be given for you and this is my Blood which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins But it is plain that Charlemain understands by the Word Image a Prototype like the Shadows of the Law with respect to which it is true what many of the Fathers have said that the Sacraments of the New Testament are the Body and the Truth though otherwise considered as Sacraments they are sacred Signs which cannot be confounded with the things signified by them without renouncing the Light of common sense Moreover we are to observe that Charlemain never said that the Eucharist is properly the Body of Jesus Christ If he denies Jesus Christ to have said concerning the Eucharist this is the Image of my Body taking the Word as a Prototype and a Shadow of things to come yet he always holds that it is his Body in a Sacramental Sense for he never speaks of the Eucharist as the Body of our Lord without adding the Restriction of Sacrament or of Mystery If saith he he hears the Mystery of the Body and of the Blood once mentioned and twice together he hath bestowed upon us the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood And lastly the Mystery of the Body and of the Blood cannot be called an Image Now the Word Mystery according to the constant Use of the Church properly signifies the Symbol the Figure the sacred Sign of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Lastly We ought to observe that though he says that the Sacrament is the Body of Jesus Christ yet he never saith that it ought to be adored Indeed he ought to have drawn up an Impeachment against these Worshippers of Images upon this Article and a very important one too because it is very evident that the Greek Worshippers of Images did not adore the Eucharist but gave only a simple Veneration to it like to that which they bestowed upon the Cross the Altar and the Gospel as one of their Authors tells us in a Book which they call An Invective of the Orthodox against the Opposers of Images printed at the Louvre in 1685. in the Collection of Authors who have writ since Theophanes CHAP. IX The Faith of the Churches of Aquitain and Narbon in the Ninth Century CHarlemain that great Man who lived till the Year 814. maintained the Spirit of Opposition against the Errors and Superstitions of the Church of Rome that espoused the Interest of the Image-Worshippers by approving the second Council of Nice This Council having established the Authority of Tradition as being a necessary Principle to support the Worship of Images we find that the Churches of Aquitain and Narbon kept themselves firmly to the Authority of the Scriptures grounding their Faith thereon and regulating their Worship according to the same Of this we have an illustrious Example in the Council of Arles assembled in the Year 813 by the Order of Charlemain whereat the Arch-bishop of Narbon assisted with his Suffragans For the Fathers of this Council thought fit to begin it with a Profession of their Faith which is nothing but an Extract of that Creed which bears the Name of Athanasius and this is that which they ordain should be preached to the People for the Catholick Faith without so much as mentioning one Word of those Articles of Faith that the Church of Rome now imposeth Charlemain had ordered a Collection of Homilies to be made out of the Works of Origen St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Jerom St. Augustin St. Leo St. Maximus St. Gregory and Bede which he caused to be published in these Diocesses as well as the rest of his Empire now these Homilies do so strongly oppose the most part of those Novelties which were then endeavoured to be introduced that this Book for a long time served as a Bar to hinder People from leaning too much towards those things that incline Men to Superstition There is no Protestant in the least versed in the Matters of Controversy who seeing the Names of those ancient Doctors comprized in this Collection will not remember how much these Fathers have opposed themselves to a Multitude of Corruptions which prevailed at last by the factious Endeavours of some of the latter Popes wherefore I may excuse my self from making an Extract of this Collection choosing rather to produce other Witnesses which the same Diocess affords us concerning the Faith of these Diocesses in the ninth Century I can only produce three or four but to recompense the smallness of their Number they are Men against whose Authority the most contentious Adversaries will have nothing to oppose In the first place it is certain that as the Bishops of Aquitain and Narbon had set themselves against the Superstition and Idolatry of the Greeks and the Pope in the matter of Images at the Council of Francfort so their Successors imitated their Zeal and Vigor in the Synod at Paris in 824 upon the same Question where they determin'd that Pope Adrian who had writ an Answer to the Book of Charlemain and therein undertaken the Defence of the second Council of Nice had made use of in the said Reply superstitious Testimonies and not at all to the purpose answering what he thought fit and not what was agreeable And besides they drew up a new Collection of great Numbers of Arguments against this superstitious Worship to recal Pope Paschal and those of his Party from their doating on Images We can shew further that the same Zeal was continued in this Diocess Baluzius hath acknowledged and so has Massonus before him that the Book of Agobardus Arch-bishop of Lions concerning Pictures expresseth no more than the general Opinions of the Bishops of France and Germany concerning this Point But it may not be amiss to quote it in particular not only to shew what were the Opinions of the Churches of Aquitain and Narbon because though he was born in Spain yet he had continued for a long time in Aquitain whither he was invited because of the general Esteem he had gained to be the Coadjutor to Leidradus Arch-bishop of Lions to whom he succeeded but also because it appears by his Works that the most illustrious Bishops of Gallia Narbonensis carefully consulted him in Matters of Difficulty as their Master being indeed a most famous Doctor able to instruct and inform them 1. He declares as St. Augustin did before him that we can never equalize the Authority of any Interpreter whatsoever to that of the Apostles Concerning Expositors also St. Austin hath delivered That we are to hold far otherwise than you do whom not only in his Book which he hath writ against Faustus the Manichee concerning those who have been blamed by the Doctors yea the best of them speaks thus which sort of Writings that is to say Expositions are not to be read with a Necessity of believing but with a Liberty of judging for those Books only that are of Divine Authority are to be read not with a Liberty of
account he calls it the Truth of the Heavenly Sacrament We have a like Expression of Baptism alluding to the Passage of the Red-Sea in one of St. Augustin's Homilies upon Nicodemus's coming to Jesus Christ related by Paulus Diaconus In inventione S. Crucis and 't is the same we find also in several Passages of St. Caesarius We find that the word Transformation has perfectly charm'd him We therefore Lord keeping these Institutes and Precepts do most humbly beseech thee that thou wouldst be pleased to receive bless and sanctify this Sacrifice that it may be to us a true Eucharist in thy own and Son's Name and of the Holy Ghost that so there may be a Transformation of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ thy only Begotten c. And in a Marginal Note he observes that the same Word is made use of in this Liturgy That it may please thee to send down thy Holy Spirit upon these Solemnities that it may be to us a true Eucharist in thy own and Son's Name and of the Holy Ghost for a Transformation of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ thy only Begotten that it may bestow upon us who eat it eternal Life and the everlasting Kingdom to those that shall drink it And also That thy Blessing may come down upon this Bread and Wine for the Transformation of thy Holy Spirit that blessing thou may'st bless them and sanctifying thou may'st sanctify them c. And the like in other Missals as antient as this which he observes also in his Preface But this after all signifies nothing else but the Change which the Holy Ghost produceth in making the Elements after Consecration to become the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ This is that which our Authors have fully justified by an infinite number of Examples borrowed from Baptism and other things consecrated by Prayer Boethius in his Books De consolatione Philosophiae saith Conversi in malitiam humanam quoque amisêre naturam Evenit ergo ut quem transformatum vitiis videas hominem existimare non possis Being turn'd into Malice they at the same time lose humane Nature So that if you see one transformed by Vice you cannot look upon him as a Man And Ratramnus in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord saith That Jesus Christ in former times could change the Manna and Water out of the Rock in the Wilderness into his Flesh and Blood the same Ratramnus that oppos'd Paschasius who was the first Publisher of the Doctrine of a real Change We find there the Notion of Vertere and convertere in carnem Beseeching that he who then changed the Water into Wine would be pleased now to change the Wine of our Oblations into his Blood And again Let us entreat him that he who as at this day by his Son turned the Species of Water into Wine would be pleased in like manner to change the Oblations and Prayers of us all into a Divine Sacrifice and to accept them as he did accept the Offering of Abel the Just and the Sacrifice of Abraham his Patriarch But the appearance of this seeming Difficulty we find in the following Leaf Besides that it is ridiculous to suppose the real Change of the Prayers of Believers into the Body and Blood of our Saviviour which is suppos'd of the Oblations We meet with an Expression which seems somewhat strange O Jesu Christ who in the Evening of the World wast made an Evening-Sacrifice on the Cross vouchsafe to us that we may become new Sepulchres for thy Body Tho indeed these Expressions plainly shew that they are only intended for the prefiguring the Death of Christ according to the Notion of Rabanus Maurus We find there frequently that the Sacrament is said to be a Remedy for the Body and an Expiation for the Soul but this doth no more suppose the carnal Presence or the Expiation which is the fruit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice than that which we find in the Roman Order in blessing a Grave that it may be a saving Remedy to the Party resting in it for the Redemption of his Soul In the same Liturgy they say to God Do thou therefore so come down into the present Oblation that it may afford Healing unto the Living and Refreshment unto those who are Dead But this regards only the Presence of Vertue as in the Roman Order they beg of God that he would afford his Presence and Majesty in Baptism There is mention likewise made of the Immolation of the Body of Jesus Christ but this is only said by way of Resemblance as St. Augustin explains it in his 23 d Epistle to Bonifacius for in other places this Liturgy speaks of Bread offered up There is also mention made of a Sacrifice But 1 st He gives that Name to the Eucharist which every-where throughout this Liturgy is termed a Sacrifice of Praises and Thanksgivings 2 ly It compares the Sacrifice with that of Melchizedeck wherein every one knows there was nothing of Transubstantiation This is that which Rabanus explains Lib. 1. de instit clericor cap. 31. Mabillon particularly triumphs when he takes notice of a Passage which is found in the 78 th Office He offer'd up himself first to thee a Sacrifice and first taught himself to be offer'd These words offer'd up himself seem to him to be applicable to the Act of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist but he must not take it ill if we tell him that it is not true that he then offer'd up any Sacrifice the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ consisting only in his Death on the Cross the Eucharist where he had only his Death before his Eyes was only the Memorial of his Sacrifice his Offering consisting only in his Death If he did offer up himself in the Eucharist then was he already dead which is a Notion attributed to Gregory Nissen but is refuted by the Divines of the Church of Rome as impertinent Some it may be will imagine that the Authors of the Gothick Liturgy take away all Equivocation when they say Let us receive that in the Wine which flow'd from thee on the Cross But indeed here we have reason to admire how far strong Prejudices will carry Men so as even to hinder common Sense from acting for really there can be no Notion more opposite to Transubstantiation since this Notion represents the State in which Christ was given to us that is a State of Death which is contrary to the Popish Notions by which they believe him alive in the Eucharist Besides it is absolutely false that Jesus Christ did after his Resurrection retake the same Blood which he lost on the Cross The Church of Rome pretends that she hath it in her keeping and it is shown in I don't know how many places This Expression is well known to be St. Augustin's whose Doctrine is vastly opposite to that of Transubstantiation as De
two things very clearly 1 st That at that time they kept the Bread of the Eucharist in a Casket or Coffer so far were they from making it an Object of their Adoration 2 d That the mingling only of the Bread that was consecrated before with the Wine that was not consecrated made them look upon the Wine though not consecrated by the Words of Jesus Christ as the Blood of Jesus Christ which is the most extravagant and sensless Notion in the World if we suppose that these Fathers were season'd with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which attributes to the Words of Christ only the Virtue of changing the Substance of the Wine into the Substance of the Blood of Christ Allatius takes a great deal of pains to avoid this Argument which shews that the Greek Church that believes the same cannot be of the Faith of the Church of Rome In the mean time the thing is certain and Mabillon has ingenuously acknowledged that this is the true sense of that Canon And indeed there are many Proofs that make it evident that both the Greek and Latin Fathers were of this Opinion Salonius one of the most famous Bishops of Gallia Narbonensis owns no other Doctrine but that of the Old and New-Testament Drink Waters out of thine own Cistern and running Waters out of thine own Well S. By Cistern he means the Catholick Doctrine that is that of the Old and New-Testament and by the Well he understands the Depth and Height of the same Catholick Doctrine that is the various meanings of holy Scripture For in these Words he teacheth us to beware of the Doctrine of Hereticks and to attend to the reading of Holy Scripture He will have the Author 's Meaning and not Tradition to be the Explication of Scripture Do not remove the antient Land-marks or Bounds which thy Fathers have set S. By the antient Bounds he understands the Bounds of Truth and Faith which Catholick Doctors have plac'd from the beginning He would have no Man therefore receive the Truth of Holy Faith and Gospel-Doctrine any otherwise than it hath been handed down to them by the Holy Fathers and likewise commands that no Man interpret the Words of Holy Scripture otherwise than according to the Intention of each Writer He doth not own the Apocrypha How many Books did Solomon publish S. Three only according to the number of their Titles Proverbs Ecclesiastes and Canticles V. What doth Solomon say in the Proverbs or what doth he teach in Ecclesiastes and his Songs He assigns but two Places whither the Soul goes immediately For by the Tree Man is understood because every Man is as it were a Tree in the Wood of Mankind by the South which is a warm Wind is signified the Rest of Paradise and by the North which is cold is signified the Pain of Hell and the meaning of it is Wheresoever Man prepares a Place for his future abode if to the South when he falls that is dies he shall abide to all Eternity in the Rest of Paradise and the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven He makes it the greatest Absurdity that a Man should eat his own Flesh which yet follows from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But that Expression He eats his own Flesh is spoke by an Hyperbole V. What is an Hyperbole S. When any thing is exprest that is incredible V. How is this exprest hyperbolically he eats his own Flesh S. Because it is incredible that any Man should eat his own Flesh but to aggravate the slothfulness of this Fool he saith that he eats his own Flesh to shew that a Fool rather desires his Flesh should waste by Hunger and be consumed by the Misery of Want than to support it by the labour of his Hands These are all Maxims concerning divers important Articles very different from the present Maxims of the Church of Rome I grant that Prosper who was a Native of Aquitain was no more than a Lay-man but he was in so great a Reputation that there were but few Bishops of his time that have shewn more Knowledg or exprest more Zeal for the defence of Truth than he did This Testimony is given of him by Cassiodorus Photius and Vasquez Wherefore his Testimony concerning the Faith of his Country must be of great weight with us Would we know the Opinion of the Church of this Diocess He tells us of a small part of the Body of Jesus Christ thereby meaning the Eucharist or the Sacrament which was given in little Bits And it is in the same sense that he speaks of a small part of the Sacrifice Expressions that are utterly inconsistent with the Notion of the Church of Rome concerning the carnal Presence And indeed it is plain in all his Writings that he follows the steps of St. Augustin in his Expressions and Judgments of things which are contrary to those of the Church of Rome This we may see in his Extract of the Sentences of St. Augustin where he repeats what that Father had said upon Psalm 33. upon occasion of these Words of the vulgar Version which says that David ferebatur in manibus suis in the presence of Achish Where it clearly appears that he understood those Words as well as St. Augustin did of the Sacrament of his Body which may be called his Body in some sense that is to say by way of Likeness as St. Augustin expresseth himself concerning it I cite nothing here from those other Works which are attributed to him because indeed they are none of his I shall only observe two things The first is that in his Epistle to Demetrius he plainly shews that he knew nothing of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Necessity of the Ministers Intention for the Validity of the Sacraments for there he attributes all to the Work of God and not to that of the Minister according to the Doctrine of St. Augustin upon the Question of the Validity of Baptism conferred by Hereticks The other is that as he follows St. Augustin in the Matter of Free Grace as one may see in his Poems gathered from the Opinions of St. Augustin and his Sentences so he rejects the Doctrine of Merit and Works as a pure Pelagian Doctrine in several Places of his Writings Lastly We must join with these Authors Arnobius the Rhetorician since it is very probable that he lived in Gallia Narbonensis because he has dedicated some of his Works to Leontius Bishop of Arles to the Bishop of Narbonne and Faustus Bishop of Riez who died about the year 485. Arnobius explains his Belief in the Matter of the Eucharist after this manner We have received saith he upon the 4 th Psalm Wheat in the Body Wine in the Blood and Oil in Chrisme So likewise on Psal 104. he saith of Jesus Christ that he administers not only the species of Bread but also of Wine and Oil. Thus it is he describes the Eucharist and
Baptism We may observe likewise that as he recommends to Believers the consideration of these Words sursum Corda at the Moment of their receiving these Mysteries so he doth not own that any receive the Body of Christ besides those that fear him and who by Faith are made the Sanctuary of God thus he argues in his Commentaries upon Psal 21 132. As for Faustus Bishop of Riez whatever Contests he had with those who defended the Doctrine of St. Augustin in the matter of Grace which made Pope Gelasius condemn his Writings yet certain it is that France has always had the highest esteem for him possible and his Name is registred in the Catalogue of her Saints in the Roman Martyrology till it was expunged by Molanes in the last Century Neither hath this hindred but that to this Day he is honoured and prayed unto as a Saint in the Diocess of Riez His Doctrine is as follows 1. He rejects the Merits of good Works and Works of Supererrogation as particularly as if he had had an Eye to the Papists Wherefore saith he though we endeavour with all Labours of Soul and Body though we exercise our selves with all the might of our Obedience yet nothing of all this is of sufficient Worth to be rendred or offer'd up by us as a deserving Recompence for Heavenly-good Things No temporal Obedience whatsoever can be equivalent to the Joys of Eternal Life Though our Limbs may be wearied with Watchings and our Faces discolour'd with Fastings yet when all is done the Sufferings of this time will never be worthy to be compared with that Glory which shall be revealed in us He discourseth much at the same rate concerning Grace and Free-will 2. We see clearly that he did not own the Existence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist in the manner of a Spirit because he maintains all Creatures to be corporeal and that the Soul is distinctly in a certain place because if it were otherwise we must conclude it to be every where That which is very strange is that Mamertus who hath refuted him doth yet more directly thwart this Doctrine of Rome by the various Hypotheses which he proposeth when he confutes this Faustus Bishop of Riez But this Century hath detain'd me too long I proceed now therefore to consider the State of these Diocesses in the Sixth Century CHAP. VI. The State of these Diocesses in the Sixth Century WE do not find so many Authors of these Diocesses in the Sixth Century as we have had in the foregoing but however those we have of them are sufficient to inform us what their State was I begin with St. Caesarius Bishop of Arles who assisted at the Council of Agde in the year 502 and died in 542 so that he reach'd almost the middle of this Century This great Man fully represents the Notion that he had of the Eucharist when he shews that in Baptism there is the same Change and the same Presence of the Blood of Jesus Christ which he owns in the Eucharist as appears in his 4 th and 5 th Homily But in his 7 th Homily he speaks in such a manner as needs no Commentary And therefore since he was now about to withdraw his assumed Body from our Eyes and carry it up to Heaven it was needful that the same day he should consecrate for us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that he might continually be remembred by the Mystery which was once offer'd up for our Redemption that so seeing his Intercession for the Salvation of Man was daily and continual the offering up of our Redemption might be perpetual also that this everlasting Sacrifice might live in our Memory and be always present by Grace 2. Though he speaks of the Eucharist as changed into the Body of Jesus Christ by the Power of God yet he maintains that it is by Faith and by the Acts of Understanding that we can partake thereof See how he speaks to a Christian who hath been regenerated by Baptism Wherefore as without any bodily feeling having laid aside what before thou esteemedst advantageous thou art suddenly become clothed with a new Dignity and as it is not thy Eyes but thy Understanding that persuades thee that God hath healed what was wounded in thee blotted out thy Sins and wash'd away thy Stains so when thou goest up to the venerable Altar to be satisfied with Food thou may'st see the sacred Body and Blood of thy God by Faith admire it with Reverence reach it with thy Mind receive it with thy Heart and above all take it in with thy Soul 3. He expresly asserts that the Body which the Priest distributes is as well in a little Part as in the Whole which agrees only with the Sacrament and not with the natural Body of Jesus Christ 4. He maintains that the Oblation of the Bread and Wine made by Melchizedeck did typically signify the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ which is absolutely false if it be true that the Consecration destroys the Nature of the things offered as the Church of Rome believes Hear what he saith He therefore in Melchizedeck whose Genealogy or Original was unknown to those of that time by the offering of Bread and Wine did foreshew this Sacrifice of Christ of whom the Prophet pronounceth Thou art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedeck And Blessed Moses also speaking of this Mystery signifies the Wine and Blood with one Word Long before pointing at the Lord's Passion in the Blessing of the Patriarch he shall wash his Garment in Wine and his Clothes in the Blood of the Grape Mark how evidently it appears that the Creature Wine is called the Blood of Christ Consider what thou art further to enquire concerning this twofold Species seeing the Lord himself witnesseth Except saith he you shall eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you which Testimony is a most evident and strong Argument against the Blasphemies of Pelagius who impiously presumes to maintain that Baptism ought to be conferred upon Infants not to obtain Life but to attain the Kingdom of Heaven For by these Words of our Lord pronounced by the Evangelist You shall not have Life in you is plainly understood that every Soul that hath not been baptized is not only deprived of Glory but Life also Lastly In the same Sermon he saith in Conformity with the Notion of St. Cyprian about the Mixture of the Water with the Wine in the Chalice that by the Water is represented the Figure of the Nations and by the Wine the Blood of the Passion of our Saviour which supposeth the Subsistence of the Wine as well as of the Water and utterly overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. He overturns the Notion of the Romish Purgatory and follows here also the Sentiments of those of the Ancients who removed Purgatory to the last Day of Judgment
dead with the triumph of Merits but they are not to be ador'd with Divine Worship for that very reason because it is Divine Worship Seeing therefore saith he that God alone is to be worshipp'd the Martyrs and all other Saints are rather to be venerated than worshipped as we have said before in this Book And the same thing we meet with also cap. 28. towards the end 6. It appears clearly from what he saith concerning the means whereby we obtain Remission of Sins that he own'd no other Sacraments of the Church besides Baptism and the Eucharist for indeed he mentions only these two 7. He was so far from owning either the Infallibility of the Pope or of a Council which the Pope hath approved that he maintains it was a piece of Folly to look upon the 2 d Council of Nice as universal and calls it a Council of one Part of the Church only and he afterwards censures the Fathers of that Council for giving it the Title of Universal whereas it had been conven'd without the Participation and Consent of many Catholick Churches This Remark made such an Impression upon the Learned Jesuit Sirmondus that he seems not to own the second Council of Nice as a general Council 8. The Fathers of the second Nicene Council having made a Comparison between the Eucharist and Images and used these following Expressions which are not to be found at present in the Copies of that Council As the Body of our Saviour passeth from the Fruits of the Earth into an excellent Mystery so Images formed by the Industry of Artificers pass to the Veneration of those Persons according to whose Likeness they have been wrought Charlemain doth censure those who had made a Parallel between Images and the Eucharist in such a manner as shews that he knew nothing of Romish Transubstantiation He saith That the Eucharist is made by the Hand of the Priest and by calling upon the Name of God both Priest and People joining their Prayers in the Consecration thereof whereas Images stand in no need of Consecration but are made at the Discretion of the Painter He saith that Melchizedeck did not present an Image as a Type of the Body and Blood but Bread and Wine that Moses commanded a Lamb to be eaten as a Type of our Saviour wholly rejecting the Custom of worshipping Images That the Psalmist who sang that Men should eat the Bread of Angels that is Jesus Christ hath also declared that the Makers of Images are like unto the Images they have made That the Sacrament is of Divine Institution whereas the insolent Use of Images is not only without Scripture but also directly contrary to the Writings of the Old and New Testament That our Saviour never instituted the Memory of his Suffering to be kept up by the Works of Artificers and worldly Arts but by the Consecration of his Body and Blood that he was not willing that his Faith and his Confession should be express'd by Pictures but by the Mouth and the Heart We are carefully to take notice that the Authors of this Book who desired to exalt the Sacrament of the Eucharist with all their Might never give the least hint that Jesus Christ had instituted it to make it an Object of Adoration They say that the Eucharist according to the Judgment of St. Paul is preferable almost to every other Sacrament that it is made invisibly by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the Priest who calls upon God that it is carried by the Hands of Angels and laid upon the Altar of God in Heaven that it can neither increase nor be diminished that it is confirmed by the Old and New Testament that it is the Life and Nourishment of Souls that by its Manducation it leads to the Entrance of the Heavenly Kingdom that it can never be abolished no not in the time of Persecution and that no body can be saved without receiving of it Whereas Images are visibly made by the Hand of the Workman painted by the Art of the Painter placed on the Walls by the Hands of Men that by them if Men inconsiderately abuse them Sins are increased that they can increase and diminish in Beauty according to the Ability of the Workman that Age spoils them that they only feed the Eye that they only bring to remembrance things past by looking upon them that they may be spoiled by taking wet that they who keep to the true Faith are saved without having any Regard to Images And to exaggerate the Folly of their Anathema's pronounced against those that did not worship them they conclude that this Anathema strikes at the Saints of old of whom we never read that they adored them that the same was levell'd at the Martyrs who from the Baptismal Font passed immediately to the Kingdom of Heaven without any Adoration of Images and lastly that it is darted against little Infants who cannot worship them and of whom notwithstanding the Son of God saith Suffer little Children to come to me c. I own that Charlemain censureth Gregory Bishop of Neocaesaria for giving to the Eucharist the Name of the true Image of Jesus Christ For after having made out that no Artificer can form a true Image of Jesus Christ he adds when he speaks of the Eucharist That Jesus Christ did not offer up to God the Father for us in Sacrifice any Image or Prototype but himself and that he who of old had been foretold by visible Resemblances under the Shadow of the Law in the Immolation of the Lamb and in some other things as being the Sacrifice that was to be offered by truly accomplishing the things that had been prophesied of him in the Oracles of the Prophets did offer up himself to God the Father for a saving Sacrifice and bestowed upon us the Shadows of the Law being past away not some imaginary Sign but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood For the Mystery of the Blood and Body of our Lord must not now be called an Image but the Truth not the Shadow but the Body not a Type of things to come but that whith had been prefigured by the Types of old For now according to the Song of Songs the Day is risen and the Shadows are gone now Jesus Christ the End of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believes is come he hath now fully accomplished the Law Now upon those who sat in the Region of the Shadow of Death a great Light is risen Now the Vail is taken off from the Face of Moses and the Vail of the Temple being rent hath opened to us all Secrets and Things hid Now the true Melchizedeck Christ the King of Righteousness and King of Peace hath bestowed upon us not Sacrifices of Beasts but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood and hath not said This is the Image of my Body and of my Blood but This is my Body which shall
concerning the Eucharist that the Papists have never been able to return any pertinent Answer to it save only this that the Passage we quote is supposititious The Person we speak of is Christianus Druthmarus Monk of Corbie whom it seems God was willing to oppose to the corrupt Notions of Paschasius Radbertus his Abbot The Passage is this And as they were at supper Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it After that he had fulfilled the Command concerning the old Passover and put an end to the old Shadows he makes a beginning of new Grace and of a new Sacrifice He took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and which doth most of all support Mens Bodies and in it placeth the Sacrament of his Love but much more doth that spiritual Bread fully strengthen and comfort all sorts of Creatures because in him we move and have our Being First he blessed it because in himself who was Man he blessed all Mankind for having taken humane Nature upon him from the Blessed Virgin he thereby demonstrated that the Blessing and Power of the Divine Immortality was really therein He brake the Bread himself because he voluntarily offer'd up himself to suffer and that he might fill and satisfy us he made no difficulty to break the Mansion of his Soul as himself said I have Power to lay down my Life and have Power to take it up again And gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for the Remission of Sins and Preservation of Charity that they remembring this Act of his might always perform that in a Figure which he was now about to do for them and might not forget that This is my Body that is in the Sacrament And he took the Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Forasmuch as amongst all sorts of Food Bread and Wine are found to be the most effectual to strengthen and refresh our weak Bodies he with good reason thought fit by these two to ratify and confirm the Ministry of his Sacrament for Wine not only exhilarates but also encreases Blood and therefore is the Blood of Christ very properly typified thereby because whatsoever comes to us from him doth enliven us with a true Joy and encreaseth all our good And lastly As when a Person that is to take a far Journey leaves to his Friends that love him some Pledg or Token of his Love upon this Condition that they use it every day that they may not forget him So likewise hath God commanded us having spiritually changed his Body into Bread and the Wine into Blood by these two to remember what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and not to be unthankful to his most endearing Love and Charity And because Water is mingled with the Sacrament of his Blood it represents his People for whom he was pleased to die And neither is the Wine without Water nor the Water without Wine because as he died for us so must we die for him or for our Brethren that is for the Church Wherefore also Water and Blood came forth from his Body And whereas he saith This is my Blood of the New Testament this is added in contradistinction to that of the Old Testament which by the Blood of Goats could not purge away Sin from those who were still in bondage to Sin But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom The Vine is Judaea the Wine that of the Patriarchs Prophets and other Elect. For till that time Judaea had brought forth Clusters of Grapes from whence Wine flowed forth that is Works done in Faith but from the Death of our Lord wild Grapes only until the time that Enoch and Elias shall carry them up into the Kingdom that is the Church of Christ at the end of the World Or else more simply the Words may be thus taken That from the hour of his supping with his Disciples he would drink no more Wine until he was become immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection Whereas also he was pleased not to administer the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to his Disciples till after they had supp'd and that we are not commanded to take it Fasting this may be the reason the Lord had a mind to shew that the figurative Testament was only commanded till the true was come and he had now put an end to the Old Testament and instituted a New One and therefore it was that he celebrated the Old before the New The Apostles also for a long time continued the same Custom and after their other Food took this by the Lord 's Appointment but afterwards when many Jews came to communicate it was enjoined in a Synod that every one if he was cleansed from other Sins should first take the Repast of Spiritual Bread before he took that of the Temporal This place which contains an exact Commentary upon the Institution of the Holy Supper has much enrag'd the Papists and they have wrested it into all Senses to avoid the threatning Blow Sixtus Senensis tells us that in another Copy after the words This is my Body that is in a Sacrament was added truly subsisting But this Copy was never yet produc'd though they who reprinted the Work of Druthmarus in the Bibliotheca Patrum of the Cologne Edition have been pleas'd to put this Falsification of Sixtus Senensis in the Margent Cardinal Perron who was as able as any Man of France to justify the fair dealing of Sixtus Senensis in the business of this Manuscript of Lions but did not care to concern himself about it hath boldly maintained that he might with the more ease slip his Neck out of the Collar that this Passage of Druthmarus had been corrupted by the Protestants But it hath already shewn that the Edition published in 1514 by Wimfelingius before Luther begun to write against Leo X. of which the Reverend Dr. Tenison hath a Copy in his Library with the Priviledg of the Emperor Maximilian and the Arms of Pope Leo X. contains this Passage whole and entire So that it is obvious to judge that Druthmarus who was born in Aquitain taught nothing at Corbie but what he had learned from his Infancy and that which was the common Doctrine before Paschasius had undertaken to publish his Extravagancies which he did not till the year of our Lord 835. We ought also here to take notice of an Action that hapned in this Century concerning the Eucharist In the year 844 Bernard Earl of Barcelona and Duke of Septimania made a Treaty with King Charles the Bald near the City of Tholouse in the Abby of St. Saturninus where they mingled the Blood of the Eucharist with some Ink to sign the Treaty they had agreed upon The thing has been published by the famous Baluzius
in his Notes upon Agobardus and is lately reprinted by the same Author The words of Odo Aripertus who relates the matter translated run thus The Peace therefore being severally ratified and sealed by the King and Earl with the Blood of the Eucharist Bernard Count of Tholouse came from Barcelona to Tholouse and did Homage to King Charles in the Abby of St. Saturninus near Tholouse Mabillon acknowledges that this was not a Fact without Example Now let any Man imagine if he can whether People that believe Transubstantiation would ever have been capable of such a Profanation of the Blood of Jesus Christ or whether the Monks in whose Abby the thing was done would ever have suffer'd it had the thing appear'd as horrible unto them as it must of necessity appear to those who defend the Opinion of the Church of Rome I shall conclude this Chapter with giving an account of that courageous Opposition which the Bishops of Aquitain and Narbon made in the year 876 in the Council of Pontyon against the Enterprizes of Pope John VIII who being back'd by the Emperor Charles the Bald had a mind to subject all the Bishops of France and Germany to Ansegisus Archbishop of Sens as their Primate but at the same time as to his Vicar that he might execute his Decrees and inform him of the most important Affairs of those Churches which he pretended ought to be decided and ended at Rome which if so would have abolished the Power of Synods and Metropolitans This was in a manner the last considerable Effort they ever made to preserve their antient Discipline for soon after the Popes knew to manage the Kings that stood in need of them in Italy so well that by little and little they at last gained the Point and so made themselves absolute the Synods and Metropolitans retaining only an empty Name without almost any Authority at all CHAP. X. The State of these Diocesses in the Tenth Century WE are now come to the Tenth Century in which Ignorance and Barbarism overwhelm'd well nigh all the West and the Church of Rome fell at the same time into such monstrous Corruptions that those who have wrote the History thereof do not mention it without Horror I don't intend to make any stop here in alledging Proofs for what I say from the concurrent Testimonies of Genebrard Baronius and other Doctors of the Church of Rome 'T is a thing not deny'd by any one that hath ever heard speak of the History of the Church and hath been particularly set forth by Gerbertus Archbishop of Rheims who was afterwards advanced to the Papacy But yet in the mean time whatever the Corruption may have been which was scatter'd elsewhere we have good ground to believe that it had not quite stifled the antient Doctrine and Religion of these Diocesses which may be easily made out by the following Observations 1. I own that we find in the Writings of Odo the first Abbot of Clugny who was born in Aquitain some Expressions which import that he inclin'd to the Opinions of Paschasius as appears in his Collations which might make one judg that this Notion began then already to be propagated in Aquitain whose Duke William was the Founder of Clugny But we must here take notice of two things The first is That the antient Customs of this Monastry do plainly show that when this Congregation was founded those who were the Authors of these Customs were not of Paschasius's Opinion This is evident from chap. 30. of the second Book and from chap. 28. of the third The second is That though Odo might have entertained this Opinion of Paschasius concerning the carnal Presence of Jesus Christ yet we may easily observe that he never owned the Consequences of it For we find in the Relation of the Death of this Odo who died at Rome in the year 942 that he received the Eucharist but there is no mention made of any Adoration that he paid at his receiving it 2. We are to observe that in this Description of Odo's Departure which was made by one of his Disciples we meet with neither Confession before the receiving of the Eucharist nor the receiving of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction which are sufficient Proofs that he knew nothing of these Sacraments 3. It appears by the Writings of Gerbertus who was educated in the Monastery of Aurillac what was the Faith of this Diocess He had been the Tutor of Robert Son to Hugh Capet who raised him to the Archbishoprick of Rheims in the year 991 in the room of Arnulphus who was deposed He hath writ an Apology for the Council which deposed Arnulphus wherein he gives full evidence what esteem he had for the Pope and how little he believ'd the Papacy necessary to the Church not only because of the Vices of the Popes of his time but also for several political Reasons which engage every Church not to subject themselves to a foreign Power Suppose saith he that by the warlike Incursions of barbarous Nations there be no way open for us to go to Rome or that Rome it self being become subject to some barbarous Prince be at his Pleasure made part of his Kingdom shall we in this case be reduc'd to the necessity of having no Councils at all or shall the Bishops of the World to the loss and ruin of their own Kings expect the Advice and Counsels of their Enemies for the Management of the Affairs of Church and State We may see another Assertion of his in a Letter to Seguinus Archbishop of Sens I do resolvedly affirm That if the Pope of Rome himself should sin against his Brother and being often admonished should not hear the Church that this same Pope of Rome ought to be look'd upon as a Heathen and Publican Whereupon Baronius exclaims Here is a Sentence indeed worthy only to proceed from the Mouth of some great Heretick or of some most impudent Schismatick which abrogates all sacred Councils at once cuts the Throat of Canons strangles Traditions and treads under foot all the Rights of the Church that it seems impossible that a Catholick should ever dream of such things much less so saucily utter and assert them We may also gather from the subsequent Words whether or no he conceiv'd Communion with the Church of Rome to be of absolute necessity If he the Pope of Rome do therefore judg us unworthy of his Communion because none of us will comply with him in his Anti-evangelical Sentiments yet he cannot separate us from the Communion of Christ seeing a Priest ought not to be removed from his Function except he have confest or be convict of the Crime laid to his charge especially when the Apostle faith Who shall separate us from the Love of Christ And again I am certain that neither Death nor Life c. And what greater Separation can there be than to debar any Believer from the Body and Blood of the Son