint by the Way Unto these two Africans we may join a third Facund l. 12. c. 1. to wit Facundus Wherefore should he have asked them if they also would forsake him if they had understood what he had said spiritually for in understanding the Mystery they could not have been offended and would not have departed from him But they were asked to the end they should answer That although they had not understood what had been said they might be kept in aw by the Authority of their good Master and that in them he might give us a wholesom Example of Humility and Piety that where Knowledg is wanting we should give place unto Authority In fine St. Peter so answers unto our Saviour's Question that he saith not that he will not depart because he understood the Mystery but because that it self which had been said by such a Master appertained doubtless unto eternal Life For he saith Lord to whom shall we go thou hast the Words of eternal Life and we have believed and known that thou art the Christ the Son of the living God Whereas if he had understood this Mystery he would rather have said Lord we have no need to depart because we believe that it is by believing in thy Body and Blood that we must be saved So that we must not wonder if Philo of Carpace or some other under his Name requires for this Manducation the Lips of Thoughts and the Teeth of Meditations if he esteems it a Divine Banquet If we were permitted to carry on this Tradition we might continue the Proofs until the Separation of the Waldenses and Albigenses Tom. 1. Eâ—â—â— Pat. p. 229. but not to infringe the Rule which we have set we will say no more now deferring to produce the other Testimonies each in the Age wherein they lived After having examined what the Holy Fathers believed of the eating the Flesh of Jesus Christ we must enquire what was their Opinion touching the Communion of the Hypocrites and the Wicked that is if they have judged that wicked Men did in reality eat the Body of Christ or its Sacrament only Origen in Matth. cap. 15. Origen first demands Audience and thus declareth himself No wicked Person saith he can eat the Word it self which was made Flesh for if it were possible for him
and consider with himself with what Doctrine they best agree either with that which teacheth that what is therein seen and touched are meer Accidents or with that which holds that they are true Substances of Bread and Wine CHAP. VI. Other Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences made by Protestants ALthough we have hitherto represented several Things which have been believed and practised in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity yet it is not all which I observed during the Time of my residing in that Country I will then continue the History of my Travels not to conceal any Thing from the Publick of the Laws and Customs of that spacious Empire upon the Point which we have undertaken to examine For it would not be just after having had Communication of their Records and Registers wherein all that relates unto this august Sacrament is faithfully contained that I should omit any Thing that I have there found not to fail then of my Duty nor the fidelity due to the Quality which I have taken I say that besides the Things which I have already observed I find that about two hundred Years after the first Beginning of this great Empire those which had the Direction and Government of it applied their Thoughts very much in giving divers mystical Significations unto the holy Sacrament and that those which followed them applied themselves thereunto also for they thought that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body composed of several Grains and the Wine a Liquor pressed from several Grapes they very well represented the Body of the Church composed of several Believers united into one Society It is the Doctrine of Theophilus of Antioch of St. Cyprian St. Chrysostom St. Austin St. Isidor of Sevil of Bede Wallafridus Strabo of Raban and others but he Testimony of the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian shall suffice in a Thing which is not contested Cyprian â—p 76. When saith he the Lord called his Body Bread which is made of several Grains of Wheat he would shew the faithful People which he carried in himself in as much as it is but one People and when he called his Blood Wine made of several Grapes pressed together and made one he also signified this faithful People composed of several Persons united into one Body The Foundation of this mystical Signification can be nothing else if the Protestant be believed but the Nature and the Substance of these two Symbols unto which the holy Fathers have given this Signification after the Consecration which hath rendred them fit for this Use In fine going to represent the Unity of Believers which are sundry Persons really subsisting but united into one Body by the Bonds of the same Spirit I do not see saith he but that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament whereof the one is moulded of sundry Grains the other prest from several Grapes may be proper to represent this Unity at least that the Substance of several Grains of Wheat and of several Grapes may continue moulded and mixt together See there after what manner he understands this constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers Moreover he desires to be suffered to add that what confirms him in this Opinion is That if any other Sense be given unto this Doctrine of the ancient Fathers this Inconvenience will scarce be avoided to wit that one shall be forced to say of the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ This Bread composed of sundry Grains represents unto us the Church composed of sundry Believers which Thing truly Christian Ears would scarce be able to endure Besides we have observed in the first Chapter of the first Part that the ancient Church was wont to mingle Water with the Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament and that in the beginning of the third Century there was a Mystery sought for in this Mixture The Reader may please to view the Place where even those of the holy Fathers are named which have so spoken it being needless here to repeat what hath been there mentioned but only to make some few Reflections which we were not there permitted to do and which nevertheless may serve very much to clear up the Intention of these holy Doctors The first is That they have given two several Significations unto the Water and the Wine saying That the Water represents the faithful People and the Wine the Blood of Jesus Christ For I cannot conceive that these two Usages could take place if both these Things did not remain distinct the one from the other because each of them hath a several Object to represent so that the one of them cannot represent the Object which the other doth signifie Secondly they have established betwixt the Wine and the Blood of Jesus Christ the same Relation which they have established betwixt the Water and the faithful People it not being to be seen that they have given any more Vertue unto the Wine to signifie the Blood of the Son of God than they have given to the Water to represent the Christian People and without giving notice that the Wine is the Blood of Jesus Christ in a more particular manner than the Water is the faithful People On the contrary they have spoken so equally of them both in regard of the two Significations which they attributed unto them that it is impossible to discover the least difference In fine the holy Fathers declare That the Wine and Water mingled together signifie the Union of Jesus Christ and Believers which they could not discern but in the Thoughts of the Union of these two Elements I speak of the Water and Wine which subsisted firm and indissoble and the Firmness of the Union of these two Things could not subsist if their Nature and the Truth of their Being did not subsist also And to say the Truth as far as I can judge these good Doctors have not made this Signification which they gave to the Wine and Water to depend barely upon their mingling only but principally of the Subsistance of this Mixture which was absolutely necessary that it might represent the Truth and Solidity of the spiritual Union of Jesus Christ and his People There is an admirable fine Passage of St. Cyprian upon this Subject but which I shall dispense my self from inserting here because 't is to be seen at large in the Place above-mention'd Whilst I shall join unto this mystical Signification two others which we have touched in the same Place in the first Part. By the one the Wine and Water mingled in the consecrated Cup were to represent the Water and Blood which run down the Side of our Lord Jesus at the time of his Passion and by the other the Union of the Eternal Word with the Humanity But all these mystical Significations are destroyed if the Nature and Substance of Things are abolished in the which they had their only Foundation After this manner the Protestant doth reason upon these Observations The Hereticks
celebrate these Antitypes that is to say these Figures he himself having commanded us to shew forth his Death Whereupon the Protestants say That this Form of Thanksgiving doth not well agree with the Belief of the Latin Church and that it is conceived in Terms too weak if the Author which transmitted it to us had believed the real Presence which makes the Spirit of the Communicant in the heat of his Devotion to look unto Jesus Christ himself and to the Substance of his Body whereas this here speaks unto him of Antitypes and of Figures So in St. Basil's Liturgy the Priest celebrating prayeth unto God Liturg. Basil in presenting him saith he the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ For although in this Prayer he desires of God that he would sanctifie and consecrate them nevertheless it doth evidently appear that he considers the Symbols of Bread and Wine as already consecrated because they could not without the Vertue of Consecration be the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ which he look'd upon as already done which according to the Belief and Practice of the Greeks was done in that very Moment Greg. Nazian Orat. 11. p. 187. St. Gregory of Nazianzen in the Funeral-Oration of his Sister Gorgony relates amongst other things the miraculous Recovery of this Vertuous Woman and refers it unto the Sacrament in these Words She put her Head saith he near the Altar and shedding a Flood of Tears after the Example of her who washed with her Tears the Feet of Jesus Christ she declared that she would not leave that Place until she had obtained and recovered her Health her Tears were the Incense which she poured forth upon all his Body she mingled them with the Antitypes or the Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as much as her Hands could hold and instantly O Miracle she felt her self healed and retired What did St. Gregory think of will some say in relating this History if he had believed what the Latin Church believes For if that were so no body but would judge that he ought to attribute this Recovery of his Sister not to the Sign but to the Thing signified not to the Figure but to the Body it self of Jesus Christ nevertheless he doth the quite contrary 't is to the Antitype and the Figure that he attributes this wonderful Effect and thereby he shews that he was of another Opinion There is in the Works of this same Father an Oration wherein doubtless he discovered the Strength of his Wit and the Treasure of his Eloquence I mean wherein he hath omitted nothing to obtain his Desire which was to preserve the City of Nazianzen whereof his Father had been Bishop and which the Emperors Prefect threatned with Destruction and Ruin Levit. This excellent Man taking Pity of this poor City and passionately desiring to preserve it from the Storm wherewith it was threatned he earnestly beseeches the Prefect to spare it He beseeches he conjures he sets before his Eyes all that is most holy and most sacred in Religion Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. and to touch him even to the Heart he saith unto him amongst other Things I represent before your Eyes this Table where we communicate all together and the Types and Figures of my Salvation which I do consecrate with this same Mouth with the which I present my Request this Mystery I say which lifts us up unto Heaven Must it not be confessed saith the Protestant either that St. Gregory was but a very bad Orator and that he took but an ill Course to appease the Prefect to stir up his Compassion towards the Inhabitants of the City of Nazianzen in laying before him the Figures of his Salvation and instead of speaking unto him of the Body it self of Jesus Christ and of saying unto him That he conjured him by this pretious Body which he made with the same Mouth which intreated him or that he had not yet learned the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and because to this Day no body ever denied unto Gregory Nazianzen the Quality of a good and eloquent Orator He adds That it must of necessity be concluded that he was not in all likelihood of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament In the Life of St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon who lived in the VIIth Century there is a kind of Sermon or rather a Collection of Exhortations and Remonstrances which he made unto the People that he instructed in the Faith of Jesus Christ and unto whom he preached the Doctrine of his holy Gospel and amongst several of these Instructions the Scope whereof was to incline them unto good and to divert them from Evil he directs this unto them S. Elig l. 2. vita ejus c 15. p. 217. t. 5. Spicil Daâ—h Hinder them from making Diabolical Sports and Games and from Dances and that they do not sing the Songs of Pagans that no Christian be exercised therein because that by these Songs one becomes a Pagan for it is not just that the Devils Songs should proceed out of the Mouth of a Christian wherein enters the Sacraments of Jesus Christ There 's no body but doth easily perceive that St. Eloy's Exhortation had been incomparably Stronger and more efficacious if instead of Sacraments he had spoken of the real Body of Jesus Christ For if the Hearers had been hardned to the highest Degree he must needs have moved them in shewing them that it was a shameful thing to see devilish Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth wherein the proper Body of Christ doth enter Was it not the fit time to have said it and could he dispense himself from saying it if he had believed what the Latin Church now believes Seeing then that he said it not and that he contented himself with speaking of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ one cannot also reasonably dispense themselves from inferring that he was of another Belief it is as the Protestant saith what may be collected from this Testimony There is in the third Tome of the Councils of France which Father Sirmond hath published a Letter of the Bishops of the Provinces of Rheims and of Roüen that is to say of the Suffragan Bishops of those two Archbishopricks assembled at Cressy Anno 858. to consider of the Order of Lewis King of Germany which forcibly invaded the Kingdom of Charles the Bald his Brother In this Letter which is very long and divided into Chapters they represent several things unto this Prince and because he desired they would give him their Oaths they strongly refused alledging this Reason for their Denial That it would be an abominable thing Concil Câ—ris t. 3. Gall. p. 129. Extr. that the Hand which makes by Prayer and the Sign of the Cross Bread and Wine mingled with Water the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should be concerned after the
Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine that is to say Gaud. ubi supra p. 16. in the Substance of Bread and Wine For by the Species the Ancients did not understand Accidents without their Subject because they have declared that could not be but they understood the Substance it self of things so that in their manner of Speech the Species of any thing is the thing it self As when St. Aug tract 11. in Joan. Ib. p. 14 Austin speaks of the Species of Baptism to signifie Baptism St. Gaudentius thus continues his Instruction The Creator of Natures himself and the Lord which bringeth forth Bread out of the Earth doth again make his Body of Bread because he can do it and hath promised it and he that made Wine of Water makes his Blood of Wine There was two things which hindred these Neophytes from staggering at these Words the one was That they knew as well as all other Christians that the true Body of Jesus Christ was made a great while ago which made them refer these Words unto the Sacrament The other was That their Catechiser himself obliged them to understand them so when he calls the Eucharist Ibid. 14 16. the Mystery of Bread and Wine and that he saith That the Blood of Jesus Christ is expressed or shewn by the Species of Wine that all Wine that is offered in Figure of his Death is his Blood and that in the Bread is received the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ Ib p. 14. Ibid. Ib. p. 15 26. And to the end they should not imagine that for being the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ it ceased to be his Body he declares positively unto them That the Figure is not the Verity but the Imitation or Symbol of the Verity From thence it is that he exhorts them to receive the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord with a Heart full of Zeal and a Mouth that is not languishing and to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 15. So that when he told them afterwards That Jesus Christ passeth into it that is to say the Bread and Wine they easily conceive that it is in regard of his Efficacy and Vertue wherewith he accompanies the lawful Use of his Sacrament or as he saith himself by the Fire of his Divine Spirit And when he bids them Ibid. p. 15. not to hold that for terrestial which is made celestial it is as if he had said That they should not look at what the Symbols had of earthly and common but to lift up their Souls unto what they have of Heavenly and Divine Ibid. I mean unto the Quality wherewith the Sacrament is accompanied for the Consolation of our Souls Do not boil saith he the Sacrament in the Vessel of a carnal Heart which is naturally subject unto its Passions Ibid. 15 16 this were to account it a common and earthly thing whereas you should believe that it is made by the Fire of the Divine Spirit what it is declared to be For he adds what you receive is the Body of this heavenly Bread and the Blood of this holy Wine because in giving unto his Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood Let us believe I beseech you in him in whom we have believed the Truth cannot lye And indeed it would be a criminal Unbelief not to believe what Jesus Christ hath said who is the Truth it self viz. That the Bread is his Body and the Wine his Blood which by the Confession of all cannot be true but in a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense and not properly according to the Letter But St. Gaudentius will not yet have done with his Neophytes he thinks there yet wants something for their Instruction because he hath not yet told them that the Eucharist is a Pledg of the Presence of our Saviour an Earnest which he hath given us to supply his Absence and to comfort us during the Time we are absent from him in setting before our Eyes the Image of the Death which he suffered for us Ibid. p. 16. It is truly saith he this Hereditary Present of the New Testament which he hath left unto you as a Pledg of his Presence in the Night wherein he was betrayed to be crucified it is that Viaticum of our Journey whereby we are nourished by the Way until we go unto him in departing this World for he would that his Benefits should remain with us he would have our Souls to be always sanctified in his precious Blood by the Image of his Passion therefore he commanded his faithful Disciples which whom he established the first Ministers of his Church conticontinually to practise these Mysteries of eternal Life which it is necessary all Priests should celebrate in all Churches throughout the World until Jesus Christ comes again from Heaven to the end that the Priests themselves and all the faithful People should always have before their Eyes the Protraiture of the Passion of Jesus Christ and that carrying him in their Hands and receiving him with the Mouth and the Heart we may have deeply engraven in our Memory the Grace of our Redemption and that we should possess against the Poison of Devils the sweet Antidote of a continual Preservative These Words are sweet and full of Light as well as of Piety but here are others of the same Catechism which made no less Impression upon the Minds of the new Converts and which no less assisted them in understanding of this Mystery In that he commanded saith he to offer the Sacraments of his Body and Blood in the Species of Bread and Wine Ibid. p. 16. it is for a two-fold Reason in the first place to the end the Lamb of God without Spot might give unto the faithful People to be celebrated a pure Sacrifice without Fire or Blood or Boiling the Flesh and that all the World might offer easily and safely then as it is necessary Bread should be made of several Grains of Wheat reduced into Flour by the help of Water and that it be baked by Fire there should reasonably be received in it the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ who we know made one sole Body of the Multitude of all Mankind Unto these two Catechists I will add a third which was incomparably more famous August Serm. ad Infant ap Fulg. de Bapt. Aethiop it is the great St. Austin who gave this Lesson unto his Neophytes What you see is Bread and it is also what your Eyes do testifie but the Instruction which your Faith desires is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood This is said in a few Words and it may be these few may suffice for your Faith but Faith requires to be instructed for the Prophet saith If you believe not
have been horrible Lyers in denying that they did eat Human Flesh without ever excepting the Sacrament they betrayed their own Judgment and erring shamefully in this Point they rendred themselves unworthy of being believed in what they have transmitted unto us touching the Faith and Belief of the Church But when on the other Hand I consider their Candor and Sincerity their Piety Zeal and the great Inclinations they had to glorifie God by their Death and the little Account they made of their Lives I dare not accuse them of Prevarication nor of Hypocrisie I too much honour their Memory and have too great a Love for their Vertue God forbid saith he that I should ever do them so great Injury or have any evil Thoughts of them because I own their Proceedings to be sincere and always accompanied with Truth as for my particular I leave it unto indifferent Persons to judge of the Consequence that hath been made of their Conduct But if the Silence of the Fathers hath served to shew what was the Belief of the ancient Church touching the Point of the Eucharist what the Holy Fathers have spoken against the Gods of the Gentiles will no less discover it In the first place they reproach them that by Consecration which consisted in certain precise Words and Formalities they rendred the Divinity which they adored present in the Image and inclosed him as one may say in his Statue as hath been shewed in the 7th Chapter of the first Part whereunto I will only add these Words of St. Chrysostom Chrysost Hom. in Christ nat t. 5. p. 477. Is it not an exceeding great Folly to introduce their Gods into Wood and Stone and into Statues of a low Price and to shut them up as it were in Prison and yet to think that they do nor say nothing that is amiss Let the Reader judge if the Fathers would have spoke after this manner if they had been of the same Belief the Latin Church is of and if they had not given their Enemies some Advantage over them In the second place 1 Apol. 2. p. 69. St. Justin Martyr 2 L. 5. p. 91. the Author of the Recognitions 3 Ad Demeâ— p. 201. St. Cyprian 4 Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. Arnobius 5 Inst l. 2. c. 4. Lactantius 6 Homil. 57. in Genes t. 2. Tertul. Apol. c. 13. St. Chrysostom do tell them their Gods may be stollen and that they should watch them and lock them up safe In truth saith the Protestant it would be hard to excuse them of Impudence and want of Judgment for these holy Doctors to have insulted after this manner over the Vanities of the Gods of the Heathen if they had believed of the Sacrament what is believed by the Latin Church because it is most certain that the Host of the Roman Catholicks which they look upon as their God and Saviour is carefully kept under Lock and Key and is subject and in danger to be stollen In fine Tertullian deriding the Domestick Heathen Gods saith amongst other things That sometimes they gave them in pawn Every particular Christian might have done the same by the Sacrament because at that time they were permitted to carry it home to their Houses and keep it And Cardinal Du Perron saith Du Perr de l' Euch. l. 3. c. 29. p. 918. upon the Report of Paul Jovius and Gennebrard That for certain St. Lewis King of France left an Host for Pledg of the Ransom which he had promised the Sultan of Egypt for granting him his Liberty There be others which have observed Obsâ—rvat upon the History of Chalcondyle that Vladislaus King of Hungary who was slain at the Battel of Varn Ann. 1444 also gave one unto Amurath the second Emperor of the Turks for a Pledg of his Faith upon the concluding of peace with him It is not very likely that Tertullian who was of a wise and very solid Judgment should make Reproaches against his Enemies which they might have retorted upon himself if he had believed that the Eucharist is our God and our Redeemer he sheweth then in doing so that he believed not so as the Latin Church believes at this present These are the Inferences which the Protestants draw from what hath been written in this Chapter CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what hath passed in regard of Hereticks either referring unto the Customs of some of them or in reference to their Silence or in fine of the Holy Fathers disputing against them THE Emperors Valentinian and Marcian Collect. Rom. bipart i. p. 104. speaking of Hereticks said thus The Enemies of our Religion have obliged us to seek God more carefully to find him more manifestly for the Light that shineth after Darkness seems to be greater and drink is most pleasant unto those that are a thirst as rest is most agreeable unto those which be weary In effect Hereticks have formerly as it were challenged the Holy Fathers unto the Combate and have invited them unto the occasion of meditating more particularly of the Truth of the Mysteries which they attacked therefore as they were obliged to stand the closer upon their Guard having to do with Enemies which took all advantages against the purity of our Religion I believe it may be safely said that of all the Works of these Holy Doctors there are scarce any more solid and more compleat than their Polemicks I mean the Books they wrote against these Enemies of Christianity it is true they had no Controversy with Hereticks upon the point of the Sacrament but nevertheless because the Holy Fathers do sometimes employ this Divine Mistery to refute some of their Heresies we will not omit drawing from those places some Light for illustrating the matter which we examine but before we proceed so far we will endeavour to explain some Inductions from certain Customs practised by some of them and of their Silence As to the former of these two Heads we see in the second Chapter of the first part that the Heretick Marc pretended to consecrate Challices wherein there was Wine and even White Wine as some think and that insisting very long upon the Words of Invocation and Prayer he made it appear red and of a Purple Colour to the end it should be believed that the Divinity which he called Grace should from the highest Heavens distil his Blood into the Cup by means of his Invocation whereupon it is said that if the Catholicks of his time had believed that the Wine of the Sacred Cup was changed by the vertue of Consecration into the real substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ the imposture of this Deceiver would not have been so much regarded by those miserable Wretches which he seduced for they might have said unto him that he took a great deal of pains to little purpose in making the Blood of the God which he preached come into the Cup seeing that the Catholicks and Orthodox without
Adversary without at the same time giving mortal blows to the Eucharist of Orthodox Christians of his time if it had been the same with that of the Latins But because those which know the rare Genius of Tertullian will never accuse him of so great Imprudence it must of necessity be concluded that the belief of the Church of his time upon the point of the Sacrament was quite contrary unto that of the Latin Church they think one cannot chuse but make this conclusion which I leave unto the Reader 's Liberty And from this Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion I proceed unto that which the ancient Church had against the Encratites which detesting Wine as a Diabolical thing and sinful to be used did celebrate the Mysteries with bare Water What have the Holy Fathers said unto them how have they refuted this Heresy have they said unto them that our Saviour having employed Wine to the matter of this Sacrament bare Water cannot be converted into the Blood of Jesus Christ have they further said to them that the aversion they had against Wine should not hinder them from using it in the celebration of the Eucharist because though it were Wine before Consecration yet it was not after the substance of it being changed by the vertue of Consecration into the substance of the real Blood of Jesus Christ and that so 't is no longer Wine which we drink but the real Blood of the Saviour of the World they have said nothing of all this unto them but then what have they said unto them they have constantly represented that Jesus Christ Offered Wine which be gave and drank thereof Which they prove by these Words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until the day I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom It is in this manner that Clemens of Alexandria St. Epiphanius and St. Chrysostom argued against these Hereticks as hath been shewn in the second Chapter of the first part But it is enough spoken to this matter it is time to conclude this Chapter and by the same means I will conclude the Proofs drawn from the Disputes of the. Holy Fathers against Hereticks by the consideration of what passed betwixt them and the Eutychians The Heresy of the Eutychians following the same Track of the most part of others sought out Artifices and Invention the easier to insinuate it self into the Minds of Men thereby to make the greater Progress For although for the most part they declared there was two Natures in Jesus Christ but that at the instant of his being received up into the Heavenly Glory the Human Nature was changed into the Nature or Substance of the Divine Nature yet nevertheless I conceive to speak truly their Heresy was not much different in this point from the Heresy of Marcion and his Companions which formerly denied the Truth of Christ's Human Nature and only attributed unto him a Shew and Appearance And what makes me think so is that the ancient Doctors of the Church do testify that Eutyches did teach that Jesus Christ took nothing of the substance of the Holy Virgin but having brought I know not what Body of his own from his Heavenly Father he only passed through the Womb of the Blessed Virgin as through a Channel I will not insist upon alledging all the Passages of the Fathers which mention this it shall suffice to instance in some few Feriand Diacon ad Anato He would not confess saith the Deacon Ferrand that the Son was consubstantial with his Mother for he denied that the Holy Virgin had communicated unto the only Son of God which was to be born of her by the vertue of the Holy Ghost the substance of his Flesh And Vigilius an African saith Diac. Vigil adv Eutych l. 3. c. 3. alibi that he assured the Word was so made Flesh that it only passed through the Womb of the Virgin as Water passeth through a Conduit but that he did not believe that he took any thing of her which was of the Nature of our Flesh And Theodoret treating historically of this Heresy which he so learnedly hath refuted in his Writings Theod. haeret Fabul l. 4. 13. p. 246. t. 4. Eutyches saith he taught that God the Word took nothing of the Human Nature of the Virgin Mary but that he was steadily changed and made Flesh I use his ridiculous Expressions that he only passed through the Body of the Virgin and that it was the incomprehensible Divinity of the only Son of God which had been crucified buried and raised from the Dead Therefore the Count Marcellin said in his History Ma cell Cem. in Chronol Theodoret Bishop of Cyr wrote of the Incarnation of Christ against the Priest Eutyches and against Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which asserted that Jesus Christ had not Human Flesh St. Prosper also observes in his Prosp in Chronol ad Consul Astur Protog that this Arch Heretick said That Jesus Christ our Lord Son of the Blessed Virgin partaked not of the substance of his Mother but that in the likeness of Man he had only the Nature of the Son of God This as I conceive is the exact Opinion of the Eutychians conformable in this point with Marcion therefore I find that the Holy Fathers which disputed against them have employed the Sacrament against them in the same sence and the same manner as those which preceded them had done against the Marcionites I mean that they proved by this Sacrament the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ as commonly the truth of a thing is proved by its Image Theod. dial 2. p. 84. t. 4. and by its Picture An Image say they must of necessity have its Original for Painters do imitate Nature and delineate things which they do see if then the Divine Mysteries are the Figures or Anti-types of a true Body it follows that our Saviour hath now a Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with the Divine Glory It is the reasoning of Theodoret in his second Dialogue which he repeats again in two other places I cannot comprehend saith the Protestant the meaning of this ancient Doctor if the Doctrine of the real Conversion at that time was an Article of Faith in the Church wherefore to alledg the Sacrament as an Image and a Figure to prove the verity of the Body of Christ if it were really and truly the very Body it self I cannot understand this Difficulty but in freely confessing that Christians at that time did not know nor believe this real Conversion whence it was that Theodoret did argue against the Eutychians just as Tertullian had done before against the Marcionites The Evidence of this Truth will yet better appear if it be considered that there was an universal Peace amongst the Orthodox and the Eutychians touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Peace had been incompatible with the belief of the substantial Conversion which the
our Saviour gave unto his Disciples in his Sacrament the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable sanctification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour hath changed the Legal Sacrifices into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine And that whereas the Ancients celebrated the Passion of our Lord in the Flesh and Blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine According to which he testifies in a great many places Homil. de Sanct. in Epiph as hath been seen in the 4th Chapter That Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Body but is present by his Divinity It is true he saith That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the Mouth of believers for their Salvation But after what he hath spoken it is very evident say the Protestants that he speaks not of receiving them in their matter and Substance but in their Sacrament accompanied with a quickning and saving virtue and that if he be not so understood he will be made to contradict himself and to destroy with one hand what he built with the other therefore it is that he distinguisheth the Sacrament and that he declares that the wicked participate only of the Sign and not of the thing signified saying with St. Prosper in the Sentences drawn from St. Austin Id. in 1. ad Cor. 11. He that is not reconciled unto Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood although he receiveth every day the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his condemnation It is also true that he often calls the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but he declareth with St. Austin whom he exactly follows Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Id. in Marc. cap. 14. That it is by reason of the resemblance they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments And with St. Isidor of Sevil That it is because Bread strengthens the body and Wine increaseth Blood in the Flesh and that for this reason the Bread relates mystically unto the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine to his Blood And because say they in the matter of Sacraments it is not so much to be consider'd what they be August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 22. saith St. Austin as what it is they signifie because that as Signs they are one thing and yet they do signifie another Venerable Bede makes no difficulty to say That the Bread and Wine being visibly offered another thing must be understood which is Invisible to wit The true Body and Blood of Christ because in effect he will have the Believer raise up his Soul and his Faith unto Jesus Christ sitting at the right Hand of his Father for as he told us before He carried by his Ascension into the Invisible Heavens Beda domui vocem Ju. Id. Hom. de Astil de temp in vigil Pasch the Humane Nature which he had taken In fine he is not afraid to speak of Sacrificing again Jesus Christ for the advancement of our Salvation but all Christians agreeing That Jesus Christ cannot any more be truly Sacrificed he doubtless speaks of offering him by the Sacrament whence it is that he acknowledgeth with St. Austin That Jesus Christ was once offered in himself Let the Reader judge then what advantage the Latins can draw from these latter words of Bedes which they mightily esteem Unto Bede may be joyned Sedulius a Scotchman or more truly an Irishman not him that composed the Easter work who was much later than the other I mean the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul which many attribute unto one Sedulius a Bishop in England but originally of Ireland who assisted with Fergust a Bishop of Scotland at a Council held at Rome under Gregory the 2d Anno Dom. 721. I find that the Author of these Commentaries expounding the 4th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians cites a long passage of the 14th Chapter and 19th Book of the Morals of Gregory the First without naming him Now this Sedulius whom we place in the VIII Century until we receive better information furnisheth us with these words which he seemeth to have taken out of Pelagius and Primasius when explaining these words of St. Sedul Comment in 1. ad Cor. C. 11. Paul Do this in remembrance of me he saith He lest us his remembrance as if one going a long Loyage left a Present with his Friend to the end that every time he saw it he should think of his Love and Friendship which he could not look upon without grief and tears if he dearly loved him Whereby he shews that Jesus Christ left us his Sacrament to be in his stead until he comes again from Heaven We read in the Life of the Abbot Leufred Vita Leufred C. 17. in Chron Insulae term about the beginning of the VIII Century that Charles Martell having desired him to obtain of God by his prayers the recovery of his young Son Gryphon he gave him the Sacrament of the Body of Christ In notis Menard in Sacram Greg. And we have seen in the second Chapter by the testimony of a Pontifical Manuscript kept in the Church of Roan that Christians then believed that what was drank in the Eucharist was a thing which might be consumed as that was indeed consumed If we pass from the West into the East German Germ. Constantinop Theor. rerum Eccles t. 12. Bibl. Patr. pa. 402. 403. Patriarch of Constantinople and a great stickler for Image Worship will present himself unto us in the beginning of this same Century and tells us that the Priest prays a second time to the end the Mystery of the Son of God may be accomplished and that the Bread and Wine should be made and changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which the Latins stand upon very much but the Protestants pretend he declares very favourably for them and moreover they observe that it is not certain this piece is that German's which lived in the VIII Century others attributing it to another German that lived in the XII They indeed observe that to shew of what kind the change whereof he speaks is he saith In celebrating the Eucharist Ibid. p. 410. the Oblation is broken indeed like bread but it is distributed as the Communication of an ineffable benediction unto them which participate thereof with Faith He testifies that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread but Bread accompanied with the Blessing of God and with a Heavenly and Divine Virtue for the Salvation and Consolation of Believers Ibid. p. 408. And in another place he saith That presently after Elevation the Division of the holy body is made but though it is divided into parts it remains indivisible and inseparable and that it is known and found whole and
tempted by the Spirit of Fornication which they attributed unto Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem and a Letter of St. Basil unto the Emperor Julian the Apostate wherein this holy Doctor acknowledgeth and embraceth the Worship of Images a piece also invented by some ignorant Impostor all this in the 4th Session Therefore it is very judiciously observed in the Books of Charlemain that those of Nice seeing the holy Scriptures would not accord with their Errors they had recourse unto I know not what humane Fooleries worthy of shame I 'le say nothing of their denying the Epistle produced under the name of Ibas to be truly his Act. 6. p. 775. against the testimony of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon and the very confession of Ibas himself In fine it is found that the Fathers of Constantinople have very faithfully retained the Doctrine and Expressions of those unto whom God had committed the conduct of the Church before them for they call the Eucharist an Image Type Commemoration it is the common Language of the Ancients they teach that it is Bread the substance of Bread the Ancients had said so before them as hath been amply related in the second Chapter of this part of our History they call it the Body of Jesus Christ by Institution which amounts unto what their Ancestors said that it is the Typical the Mystical the Symbolical Body the Body by Grace as hath been declared and they also agree with them when they say that the Sacrament is the Image of his Incarnation But as for the Fathers of Nice it is said that if they absolutely departed not from the Doctrine of the Ancients they did at least from their terms and expressions when they denied that the Fathers had called the Bread and Wine after Consecration Types or Figures which appeared so impudent unto those which have given us the Councils that they could not forbear reproving this confidence by this Annotation which they have set in the Margin the Greek Fathers often call the things Sanctified Figures as Gregory Nazianzen in the Funeral Oration of his Sister and in his first Appologetick Cyril of Jerusalem in his 5th Mystagogical Catechism and others The Abbot of Billy hath also blamed as hath been before declared the like temerity in Damascen and certainly with much reason seeing there is nothing more frequent in the Writings of the Fathers than these kind of expressions yet it was upon this false ground that these Prelates of Nice founded their censure against those of Constantinople which had called the Eucharist the Image of the Body of Jesus Ghrist and that on the contrary they said That it is his Body it self Words which the Latins are wont to explain to their advantage although the Protestants do not judge that in the main of the Doctrine Nice was not Diametrically opposite unto Constantinople to understand it aright it must be remembred the chief occasion of assembling both Councils was the subject of Images the Council of Constantinople having abolished the Use and Worship of them And that of Nice having restored both the one and the other it must also be remembred that the Fathers of Constantinople taking from the Eucharist a proof against the Use and Worship of Images they called the Sacrament an Image and declared that it was the only Image which Christ commanded to be made But because the word Image doth at the first hearing form in the mind the Idea of a proper Image and simple Picture that hath no other use nor propriety then to represent unto our Eyes some form like the Original without any way participating of its Operation and Virtue in a word a Picture like to those which be sold in Painters Shops the Prelates of Nice thinking those of Constantinople had in this sense given the name of Image unto the Sacrament as Cardinal Bessarion told us Damascen had done failed not severely to censure them not but that the Fathers of Constantinople had sufficiently enough explained themselves in saying that this Image to wit the Divine Bread is filled with the Holy Ghost But in fine the Prelates of Nice either through Passion to their Adversaries or otherwise for 't is not for me to judge of their thoughts reflected sharply upon those of Constantinople thinking they had taken this term of Image in the sense as we have expressed several things made them think so In the first place they tell us themselves that it was their thought and that they gave no other signification to the word Image As for the Image say they Concil Nicaen 2. act 6. tom 6. p. 800. t. 5. Concil Ibid. p. 799. we know no other but that it is an Image which sheweth the resemblance of its Original whence also it is that it takes the name and that it hath nothing else common with it A little before they had said That what the Image hath in common with the Original is the name only and not the definition And again in another place Ibid. t. 3. p. 353 One thing is the Image and another thing is the Original and a man of sense will never seek the Proprieties of the Original in the Image Secondly Elias of Creet now Candia one of the Fathers of the Council sheweth they think very clearly that the intent of the Council was not to teach that the Bread and the Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but only into their Efficacy and Vertue for using the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria before alledged Elias Cretens in Orat. 1. Greg. Nazianz p. 201. he saith That God doth send into the things offered an enlivening vertue and that he makes them to pass into the operation of his Flesh it is in the Greek of St. Cyril into the Efficacy of his Flesh There is yet more the Fathers of Nice being in a humour of reproving and censuring those of Constantinople as to whatever with any weak shew might fall within the compass of their censure it is no force to conceive that they approved what they have not blamed and that they have owned as Catholick and Orthodox the things which they have not censured They say that all reasonable persons will grant if they consider how the Bishops of Nice were affected towards them of Constantinople whose Constitutions and Decrees they publickly revoked now of two things insisted upon by these latter the Prelates of Nice censured but one they must then approve of the other and in approving they must receive it as Catholick and as one of the Articles of their Belief The Fathers of Constanstinople had said that the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ but they said also That this Image is the substance of Bread here are Adversaries eagerly bent against them Adversaries that spare them not in any thing that strictly examine every thing they do or say either to render them odious or to make them be
took them out of the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to teach them unto such as desired to be instructed At the beginning of the Letter Id. ibi p. 1619. 1623. You examine me saith he upon a thing whereof several persons doubt Id. in Matt. l. 12. p. 1094. In his Commentary upon the 26th Chapter of St. Matthew I have treated of these things more at large and more expresly because I am informed that some reproved me as if in the Book of Sacraments which I published I had given unto the words of Jesus Christ more than the truth it self doth allow Ib. p. 1100. And again There are many that in these mystical things are of another Opinion and there are many that are blind and cannot see when they think this Bread and this Cup is nothing else but what is seen with the Eyes and which is tasted with the Mouth Wherefore the Anonymous Author before mentioned Aut Anonym uâ—i supra writes that some affirmed That what is received at the Altar is the same that was born of the Virgin and that others on the contrary denied it and said That it is another thing But having been told by Paschas himself that he had several Adversaries and Opposers We must farther learn of him what was the belief of this great number of Opposers for after having cited the words of Institution Take Eat this is my Body Paschas Ep. ad Frudegard Commentar in Matth. l. 12. he adds That those which will extenuate this term of Body saying That it is not the true Flesh of Jesus Christ which is celebrated in the Sacrament nor his true blood let them hear these words they pretend I know not what as if there was only in the Sacrament a certain vertue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ as if our Saviour had told a lye and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood c. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples he said not This is or there is in this Mystery a certain Vertue or Figure of my Body but he said This is my Body And a little after I admire that some would now say That it is not the reality of the Flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the thing it self but in Sacrament a certain efficacy of the body and not the body a vertue of the blood and not the blood a figure and not the truth a shadow and not the substance It cannot then reasonably be after such formal and positive Declarations that the world should think any other Opinion can be attributed unto the Adversaries of Paschas but that of the Protestants of France and of all others of their Communion As the Belief of Paschas is that of the Roman Catholicks to say otherwise were to dissemble to renounce the truth and to be unworthy the esteem and credit of honest men Let it then be granted for certain that in this important point which we do examine Paschas was a Roman Catholick as 't is spoken now a days And that his Adversaries on the contrary were Protestant Calvinists from whence it will necessarily follow that if the followers of Paschas in the IX Century were more considerable and of greater numbers than his Adversaries the Opinion of the Latin Church had the victory over the other but if also the number of his Adversaries was greater their Name more famous and their Reputation better established it must be concluded That the Belief of the Protestants had the Victory it appears that so things are to be understood to do right unto both parties The better to succeed in this design I will begin with those that followed Paschas seeing it was him that obliged his Adversaries to contradict him and oppose themselves unto the Establishment of his Opinion which appeared new unto them and different from the ancient Faith of the Church It cannot be denied but Paschas Radbert had good Endowments as appears by his Works and that he was commended by some Writers of that time as a Man of great Learning and above the common sort Nevertheless as to the Subject in hand I have not observed in what I have read that many persons have declared in favour of him It is out of all question that Frudegard fell into his Opinion after having read his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ for in the Letter which Paschas writ him Paschas Ep. ad Frudeg pag. 1620. we therein find these words You say that you believed so formerly he speaks of his Opinion and that you read the same in the Book of Sacraments that I composed Since which time Frudegard having read the Advertisement which St. Austin gives in the third Book of Christian Doctrine of understanding figuratively what our Saviour speaks of eating his Flesh he was very much shaken and if he changed not quite it may be said that he continued in suspence without declaring for or against Paschas It is what he informs us Ibid. when he adds unto his first words But you say that you have since read in St. Austin 's third Book of Christian Doctrine that where it is said it is the body and blood of Christ it is a figurative manner of expression and if it is a figurative speech and a figure rather than the truth I cannot tell say you how it should be understood And you say afterwards And if I believe that it is the same body as that which he took from the holy Virgin his Mother this excellent Doctor that is to say St. Austin declares on the contrary that it is a great crime to wit to believe that it is the real body of Jesus Christ Paschas doth what he can to continue him in the Opinion he had been of before he had read this passage of St. Austin and the better to effect it he alledges this unto him under the name of this great Saint and as being taken out of his Sermons unto the Neophites Ibid. Receive in the Bread what was nailed upon the Cross and in the Cup that which came out of the Side of Jesus Christ Words which for certain are not of St. Austin and which are not to be found in any of his Works which we have in great numbers Paschas 't is true cites them as to the best of his remembrance and I cannot tell if in a matter so important as this it will serve turn to say As I remember or If my memory fail not In the main it not appearing that he satisfied Frudegard in his doubts the surest side we can take in this Conjuncture is to make him neither a Friend nor an Adversary of Paschas but to leave him in his doubts if we would not increase the Sect of Scepticks I will not say the same of the Anonymous Author which Father Cellot hath furnished us and whom we have twice mentioned already in this Chapter for it appears plainly he was
not that is to say Id. cap. 17. That the Mysteries of our Redemption are truly the body and blood of our Saviour And we shall find say the Protestants that he so explained himself in regard to their Efficacy and their Vertue and of the real and effectual communication of this Body and Blood in the lawful use of this Sacrament and not to say that they are substantially this Body and Blood because that is inconsistent with the Declaration he made just before That the Sacraments of the body and blood of Jesus Christ is the substance of Bread and Wine whereas these things accord very well with saying that although the Sacraments are Bread and Wine in substance yet they are for all that truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Efficacy and in Vertue because they are indeed accompanied with the Vertue and Efficacy of his Divine Body and of his precious Blood the term of truly being opposed not unto figuratively or sacramentally for that would be a contradiction seeing he speaks of Mysteries but it is opposed unto untruth as if the Sacrament were not at all the Body of Jesus Christ unto vainly as if it had only the bare name and nefficaciously as if it had not the virtue And that this is the true sense of the words of Wallafridus it appears by the title of the Chapter entituled Of the vertue of the Sacraments in which Chapter the more to advance the efficacy he with many of the Ancients particularly with Rabanus his Master and with Ratramn his Contemporary interprets the 6th of St. John not of the Flesh and Blood it self of Jesus Christ but of the Sacraments of his Body and Blood or to speak with St. Fulgentius Of the Mysteries of the Truth Fulgent de Bapt. Aethiop and not of the Truth of the Mysteries This is the Reasoning of Protestants At the same time time that Wallafridus wrote his Book Heribald or Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was in great Reputation but because we have that to say of this Prelate as will give a very great weight unto his Testimony we will reserve him for a Chapter unto himself and in the mean while we will say something of Loup Abbot of Ferriers in Gastinais who in that he speaks horably of Heribold as shall be related hereafter may intimate that they were both of one Judgment But these sorts of Inferences are too weak to be insisted upon therefore I will seek for something in his Writings that is more material as in one of his Letters unto Amulus or Amulo Archbishop of Lyons in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ Lupus Ferratiâ—n Ep. 81. Id. Ep. 40. he said That he raised his Humanity unto Heaven to be always present with him by his Divinity This that he calls Rabanus his Tutor and rendred him thanks for that he took care of instructing him doth no less confirm what he said and gives cause to think that in all likelihood Rabanus had instilled his Opinions into him because most commonly we embrace their Opinions whose Disciples we have been in our Youth especially when they are Opinions received by the Major part of the World Unto which may be added what he saith in the Book of three Questions Id. de tribus quaest p. 208 209. ult edit which Monsieur Baluze proves to be his to wit That God hath subjected spiritual Creatures unto time only but as for bodily things he hath subjected them unto time and unto place and that it cannot be questioned if it be considered that all bodies that have length breadth and depth and which are called solid are never contained but in one place It is evident that he means of being contained circumscriptively otherwise his Opposition would be insignificant being certain that Spirits for instance Angels also fill a place so that whilst they are here they are not there and this is termed to be in a place definitively But to be there circumscriptively appertains only unto Bodies which being made up of several parts are in such manner scituated in the place which they fill that each part of the Body answers unto each part of the place St. Fulgent ad Pet. Diac. c. 3. It not being given unto Bodies to exist after the manner of Spirits to use the terms of St. Fulgentius Seeing then that the Abbot de Ferriers speaks after this manner of the existing of Bodies and that he believes it inseparable from every Corporal Creature without excepting the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it follows that he believed not this Existence after the manner of a Spirit which is attributed unto him in the Latin Church nor by consequence the real Presence whereupon it depends as one of its necessary Consequences This is what several do infer from this passage The Emperor Charles the Bald being informed that his Subjects were not all of one Opinion touching the Doctrine of the Sacrament thought it necessary to consult some of the most Learned of his Kingdom and such as were of greatest Credit and Esteem Amongst others which he made choice of to write on this Subject he chose two persons whom he esteemed very much the one was Bertram or as he is called by the Writers of that Age Ratramn which is his true name and the other was John Surnamed Erigenius of Scotland that is to say of Ireland according to the Language of our times Their Writings have not had the same fate for those of Ratramn have been preserved unto us but as for those of John they were condemned and burnt two hundred years after at the Council of Verceill And as they were two several Writers so we must also distinguish them in this History and that we speak of each of them severally To begin with Ratramn Priest of the Monastery of Corby and afterwards Abbot of Orbais I say he was a Man so esteemed in his time that all the Bishops of France made choice of him to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks and by the industry of Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar we have in our hands the four Books which he composed and are such that when I compare them with that written by Eneas Bishop of Paris in the same Century and in defence of the same Cause I find as great difference betwixt them as betwixt Light and Darkness or at least betwixt the weak Essay of some illiterate person and the accomplished Work of an exquisite Artist because in truth the Work of Eneas is extreamly weak in comparison of that of Ratramn I say of that Ratramn unto whom the Abbot Trithemius ascribes such great Commendations in the XV Century and whom the Disciples of St. Austin Defenders of the free Grace of Jesus Christ so much admired when they made use of what he wrote touching the Doctrine of Predestination Therefore the President Mauguin speaking of him said Mauguin dissertat Hist
At Troys is solemnized the memory of St. Prudens Bishop and Confessor this Saint was born in Spain endowed with Divine Graces and Illustrious by his Zeal for Religion and his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures having been driven out of Spain by the Saracens and being come into France he drew the Admiration and Love of all men therefore after the Death of Adelbert Bishop of Troys whither he had retired himself and had given proofs of his Vertue and Merit he was Elected and appointed the 37th Bishop of that Church by the common consent of the Clergy and People being so advanced unto the Episcopal Dignity he shined like a Light set in a Candlestick not unto this Church alone but also throughout all France by the example of a most holy Life and by the splendour of Divine Wisdom he was the Ornament and Delight of the Bishops of his time a Defender of the Purity of the Faith and an Oracle of Ecclesiastical Knowledge As for the Deacon Florus he hath transmitted unto us himself evidences of his belief in his Explication of the Mass at least if that be the work of this Florus Deacon of the Church of Lyons who in this Explication is styâ—â—â— Master Florus for Trithemius attributes this little Treatise whereof we speak unto one Florus a Benedictine Friar in the Abby of Trom in the Country of Liege and others make its Author to be the Deacon Florus that wrote against Amalarius and against John Scot upon the Subject of Predestination This latter Opinion seems the most likely and the reason which makes me not to doubt of it is that I observe the Author of this Interpretation of the Mass hath copied ten lines verbatim out of the Book which Agobard Bishop of Lyons under Lewis the Debonair Son of Charles the Bald wrote against Amalarius Vid. Flor. Bibl. Patr. t. 6. edit ult p. 171. unde Eccles c. Et Agobard contr Amalar. c. 13. p. 115. Florus in Exposit Missae Bibl. Patr. t. 6. p. 170. Now there 's much more probability to say that it was written by a Deacon of the same Church then by a Monk of the Country of Liege It being then evident after this remark if I mistake not that this little Treatise is to be attributed unto the Deacon Florus Let us hear what he hath designed to inform us The Oblation saith he although taken from the simple fruits of the Earth is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of the only Son of God by the ineffable virtue of Divine Benediction He seems to make a difference betwixt the Wicked and the Good and saith the Sacrament is made unto the latter the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but unto the former it is nothing less because they have not Faith a Declaration which as the Protestants say agrees not with the Doctrine of the Real Presence by which the Eucharist is made the Body of Jesus Christ not only unto the Good but unto the Wicked also Florus explains himself very clearly Ibid. when he adds This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in the Ears of Corn and in the Grapes Nature gives it not unto us but it is Consecration that maketh it unto us mystically Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creature of Bread and Wine pass into the the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost he is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and he remains entire in Heaven and entire in your heart He would say that the Eucharist is naturally Bread and Wine that Consecration makes it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which is eaten in Morsels under the Sign which represents him but as to himself he is whole and entire in Heaven as he is whole and entire in the heart of every Believer in quality of a quickning and saving Object embraced by Faith so to find Life and Salvation in partaking of him because it is he that hath merited Salvation for us by his Death and purchased Life for us by his Sufferings And as the Eucharist is the Memorial of this Death and these Sufferings Florus makes no difficulty to say that it is made unto Believers the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because in participating of this Divine Mystery Faith looks unto him as the only Object of its Contemplation Manducation and Participation Thus much these other words of the same Author import Ibid. p. 171. All that is done in the Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord is mystical we see one thing and we understand another what is seen is corporal what is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. Moreover he saith plainly that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat was Bread He said unto them of the Bread Take and eat ye all of this Ibid. And speaking of the Cup The Wine said he was the Mystery of our Redemption And he proves it by these words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine In fine expounding these last words of the Mass Whereby O Lord Ibid. thou always createst for us all these good things c. which is a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy doth follow the Consecration he sufficiently gives to understand that he believed not that the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as of things which God had created from the beginning of the World which he maketh still every year by Propagation and by Reparation which he sanctifieth and fills with his Grace and Heavenly Blessing which himself interprets to be of Corn and of Wine Thus it is that many do explain the meaning of this Author About the same time that the Deacon Florus wrote at Lyons Christian Druthmar Priest and Friar of Corby and Companion or Ratramn in the same Monastery composed his Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gospel and we should forthwith see what he wrote of the Eucharist if Sixtus Senensis did not stop us a little moment This famous Library-keeper doth accuse Protestants of having corrupted the Text of Druthmar in Reading in the Sacrament whereas he pretends upon the Credit of the Copy of a Manuscript to be seen in the Library of the Franciscans at Lyons that it should be read Subsisting really in the Sacrament The first thing we should do then is to consider the nature of this Accusation for the faith of Sixtus is look'd upon by many as the faith of a Man that approves very well of Expurgatory Indexes and one that hath laid two other Accusations unto the same Protestants Charge which are believed to be false Bibl. Sanct. in Ep. ad Pium V. Id. l. 6. Annot. 72. One is to have corrupted and altered a passage of Ferus a Franciscan Friar concerning the Temporal Power of the Pope although Ferus his Commentary upon St. Matthew wherein the passage in dispute is contained was
printed the first time at Mayans An. 1559. with the Emperor's permission And thereupon the Protestants say That it would be very unjust to accuse them with these kind of Depravations they which have so much complained of Expurgatory Indexes to do themselves what they so highly condemned in other Men. The other Accusation consists in that he charged them with the printing a pernicious Book of Oecolompadius under the Title of Bertram De Corpore Sanguine Domini Ibid. in praesar against the truth of History which informs us as hath been proved that Bertram or Ratramn was the true Author of it Besides say they Wherefore was not this Manuscript of Lyons publickly made known to convince us without reply of this eminent Depravation for it must be confessed that should we be guilty of so great a piece of Malice and so horrible an Infidelity as that wherewith Sixtus Sinensis doth accuse us we should be unworthy the name of honest Men and on the contrary deserve all Mens hatred and scorn But besides Sixtus his Accusation falls upon Sererius a Lutheran Printer had it fallen upon any Calvinist Printer it would have had a little more shew of truth But that a Lutheran that believes the Real Presence should have taken these words out of the passage of Druthmar Subsisting truly in the Sacrament which entirely favours it makes it appear very strange seeing the Interest of them of his Communion require that they should exactly be retained Add unto all these things that whereunto there can be no Reply which is That in the Year 1514. before Luther appeared James Wimfelling of Schelstad caused Druthmar to be printed at Strasbourg sixteen years before Sererius his Edition with License of Maximilian the Emperor and the Arms of Leo the Tenth in the same manner Sererius had printed it though it was by other Manuscripts which as 't is said makes void Sixtus his Accusation against the Lutheran Printer who acted like an honest Man and sheweth that the passage should be read as the Protestants read it and as the latter Collectors of the Library of the holy Fathers have given it unto us In fine say they It only is requisite to read over the whole passage with some caution to know that the Correction of Sixtus cannot subfist and that by consequence his Accusation is groundless And to the end the Reader might do it conveniently I will relate it at large as he hath transmitted it unto us Christian Druthmar comment in Matth. Bibl. Patr. t. 16. p. 361. Jesus Christ took Bread because bread strengthens the heart of Man and preserves life better than any other food he therein establisheth the Sacrament of his Love but this property ought much rather to be attributed unto this spiritual Bread which perfectly strengthens all Men and all Creatures because it is by him that we do subsist and that we have both Life and Being He blessed it He blessed it in the first place because as Man he blessed in his own Person all Mankind and then he gave to understand that the Benediction and Power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken of the blessed Virgin He broke it He broke the Bread which is himself because exposing himself freely unto Death he broke and shatter'd the habitation of his Soul thereby to satiate us according to what he said himself I have power to lay down my Life and I have power to take it up again And he gave it unto his Disciples saying unto them Take and eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for remission of sins and preservation of charity to the end that being mindful of this action they should always do this in Figure and that they should not forget what he was going to do for them This is my Body That is to say in Sacrament And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and gave it unto his Disciples As amongst all things which are useful to preserve life Bread and Wine are those which do most strengthen and repair the weakness of our Nature it is with great reason that our Saviour would in these two things establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyceth the heart and increaseth blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because all that cometh from him rejoyceth with perfect joy and increaseth all that is good in us In fine like a person undertaking a great Voyage he leaves unto them he loves a particular mark of his Love upon condition that they shall take care to keep it always thereby to remember him so also God spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood hath commanded us to celebrate this mystery to the end these two things may eternally make us remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and that it might hinder us from being ungrateful and unmindful of so great and tender Love Now because we are wont to mix Water with the Wine in the Sacrament of his Blood this Water represents the faithful People for whom Jesus Christ would lay down his Life and the Water is not without the Wine neither is the Wine without the Water because that as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for him and for our brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood This passage is taken out of a Commentary where the Author explains these words of the Institution This is my Body by these others That is to say in the Sacrament to signifie that the Bread of the Eucharist is not really the Body of Jesus Christ but only the Sacrament of it Therefore he sheweth that our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body that he commanded them to celebrate the Eucharist in Figure of what he was going to do for them that his Blood is figured by the Wine and that in going up to Heaven he left them this Pledge of his Love to the end that during his absence they should always make Commemoration of his Person and of his Sufferings All which things clearly shew that the spiritual Change whereof he speaks is a Change of Use and of Vertue to import that the Bread and Wine are changed by the Grace of Consecration into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as St. Isidore of Sevil Bede and Rabanus hath taught and also changed into its Efficacy and Vertue after the language of Theodotus and of Cyril of Alexandria Whence it is that the same Druthmar explaining these words Ibid. p. 360. C. The Poor ye shall have always with you but me ye shall not have always saith He speaks of the presence of his Body because he was to depart from them for as for the presence of his Divinity it is always present with all the Elect.
Ibid. p. 362. A. And upon this also I will no more drink of this fruit af the Vine until the day I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom After that time of Supper saith he he drank no Wine until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection This is the Explication Protestants give unto the words of Druthmar Hitherto we have spoken of Writers of the IX Century out of whom it is accustomed to produce Testimonies to prove that they opposed the Doctrine of Paschas Radbert excepting Heribold unto whom we reserve a Chapter apart But besides these Witnesses which have deposed there be some others whose Testimonies may conduce to the clearing the Subject we treat of therefore we will make no difficulty to receive their Depositions beginning with Ahyto Ahyto Bishop of Basle was so famous for his Holiness of Life for the Light of his Doctrine and for his Wisdom in managing great and important Affairs that Charlemain had a very particular kindness and esteem for him whereupon in the Year 811. he sent him Ambassador unto Constantinople to treat of Peace with the Eastern Emperor as the Annals of France Eginhard Author of the Life of Charlemain the Annals of Fulda Herman Contract and others do testifie This Ahyto who departed this Life Anno 836. left a Capitulary for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocess which Dom Luke d'Achery caused to be printed three or four years since the Copy of it being sent him from Rome and taken from a Manuscript of the Library of Cardinal Francis Barbarini The same d'Achery observing also that it is to be found in the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican Library Now amongst many other Instructions which he gives unto his Priests in this Capitulary this is to be read Anyco apud Dom. Luc. d'Acher Spicileg t. 6. p. 692. In the fifth place the Priests ought to know what the Sacrament of Baptism and of Confirmation is and what the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord is how a visible Creature is seen in the same Mysteries and nevertheless invisible Salvation is there communicated for the Salvation of the Soul the which is contained in Faith only Ahito speaketh of Baptism and of the Eucharist He distinguisheth in the one and the other the Sign and the thing signified and lays it down for certain that in both of them alike there is a visible Creature without making any distinction betwixt the Creature that is seen in the Eucharist and that which is seen in Baptism it must needs be then of necessity That as by the Creature which is seen in Baptism he understands the substance of Water and Chrism so also by that which is seen in the Eucharist he understands the substance of Bread and Wine and because Baptism and the Eucharist are two Sacraments of the New Testaments Instituted by one Lord Jesus Christ and appointed to render us partakers of his Grace Ahyto attributes unto them both the same effect viz. the Communication of Eternal and Invisible Salvation unto those which receive both the one and the other of these Sacraments with Faith No other sense can be given unto the words of this Bishop neither can it be avoided by consequence to conclude but that his Doctrine was directly contrary unto that of Paschas Unto this Bishop of Basil I will joyn another of Orleans Theodulphu-Aurelian ad Magn. Senon de ordine Baptis c. 18. I mean Theodolph who in the year 817. was of the Conspiration of Bernard King of Italy against the Emperor Lewis the Debonair and who speaks thus in his Treatise of the Order of Baptism There is a saving sacrifice which Melchisedek King of Salem offered under the Old Testament in Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord and which the Mediator of God and Man hath accomplished under the New before he was delivered up when he took the Bread and the Wine blessing them and distributing then unto his Disciples he commanded them to do those things in remembrance of him it is then this mystical sacrifice which the Church celebrates having left and put an end unto the Ancient Sacrifices offering Bread because of the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven and Wine because of him that said I am the true Vine to the end that by the Priest's visible offering and by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost the Bread and Wine should pass into the dignity of the Body and Blood of our Lord in which Blood Water is mingled either because Water flowed out of the side of Christ with the Blood or that because according to the interpretation of the Ancients as Jesus Christ is figured by the Wine so the People is figured by the Water This Prelate intimates that Jesus Christ accomplished under the Gospel the Sacrifice of Melchisedek which was a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine which he demonstrates by the act of our Saviour who instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist took Bread and Wine and having blessed them gave them them unto his Disciples with order to commemorate him in the Celebration of this Mystery He declares it is the Sacrifice which the Church celebrates offering Bread and Wine That the Wine in the Cup signifies Jesus Christ as the Water doth the People And that in fine all that befalls the Bread and Wine by Consecration is that they pass he doth not say into the substance of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he must needs have said if he had believed the real Presence but he saith they pass into the Dignity of his Body and Blood because indeed we should consider them as his Body and Blood for they be in the room and are invested with the Dignity of his Person and accompanied in their lawful use with the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken and of his Blood poured forth According to which he orders in his Capitulary Every Lords day to receive during Lent time the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Id. in capitulari c. 41.44 and prescribes the dispositions with which one should approach unto so great a Sacrament Thus it is that several do understand this passage of Theodolph After the testimony of two Bishops we are obliged to mention an Archbishop of Lyons who lived in the same Century and who in the year 834. was of the number of the Prelates which joyning with the Children against the Father deprived Lewis the Debonair of Crown and Scepter it is easie to perceive that I mean Agobard who undoubtedly was one of the most Learned Bishops of his time and whose Writings as I conceive have more of light and vigour and although he hath not said very much of the Eucharist yet we will nevertheless judge of his belief upon this Article both by his words and by his silence The better to understand of what import his silence is 't is to be observed that Amalarius of whom we
the Bald to make choice of Heribold for his Principal Chaplain if his Opinion had been an Heretical and Heterodox Opinion an Opinion contrary to the Belief of the Church as well as unto that of Adrian and of Nicholas But besides whilst Nicholas held the See of Rome there are arose a great Contest betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches betwixt Nicholas and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas sued for the assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latins against the Greeks The French Prelates made choice of Bertram or Ratramn who by their Order undertook the Defence of the Latin Church against the Greek and in the four Books he wrote and which are now extant refuted the Accusations of the Greeks against the Latins This Ratramn I say which by order of King Charles the Bald composed a Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he plainly opposeth the Doctrine of Paschas and doth establish that of his Adversaries Is it likely say many that if the Belief of Ratramn had not been the Belief of the Church that the Bishops of France would have made choice of him to have defended the Interest of the Latins against the Insolencies of the Greeks or if the French Prelates persuaded of the same Belief made no difficulty to make choice of Ratramn could it be imagined Nicholas would have approved this Choice if he had been of another Persuasion in this Essential Point of Religion I know that Nicholas wrote unto Charles the Bald desiring he would send him the Latin Translation of the Hierarchy of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite made by John Erigenius who also wrote of the Sacrament by Order of the same Prince but after the same manner as is written by Protestant Doctors And that this Pope alledges for a reason that though this John was reputed to be very learned nevertheless it was said Nicolaus I. t. 3. Concil Gall. p. 352. ex Ivone That he had not formerly good Opinions of certain things but those things concerned not the Eucharist for it is not probable Nicholas would have spoke so coldly if these ill Opinions of John had been upon the Subject of the Sacrament Besides he would not have failed to have demanded what he had written either to have condemned or approved it as he intended to do of the Translation of the Works of Denis the Arcopagite And he would have demanded it so much the more earnestly as that there was more to be feared by the one than the other I mean by what he had written upon the Subject of the Eucharist than of his Translation of the pretended Denis the Arcopagite Add unto all this that if any ill reports had been published of John touching the Subject of the Sacrament it had been by reason of the Adversaries which his ill choice upon the Point of Predestination had stirred him up yet nevertheless it is certain they never taxed him to have erred in this point It must then be concluded that the ill Opinions mentioned by Nicholas and whereof the Report came unto him concerned the matter of Predestination whereupon John Erigenius suffered himself to be led away unto ungrounded and empty Conceptions which were aggravated with some heat by the learned Church of Lions by Florus its Deacon by Prudens Bishop of Troys and by the Councils of Valentia and of Langres Yet these Adversaries incensed against him never accused him of any ill Opinion touching the Sacrament from whence it is concluded That his Doctrine in this point directly opposite unto that of Paschas was the true Doctrine of the Church Therefore neither Nicholas the first nor any of his Successors did condemn it until Leo the Ninth who condemned his Book to be burnt at the Council of Verseil anno 1050. where Berengarius was also condemned I know also that the same Nicholas speaking of the vertue of Consecration and of what it operates in the things which are Consecrated and Sanctified alledges for examples the Altar the Cross the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and that he observes that the Altar which naturally is but a common Stone and that differs not from others becomes by the Benediction the Holy Table That the Image of the Cross which is but common Wood before it receives this form becomes holy and terrible unto Devils Nicol. 1. Ep. 2. 〈◊〉 Concil p. 489. after having received it and that therefore Jesus Christ is represented in it That the Bread of the Eucharist is common Bread but when it is Consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ in truth and is said to be so and the Wine his Blood But some say these words do not prejudice the observations we have made because Nicholas considers the Vertue and Efficacy of the Sacrament and that in this regard it is truly the Body of Jesus Christ because in the lawful Celebration it possesseth the full Efficacy and Vertue of it and as he speaks almost as the Prelates of the Second Council of Nice did I desire the Reader would please to see what hath been said in the 12th Chapter because it is supposed after that he will be satisfied no advantage can be drawn from the words of Nicholas against what hath been observed in his proceedings upon this important occasion wherein I do not interpose my Judgment And what is said of the proceedings of Nicholas the First is also affirmed of Adrian the Second whose silence in most of the things spoken of Pope Nicholas and which we pretend not to repeat over again doth evidently prove that he no more then his Predecessor did not condemn the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas I will only add that in the hot contest which Adrian had with the Bishops of France upon account of Hincmar Bishop of Laon he never taxeth them with any thing touching the Sacrament and what makes the thing the more considerable is that Charles the Bald having interposed in the quarrel as protector of the Cannons and of the Authority of the Prelates of his Kingdom Pope Adrian commanded him to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon to Rome condemned by the judgment of the Gallican Church which so highly displeased the King that he made him a very sharp answer wherein he tells him amongst other things that the Kings of France born of Royal Blood Ep. Carol. Calvin ad Hadria Papam 2. in Supplem Concil Gall. p. 269. 271 272. 274. are not Vice-Roys of Bishops but Masters of the Kingdom He demands what Hell had spewed out a Law that should impose upon Princes and out of what dark Cave it proceeded He warns him not to direct any commands unto him for the future nor threats of Excommunication contrary to the holy Scriptures the Doctrine of the Ancients the Imperial Constitutions and Ecclesiastical Canons He desires he would write him no more such Letters nor to the Bishops and great Lords of his Kingdom lest they should be forced to reject them with scorn
to be guilty of some great neglect Secondly It was the custom in this Monastery not to keep any part of the Communion until the next day but they caused to be eaten at the same time all that remained which say some would not have been done if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Jesus Christ because they just before received it in Communicating which makes them easily believe that the abolishing of this Custom Ibid. l. â—â— 13. p. 58. which was not observed when the Friar Ulrick wrote did follow the change of belief Formerly saith he there was such care taken that after all had Communicated the very Priests and Priors which had brought whereof to Communicate did with a great deal of respect and caution Eat all that remained of the Eucharist without keeping any part of it until next day of which Custom nevertheless little heed is taken here at present but all is kept that remains after the Communion In the third place we therein find that the day before the Preparation that is to say on Holy Thursday Ibid. p. 58. There was so much of the Sacrament kept as needed for to Communicate them all Ibid. l. 2. c. 30 p. 140. that it was broken and distributed as they could conveniently take it And elsewhere The Cup is carefully rubbed without fearing there should remain any part of the Wine and of the Water and being Consecrated that it might be lost They believed then that the Wine and Water did still subsist after Consecration Ibid. p. 141. for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be lost And again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one half he Communicates himself and with the rest he Communicates the Deacon Ibid. p. 145. Many think it cannot be so spoken of the glorious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And then again When the Priest hath broken the Host he puts part of it into the Cup according to the custom and two parts upon the Patten and he covers both with the Corporal but first of all he carefully rubs the outside of the Challice and shakes it with the same Fingers wherewith he touched it fearing lest that in performing the fraction there might not remain some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be spoken of the real Body of the Son of God And in another place Ibid. p. 148. it is prescribed what ought to be done If it so happens that there remains ever so little of the Body of Christ which is expounded to be a very little crum and as it may be said indivisible part like to an Atom In fine treating of the Communicating sick Folks Ibid. l. 3. c. 28. it is observed That the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broken and that the Priest holds upon the Cup the portion that he should bring Now let any body judge if a part of the real Body of Christ can be separated from the whole and be carried into some other place and that after all that hath been alledged of these Ancient Customs it ought not to be concluded that this famous Congregation was not always of the belief it is at this time in the point of the Sacrament and that during the X. Century they embraced not the Opinion of Paschas This is the Inference which persons draw from these Customs But it is not yet time to have done with this Age we must first take a view of Italy and of Rome it self to be informed of Ratherius Bishop of Verona who departed this Life in the year 974. what the belief of the Church was in Italy in his time touching the Eucharist I do not intend here to write the History of this Prelate nor the Vicissitudes which happened him during his life for of a Friar that he was in the Monastery of Lobes he became Bishop of Verona from whence some time after he was expell'd and made Bishop of Liege but for three years only and then he lost this Dignity Those which desire to be particularly informed of his Adventures and of the Reputation which he had acquired by his Learning although it may be he cannot be wholly excused of inconstancy in his conduct may read the Preface of the Second Tome of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery from whom we take what shall be alledged I will not insist upon his speaking Ratherius Veron Serm. 2 de Pasch p. 314 315. t. 2. Spicil Serm. 3. p. 317. alibi Id. Serm. 1. de quadrag p. 282 of giving the holy Bread of presenting the morsel of receiving the holy things and the gift of so great a Sacrament although these expressions are not much after the practise of the present Latin Church no more than when he saith That he which observeth the Fast of Holy Thursday suppeth with our Saviour that is to say that he receives the Sacraments of his Body and Blood which were instituted on that day I will insist upon one part of his works wherein he plainly sheweth as is pretended that the Doctrine of the real Presence was not yet received in his time in the Church that is to say after his promotion unto the Diocess of Verona whereof he had been twice dispossessed for he wrote what we are about to alledge whilst he was Bishop This Ratherius having cited a passage of Zeno of Verona which restrains the eating of the Flesh of Christ unto believers only Id. de contempt canon part â— p. 181. as hath been shewed he adds As to the Corporal Substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that it is I that do now state the question I must therefore answer and I thereunto willingly agree for because unto him that receiveth worthily it is true Flesh although it is seen that the Bread is the same it was before and also true Blood although the Wine is seen to be what it was I confess I cannot think nor say what it is unto him which receiveth unworthily that is to say unto him which dwelleth not in God By the Doctrine of the real Presence what is received at the Holy Table is the real Body of Jesus Christ unto the good and to the wicked there is no examining if the proper Body of the Son of God be received worthily or unworthily they only say that if this Doctrine had been in vogue in Ratherius his time he would not have been to seek to know what it was the wicked did receive in the Communion because he could not but have known that it is the real Body of Jesus Christ nevertheless he declares positively that he is throughly persuaded that the Corporal substance which is received in the Sacrament is unto Believers the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and truly with great reason because then the Sacrament is accompanied with all the Vertue and Efficacy of this holy Flesh and of this precious
Blood which is inseparable from their Vertue and Efficacy But as to him which Communicates unworthily he cannot say nor so much as imagine what it is He knew very well it was the substance of Bread and Wine for he saith That it is seen that the Bread and Wine are the same they were before But because the Consecration makes them to be the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Sacraments which become unto Believers after the manner as we have shewed this Body and this Blood He cannot conceive what they become unto the wicked that is to say How one and the same Sacrament is unto some the Body and Blood of Christ and unto others a bare Sacrament only Nevertheless had it then been believed in Italy as it is now believed he could not have doubted but that it was both unto the one and the others the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ although it produced not in all the same effect by reason of the variety of dispositions Ratherius was settled as it were at the Gates of Rome as it may be said It is not likely then that the Church of Rome had as yet embraced the Opinion of Paschas who taught that the Sacrament was no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary for Ratherius could not then be ignorant of it and not being ignorant he would not have put himself the question which he did and had not yielded in answering of it And as to what is said by the same Ratherius in reproving the Excess and Debauchery of some of his Priests Id. Synodica ad Presbyt p. 259. That there are some that spewed before the Altar of our Lord upon the Flesh and Blood it self of the Lamb. It may easily be seen that it is an earnest expression to aggravate the sin of those of whom he speaks and that the Body of our Lord being secured from these indignities by the Confession of all Christians it must necessarily be understood of the Sacrament which takes the name of the thing which it signifies and the violation whereof reflects upon him which instituted it This is what several infer from the words of Ratherius I will not fear to joyn unto Ratherius another Witness which was also a Bishop in Italy and which is lately given unto the publick It is Atto the second of that name Bishop of Verceil Atto in capir c. 7 8 9. t. 8. Spicileg p. 4 5 Anno 945. I will not stand upon his prohibiting his Priests from saying private Masses nor in that he commands to handle decently the Bread the Wine and Water without which Masses cannot be said I will only observe what he requires Ib. c. 86. p. 31. That he which honoureth not by Fasting and Abstinence the day of the Passion of our Lord that is to say Good Friday may be deprived of the Joy of Easter and that he may not receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. The occasion say some required That he should not have said the Sacrament but the Body and Blood if he had believed that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ for the punishment had been the greater and by consequence the fitter to have retained the others in their Dury And in one of his Letters unto the Priests of his Diocess going about to disswade them from Fornication and to invite them unto Chastity and Continence he represents unto them amongst other things what they do in the Celebration of the Eucharist There 's no body add they but may easily understand but that it was the proper place to alledge the priviledge they had of making and giving unto Communicants the real Body of Jesus Christ and that there is no Bishop in the Latin Church but would have done so in such an occasion But as for Atto he speaks only of the Sacrament because in all likelihood he believed not as the Latins do at this time for then he would not have failed to have spoken as they do Id. Epist ad Presby t. p. 126 What saith he is this wicked presumption that he which knoweth that he is still wallowing in his sins should undertake to make or to give unto others the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Of all that I have hither to spoken of the X. Century it is concluded that the Opinion of Paschas had not obtained a full Victory in that Age. But that of his Adversaries the marks whereof was found in England Apud Usserium de success statu Eccles Christian c. 3. p. 79 80. in France in the Country of Liege and in Italy which was doubtless the meaning of Wickliff when he assured That there was practised in the Church a thousand years together the true Doctrine of the Sacrament and that they began to err in this point in the year 1000. which I refer to the judgment of the Readers CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the XI Century THe Opinion of Paschas not making the progress it desired in the IX and X. Centuries it found more favour in the XI and spread farther therefore it was established by publick Authority but not without difficulty and opposition For I do not believe that the Author of the Life of St. Genulph who lived in all likelihood at the beginning of the XI Century and which was published by John a Bosco a Cellestin Friar was of this Opinion Lib. 1. c. 6. when he wrote of St. Genulph That from the day of his Ordination he passed the rest of his Life without drinking any Wine excepting that which he took in the Celebration of the Divine Sacrament It cannot be so spoke and believe that what is contained in the Challice is the real Blood of Jesus Christ Lutherick Arch-Bishop of Sans who died in the Year 1032. as the Friar Clarius in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans Tom. 2. Spicil d'Ach. p. 742. hath observed could not possibly be of Paschas his Opinion because we read this of him in the Life of Pope John the Seventeenth or according unto others the Nineteenth In the time of this Pope Concil t. 7. p. 206. Leutherius Arch-bishop of Sans sowed the Seed and beginning of the Heresies of Berengarius Whence it is that Helgald in the Life of King Robert writes That his Doctrien increased in the World In epitome vitae Roberti regis Crescebat saith he in seculo notwithstanding the Threats this Prince made of deposing him from his Dignity if he should continue to teach it All those which were contrary to the Opinion of Paschas joyning together to defend their Faith Fulbert Bishop of Chartres who had been consecrated by Lutherick had a great kindness for him as he testifies in one of his Letters The Question is to know what his Opinion was touching the Eucharist If what he saith of the eating of the Flesh of Christ be considered which he
the Friar Clarius that lived much about this time observes in the Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans that Fulbert Bishop of Chartres died Anno 1027. but he saith never a word of what is related by the English Historian although a Circumstance of this nature was too considerable to be passed over in silence And as it is evident that Berengarius did not change his Opinion in the time that William of Malmesbury doth assign it is no less plain as I think that he retained it until the last moment of his life Apud Guillâ—â—m Malmsb. ubi supra which he ended by a natural death Anno 1088. And after his death he was honoured with Epitaphs both by Hildebert Bishop of Mentz who speaks of him as advantagiously as one could do of a man exceedingly recommendable for his Vertue and Learning for the splendour of his Parts and for the purity of his Conversation and by Baldrick Abbot of Bourgueil Tom. 4. hist Franc. Quercetani and afterwards Bishop or rather Arch-Bishop of Doll for he and his Successors also enjoyed the Privileges of Arch-Bishop until Innocent the Third as their Predecessors had done since the middle of the IX Century to the prejudice of the Arch-Bishop of Tours neither the one nor the other speaking one word of his Conversion no more than the Friar Clarius who wrote his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans about the time of the death of Berengarius of whom he speaketh very honourably upon the Year 1083. as if he died in that year Berengarius saith he Doctor of Tours Tom. 2. Spicil p. 747. an admirable Philosopher and Lover of the Poor flourished He composed the Prayer which begins O Jesus Christ just Judge and afterwards he ended his days faithful and truly Catholick This Epitaph is read on his Tomb it is the Epitaph of Hildebert of Mentz whereof he cites the two first Verses which contain in substance That the World shall always admire him that it admires at present and that Berengarius dies without dying to wit by the great Reputation which he had acquired In the same Century which the name of Berengarius had made so famous the Author of the Chronicle of St. Maixant speaking of De Cormarecensi Caenobio saith Tom. 2. Bibl. l'Abbe p. 212. That he saw a certain Friar of this Monastery called Literius a man of a wonderful Abstinence who for the space of ten years drank neither Wine nor Water but what he received in the Sacrifice that is to say in the Eucharist Judge Reader what was the Belief of this Writer who declares that they drank Wine and Water in the Participation of the Sacrament But having examined what passed in the West during the XI Century touching the Subject of the Sacrament we must endeavour to find what was believed concerning it in the Greek Church we will begin this Enquiry by Theophilact Arch-Bishop of Bulgaria who lived in this Century under the Dukes and under the Commenes Emperors of the East the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do both make pretensions unto him and think that he favours either of them Theophylact. in Matt. c. 26. The former ground themselves upon his declaring That our Saviour saying This is my Body sheweth that the Bread which is sanctified at the Altar is his real Body and not the Anti-type c. and that it is changed by an ineffable Operation although it appear unto us to be Bread for because that we are weak and that we have an aversion unto eating raw flesh and especially Man's flesh it seems to us to be but bread but it is really flesh Whereunto they add another passage of the same Author upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark where he saith almost the same thing observing That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and that our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body Id. in Joan. 6. And a third upon the Gospel of St. John which amounts unto the same thing not to mention what he saith again upon St Id. in Mar. c. 14 Mark That the Body of Jesus Christ is properly what is in the Golden Patten and the Blood that which is in the Cup. But the others that is to say the Protestants alledge that Theophilact hath explained himself very well in making this positive Declaration Id. in Mar. c. 14 God condescending unto our infirmities preserves the Species of Bread and Wine and doth change them into the vertue of his Body and Blood Which is exactly the Doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria who said 1 Apud Victorem in Marc. 14. manus That the Bread and Wine are changed into the efficacy of his Flesh or as Theodotus said before him 2 Apud Clement Alexan. p. 800. Into a spiritual Vertue So that when Theophilact said That the Sacrament is not the Antitype of the Body of Jesus Christ but his true Body and his Flesh it self they say that he understood that it was not a vain and empty Figure without any efficacy and vertue but not that he had any thoughts of absolutely denying that the Eucharist was an Antitype and Figure of the Body and Blood of our Saviour because then he should deny what his Predecessors had unanimously affirmed and that so indeed the Sacrament is truly the Body of Jesus Christ according to Theophilact not in substance but in vertue and efficacy because he declares that the Bread and Wine are changed into the vertue of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord and that although our Lord said not of the Bread This is the Figure of my Body but my Body nevertheless his meaning was that his words should so be understood according to the Explication of Tertullian St. Austin Facundus and others who declare formally that these words This is my Body do signifie This is the Figure the Sign and the Sacrament of my Body But that the Reader may the better judge of what side to range Theophilact either on the Protestants or the Roman Catholicks it will be necessary to consider what the Belief of the Greek Church was touching the Sacrament in the XI Century for if the Belief of the Greeks was not conformable with that of the Latins in that Age Theophilact cannot reasonably be interpreted to favour the Real Presence unless that he differed absolutely from the Opinion generally received by all those of his Country in which sense his Testimony would not be very considerable Now I observe that at that time the Greeks believed for certain that the Communion broke the Fast and that what is received in the Eucharist goes down into the Belly and passeth into the Draft as to its matter which sheweth plainly that they believed it was true Bread It is what Cardinal Humbert who was sent unto them by Pope Leo the IX chargeth upon Nicetas Pectoratus Humb. tom 4. Bibl Pat. Edit ult pag. 245.
should be read 1106. because Bruno was not made Archbishop of Treves till after the year 1100. Bishop Usher makes mention of the Author of the Acts of Bruno who was present and is a Manuscript to be seen in England and he saith that this Author speaks of Assemblies which were made in the Diocess of Treves by those which denied the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Waldens t. 2. c. 90. It is about this time that Honorius Priest and Theologal of the Church of Autun is said to flourish which Thomas Waldensis alledges against Wickliff as a Disciple and follower of the Heresie of Berengarius which he himself confesseth to agree with the Doctrine of Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance and great Adversary unto Paschas when he saith that Honorius est de secta panitarum Rabani that is to say of the Sect of those which believe with Rabanus That the Eucharist is bread in substance fit to nourish the body but the body of Jesus Christ in efficacy It is true Waldensis doth not particularly name Honorius but he means him so clearly by the entrance of his Treatise and by the passages he alledgeth and which is therein now to be seen that no body can doubt but that 't was of Honorius he spake Neither do I find that any are at variance hereupon The first testimony produced by Waldensis and which Wickliff alledged for the defence of his Opinion Honorius Augustod in gemma animae l. 1. c. â—6 is set down in these terms It is said that formerly the Priests received Flower from each House or Family which the Greeks do still practice and that of this Flower they made the Bread of our Lord which they offered for the People and after having consecrated it they distributed it unto them The second mentioned by Waldensis is borrowed of Rabanus Id. l. 1. c. 111. and is thus read The Sacrament which is received by the mouth is turned into the nourishment of the body but the vertue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is satisfied and by this vertue is acquired Eternal Life The same Author saith again Id. ib. c. 63. that the Host is broken Because the bread of Angels was broken for us upon the Cross that the Bishop bites part of it that he divides it into three parts Id. c. 64. that it is not received whole but broke into three bits Ibid. c. 85. and that when the Bread is put into the Wine it is represented that the Soul of our Lord returned into his body And he calls it Ibid. c. 63. to break the Body of our Lord when he observes That the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon the body of our Lord and that he carries it to the Priests to break it unto the People All Men do confess that the glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot be broken and divided into parts of necessity he must then speak of the Sacrament which is called the Body of Jesus Christ not by reason of the accidents which is never qualified with this name by the Ancients but in regard of its substance therefore Honorius declareth plainly that it is Bread when he saith That the Consecrated bread is distributed unto the People and that the bread is put into the Wine And so far he favours the cause of the Protestants in following the Judgment of Berengarius and of Rabanus as is testified by Thomas Waldensis an Enemy both of the one and the other and by consequence of Honorius Nevertheless there be other places in the Treatise of this Author from whence the Roman Catholicks strive to draw advantage for example from these words The name of Mystery is used Ibid. c. 106. when one thing is seen and another thing is understood the Species of Bread and Wine is seen but it is believed to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ It is true that all Christians confess that the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament after Consecration are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and the Author not specifying if it be in substance as the Church of Rome doth teach or in vertue as the Protestants which are called Calvinists do say I do not think that either the one or the other can draw any advantage from these words But besides these there be yet others which seem to be more favourable unto the Hypothesis of the Latins we may put in this order what he saith Ibid. c. 34. That the bread is changed into Flesh and that the Wine turns into blood and elsewhere That as the World was made of nothing by the word of God Ibid. c. 105. so by the words of our Lord the Species of these things he means the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is truly changed into the body of Jesus Christ It must be confessed that had we only these two last passages of Honorius the Latin Church would undoubtedly have cause to boast over those which reject her belief but that which hinders that she cannot draw all the advantage from it she desires is that the Protestants rely in the first place upon the declaration of Thomas Waldensis who highly condemning the Opinion of Rabanus and of Berengarius as contrary unto the belief of the Latins doth nevertheless ingenuously confess that Honorius of Autun followed the Opinion of these two men whose Doctrine he condemns In the second place inasmuch as the first testimonies instanced in could receive no favourable interpretation for the Hypothesis of Roman Catholicks whereas the later whereof they pretend to take hold may conveniently be explained in a way which might no way prejudice the Doctrine of those called Calvinists who say that the conversion and the change spoken of by Honorius is not a change of substance but a change of efficacy and vertue inasmuch as the Bread and Wine do become by Sanctification the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord but Sacraments in their lawful Celebration accompanied with all the vertue and with all the efficacy of the Body and Blood so that for that reason it is said that they be changed into this efficacy and into this vertue according to the language of Theodotus of St. Cyril of Alexandria of Theophilact c. alledging to confirm their Interpretation Ibid. c. 106. what is said by the same Honorius That Jesus Christ changed the Bread and Wine into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which St. Isidore Arch-bishop of Sevil venerable Bede and Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mayans had said before him as hath been mentioned in some part of this History And that in speaking of dividing the Host into three parts Ibid. c. 64. he declares That that which is put into the Cup is the glorified Body of our Lord and that which the Priest eats is the Body of Jesus Christ that is to say the Church which yet is militant here on Earth
prolog Chron. in the Eccleâ—iastical Histoâ—â— of Nicholas Vignier upon the Year 1â—â—6 Cap 4. That they were so respected that they were not made to watch nor to pay Taxes and that when any military person travelled with them he needed not to fear being injured by his Enemies William Paradin in his Annals of Burgundy saith That he had read some Histories which cleared the Albigensis from all the crimes which had been laid to their charge affirming that they had not been guilty of them and that they never did any thing but reprove the Vices and Abuses of the Clergy With this Doctrine and Conversation the Albigensis and Waldensis spread abroad into all parts which made Reynerus their Eenemy say That of all the Sects which is or hath been there is none more dangerous unto the Church than that of the Leonists or Lyonists for so they were called from the City of Lyons from whence Waldo went out because it is the ancientest for some say it hath been ever since the days of Sylvester and others from the days of the Apostles and because also it is of the largest extent there being scarce any place but that they are to be found But it must not be imagined that they were suffered to live long in peace in the places of their habitation In fine the Waldensis were expelled out of Lyons whereupon they were constrained to seek for refuge some of them in the Valleys of Dauphin and Piedmont and others in Picardy from whence they passed afterwards into Bohemia in which places they subsisted for several Ages notwithstanding the violence of sundry Persecutions Fol. 2. as is fully represented by Dubravius and Claud de Cecil Bishop of Turin There is saith the latter above two hundred years that this Heresie hath subsisted in this Diocess particularly in the farthest parts of it and near the Straits of the Alps which divide France and Italy as well in the King of France his Dominions as in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy And the former upon the Year 1160. It was saith he at this time that the Heresie of the Piccards began to flourish under an ill Planet to the end that none should think that that which of late hath made so great a progress in Bohemia is any new thing He calls the Waldensis Piccards because after having been driven away from Lyons several of them and Waldo himself as some do report retired themselves into Picardy from whence they were called Picards as they had been called Albigensis from the Country of Albi where they remained and subsisted until the latter end of the XIII Century notwithstanding the furious attempts made by Princes and Prelates against them as appears by Paul Perrin's History of the Albigensis Lib. 2. c 11. which proves it by authentical Evidences one of which amongst the rest is dated in the Year 1281. as it is found in several other Authors who make mention of several Croisada's raised against the Albigensis and the Waldensis during the greatest part of the XIII Century But as we write the History of the XII Century we may not forget two considerable circumstances First That in that Age Stephen Bishop of Autun began to use the word Transubstantiation and because there were two Bishops of Autun of this name in the same Age the first of which was advanced unto this Dignity in the Year 1112. and the other in the Year 1160. or thereabouts it is not exactly known which of the two it was that began to make use of this term In fine one or the other of them said De Sacram. Altaric c. 13. That the Oblation of Bread and Wine is transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Yet nevertheless Lombard Master of the Sentences his Contemporary and of the same Opinion in the main of the Doctrine L. 4. dist c. 11. dared not to determine of what nature this Conversion is either formal or substantial or of some other kind The other circumstance which deserves to be considered is that at the end of that Century Hubbert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in England and Legat of Pope Celestine caused a Synod to be held at York where amongst other things he commanded that when any sick persons were to be communicated that the Priest himself should carry the Host Rog. de Hoved. in Rich. II. cloathed with Priestly Habits suitable unto so great a Sacrament with Lights born before it unless there were some cause to the contrary and it is whereof we shall have further occasion to speak in the last part of this History Now let us examine what passed in the XIII Century at the first beginning whereof Stat. Synod c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. Odo Bishop of Paris made in one of his Synods certain Constitutions concerning the Sacrament as Of the manner of carrying it unto the Sick Of the Adoration of those which met it Of keeping of it in the best part of the Altar Of locking it up safe with several precautions in case it happened that any part of the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the Ground Ibid. in praeceptis communibus praecepâ—o 23 24. or if any Fly or Spider should fall into the Blood But because most of these things do relate unto the Worship we will omit speaking of it until we come to consider wherein Christians made their Worship and Devotion in regard of the Sacrament chiefly to consist I shall only say that it was with Odo as it happened unto several others after the Condemnation of Berengarius I mean that they retained several ancient expressions although the Doctrine was changed and that since this Change happened which is pretended to be at the beginning of the IX Century by Paschas and to have been established by publick Authority in the XI by some Popes in their Councils these kinds of expressions do not very well agree as many say with the Belief of the Latins For example this precaution of Odo If there falls to the Ground any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because say the Protestants the Fathers might very well say so seeing they believed that the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in substance and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament and in vertue But as for the Latins since Berengarius they believe that it is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ therefore they cannot reasonably say that any part of it falls to the ground because the substance it self of the Body and Blood of the Son of God is not subject unto any such accident Some Years after that is to say in the Year 1207. Amalarick or Amaury of Chartres was in great esteem for his Learning as Gaguinus reports in his sixth Book of the History of France and he teacheth amongst other things That the Body of Jesus Christ was not any more in the Bread of the Altar than in any other Bread or in any
they were cautious in declaring themselves for fear of being troubled It was otherwise in Bohemia the profession of this Doctrine being more free by reason of the great numbers of persons which had embraced it and which had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church If we credit Historians King George Pogebrack who in the Year 1455. succeeded Ladislaus Son of Albert became Protector of the Taborites that he embraced this Party and afterwards drew upon himself the Excommunications of two Popes Pius the Second and Paul the Second I will not here insist upon the Commendations which some of these Historians give him for his Vertue Justice Prudence and Integrity neither do I intend to examine the differences which he had with these two Popes against whose Anathema's he defended himself as well as against the Enemies which he had engaged against him unto his death which happened in the Year 1471. I shall content my self to observe that the Historians which represent him unto us as a Taborite and Protector of the Taborites are grosly mistaken which may warn us not too easily to give credit unto all that they report In fine we have a Letter of this Prince unto Mathias King of Hungary his Son in Law dated in the Year 1468. which Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath lately published the reading whereof informs us several things In the first place that the Doctrine of the Taborites and Waldensis of Bohemia if it were so that there were any of the ancient Waldensis still remaining Tom 4. Spicil p. 415. was such as we have represented It must be granted saith he if we will say things that are more true than apparent that several Errors have flourished in this Kingdom touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist Circa remanentem panis Sacramentalis sic enim illi nuncupabant upon their teaching that the Bread of the Sacrament remained and that it was converted into the substance of the Communicant In the second place that this Prince was not a Taborite but a Calixtin because he desired to communicate under both kinds as he had always done after the example of his Father his Mother and his Grandmother but that in all other points he was agreed with the Latin Church Thirdly It may be gathered from this Letter that the Taborites whose Doctrine he styles to be erroneous were not kindly used by this King Ibid. p. 415. therefore in the Apology which they made in the Year 1508. under the name of Waldensis against the Doctor Augustin they complained that some of their Brethren suffered great miseries under King George Pogebrack by reason of their Opinion touching the Article of the Sacrament Unto George Pogebrack succeeded Ladislaus Son of Casimir King of Poland whom the Bohemians saith Ritius chose for their King De regno Hungar l. 2. upon condition that he would suffer the Hussites he makes them all one with the Taborites to enjoy their Liberty of Conscience which he did until the latter end of this XV. Century But at length the malicious Accusations of their Enemies having prevailed over the Spirit of Ladislaus In fasciculo rerum expeten fol. 81. Dubrav hist Bohem. l. 32. as appears by the first Letter they wrote unto this Prince to inform him that it was nothing but false calumnies whereby they endeavoured to mis-represent them unto him They were forbidden all sorts of Assemblies both publick and private They were commanded to shut up the places where they were wont to make their Assemblies not to preach nor teach their Doctrine any more neither by word nor by writing and in a certain time to conform themselves either unto the Calixtins or unto the Roman Church This Edict occasioned two Letters which they wrote unto Lagislaus with all the humility and respect as was due unto the Majesty of their Prince and Soveraign wherein they complained of so great severity and of condemning them before they were heard And the more to excite him to have compassion on them they joyned their Confession of Faith unto each of these Letters declaring what was their Belief of the Sacrament In the first written Anno 1504. they say That they believe that the Bread which Jesus Christ took which he blessed broke and the which he said was his Body that it is his Body which they explain more particularly in the second which they wrote the year following We believe and confess that the Bread is the natural Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine his natural Blood sacramentally And because the Doctor Augustin charged them with having confessed Transubstantiation in their Writings they do protest that they did not write so Contr. binas litter Doctor Augustin ann 1508. in fasciculo supra nominato For say they this Confession hath no foundation in the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ which said nothing of the Real Presence neither under these species nor in this nor of this nor with this Besides they reject the Adoration of the Sacrament and there also they declare That Jesus Christ is no longer personally upon Earth and that they expect him not until the day of Judgment giving no credit unto those which shew his person here below And a little after they declare That Jesus Christ promised his Disciples to be with them spiritually by the participation of his Body and Blood and in the Sacrament in vertue with the testimony of his holiness Whereupon they alledge the words of St. Austin Donec seculum finiatur sursum est Dominus sed tamen hic etiam nobiscum est veritas Dominus corpus enim in quo resurrexit in uno loco esse oportet And there also they deny that the Body of Jesus Christ is in several places at once In Prologom de Vald. c. 8. It would be difficult and even impossible to declare what was the effect of these Apologies seeing the Historians are therein silent Only the Jesuit Gretzer makes this Observation The Waldensis preserved themselves a long time in Bohemia Gesner in Bibliothec and to this day they cannot be quite rooted out It was about the same time that one Paulus Scriptoris Professor in Divinityin the University of Tubinge was banished for having in his Lectures spoken against the common Belief of the Eucharist But this is not all yet for the Waldensis of Provens and Piedmont present themselves and oblige us to speak of them As the Persecutions were violent in France against those people in the XII and XIII Centuries and particularly in the latter wherein the Popes published several Croysado's against them they were in fine constrained to disperse themselves and in this dispersion considerable numbers of them retired themselves into Provens and towards Labriers and Merindol where they preserved themselves until the Reign of Lewis the Twelfth at which time they were persecuted by the Friars and Inquisitors who brake in violently upon them by force and Arms saying That they should be
coming of the Holy Ghost and you are also holy having received the Gift of the Holy Ghost And so holy things agree very well with those that be holy therefore German Patriarch of Constantinople observes in few words in expounding these words of the Liturgy 1 Theoria rerum Eccles t. 2 Bibl. Pat. Grec vel Lat. p. 407. That God takes pleasure in giving holy things unto those which be pure of heart And then the Sacrament doth not a little contribute unto the augmentation of this purity according unto what is spoken by Theophilus Arch-Bishop of Alexandria 2 Ep. Pasch 2. That we break the Bread of our Lord for our Sanctification And Pope Gelasius 3 De duab nat Christ That the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour renders us partakers of the divine Nature And to say the truth 4 In Anaceph There is in the Bread a vertue that quickens us as St. Epiphanius doth testifie Moreover the Sacrament effecting in regard of our Souls what a good Medicine doth operate in regard of our bodies there is no question to be made but when the ancient Doctors of the Church have contemplated it under this Idea but that they intended that Communicants should at the least use as much care and caution unto the reception of this divine Medicine as we are wont to take when we intend to purge our Bodies for when we intend to take Physick we live the day before within some bounds and are careful not to surcharge the Stomach that it might operate with more ease and profit for the purging out of peccant humours In like manner when we are to present our selves at the holy Table of the Church we should prepare and dispose our Souls to receive this saving Remedy the vertue and efficacy whereof shews and maketh it self to be felt in healing the spiritual Maladies wherewith we are naturally oppressed This was in all likelihood the thoughts of Hillary Deacon of Rome when he said Apud Ambros in c. 18. 1. ad Cor. That although this Mystery was celebrated at Supper yet it is not a Supper but a spiritual Medicine which purifieth those which come unto it with devotion and which do receive it with respect Besides the Sacrament having been instituted to give unto us the Communion of our Saviour Jesus Christ because that in participating of this visible Bread one eats spiritually the Flesh of Christ to speak with St. Hom. 27. Macarius is it not just that we should purifie and sanctifie our Souls to be the Palace and Temple of this merciful Saviour to the end that there delighting to make his abode and residence he might spread abroad his Graces his Blessings and his favours and that he may incessantly apply unto them the fruits of his death wherein they find their life their joy their comfort and their salvation In fine The Sacrament being to be unto us a Symbol of Unity a Band of Charity and of Peace according to the constant Doctrine of the holy Fathers they desired that Believers should maintain a holy Concord amongst themselves and a perfect Union that they should be careful of preserving the Unity of the Spirit in the Band of Peace and that they should put on unto each other bowels of pity and of Charity as the Apostle speaks Therefore they would not receive Oblations of those which were not reconciled and not accepting them they admitted them not unto the Sacrament for the one necessarily depended upon the other Therefore they warned Believers at the time of the Communion to salute each other and to give each other the holy Kiss mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles Mystag 5. The Deacons cry saith St. Cyril of Jerusalem embrace and mutually kiss each other and then we salute one another But do not think that it is such a kiss as common friends do give unto each other when they meet in the publick place This Kiss doth unite Souls and makes them hope a perfect forgetfulness of what is past it is a sign of the uniting of spirits and not retaining the memory of injuries any longer And therefore also it is that our Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God said When you bring your Gift unto the Altar and that you there remember that your Brother hath ought against you leave there thy Gift before the Altar and go first be reconciled with thy Brother and then come offer thy Gift This Kiss then is a Reconciliation and by consequence is holy And it is of this Kiss St. Paul speaketh when he said Greet one another with a holy Kiss and St. Peter Salute each other with a Kiss of Charity And they believed this Union so necessary that without it as they thought one could receive no benefit by the Sacrament how much soever other ways one was addicted unto good works Whence it is that St. Chrysostom after having exalted the vertue and efficacy of this holy Kiss which uniteth Souls reconciles Spirits and maketh us all to become one Body he exhorts his Auditors strictly to unite their Souls by the Bands of Charity to the end they might with assurance enjoy the Fruits of the Table which is prepared for them he adds Although we abound in good works Chrysost de praed iud t. 5. p. 465. if we neglect the Reconciliation of Peace we shall reap no advantage for our Salvation All the Liturgies come to our hands make mention of this Kiss of Charity which Believers gave each other before the Sacrament and which St. Paul calls a holy Kiss and St. Peter a Kiss of Charity many of the ancient Fathers do also make mention of it Indeed the time of kissing each other was not alike in all Churches in some it was given before the Consecration of the Symbols and in others just at the time of communicating but however it was the manner to salute each other before approaching unto the holy Table And this custom continued a very great while in the Church but at length it insensibly vanished at least in the West and the Latins have put instead of this mutual Kiss that which they call Kiss the Peace which is a kind of little Silver Plate or of some other matter with the Image of Jesus Christ or the Relicks of some Saint which is offered unto each person to kiss a custom not very ancient seeing it was never heard of until the end of the XV. Century Lect. 81. for then it began to be introduced into some Churches in the West as is observed by Gabriel Biel in some of his Lessons upon the Canon of the Mass Besides it is not said in the Liturgies whether this Kiss was given indifferently amongst Men and Women Lib. 3. c. 32. I only observe in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus who wrote in the IX Century and in the Rational of Durandus Bishop of Mende L. 4. c. 53. extr who lived