THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST.  
Divided into Three Parts.  
The First, Treating of the Form of CELEBRATION, The Second, of the DOCTRINE, The Third, of WORSHIP IN THE SACRAMENT.  
Written Originally in French, by Monsieur L'ARROQUE, Minister of the Protestant Church at Quevilly, near Rouen; with the new Additions.  
Done into English by J. W.  
LONDON, Printed for George Downes, at the Three Flower de Luce's, over against S. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. MDCLXXXIV.   


The History of the EUCHARIST  
Printed for g: Downes at the three flower de luces in fleetstreet 1684    

To the Honourable Sir HUGH WINDHAM, Kt One of the JUSTICES Of His MAJESTY's Court of COMMON-PLEAS, etc.  
SIR,  
WHEN on the one hand I consider the incessant diligence used by WITS, pretended or real, in glutting our Nation with the froth and vanity of outlandish Novels, Romances, and other impertinences, tending rather to deprave the Natives, than to implant in them the Seeds of Virtue and true Gallantry; and on the other hand, how few there are who employ themselves in seeking out the little Gold which lies hid under their great heaps of Dross and Rubbish: I thought myself indispensably obliged to adhere to the Council of the famous Moralist, who said, Stultissimum credo ad imitandum non optima quaeque proponere.  
Therefore passing by the polite and disguised Writings of an Arnaud, a Friar M●imbourg, a Simon, and the like Ambodexters of the times, who in vain rack their Invention to please two Masters at once, halting betwixt God and Baal, their Duty and Obedience unto their King, and Allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, following the steps of a S. Becket, they may in time receive his Reward: I say, not meddling with such contagious Works and Writings, I have essayed to communicate to the Public, something which may tend as well to the Profit as the Pleasure of the Reader. Also remembering how acceptable the Labours of the admirable Du Bartas were in this Climate, both at Court, and also in the City and Country; and looking round the many Writers of the Age, I have singled out his Neighbour and Countryman, the venerable Monsieur L'ARROQUE, of whom it may be said, in the words of our Saviour, (if Metaphysical Dissertations are preferable before Natural) That a greater than Du Bartas is here: For he sang but the Works of the Six Days Creation, which shall be destroyed and burnt up; but our Author takes a higher flight, and as well from the Records of Heaven, as from the Registers of the soundest Antiquity, displays unto us the excellency of that august Sacrament, instituted by our Lord himself, and which is to be commemorated in the Church, unto the end of time, that thereby we may be translated into the new Jerusalem, there to be everlastingly fed and refreshed with the Fruit of the Tree of Life. As an Angel was set at the Entrance into the Garden of Eden, with a flaming Sword; so here Entrance is denied unto the profane Rout, but free Admission proclaimed unto all that are sincere, and endeavour to be so, even from the frozen Laplander unto the scorched Ethiopian, and from the Christians of Malabar, unto those of Mexico.  
I cannot omit informing your Honour, that not many years past, with my eyes I beheld the venerable Author of the following Treatise, weeping and praying in his Church at Vitry, for its preservation, then in danger of being suppressed and demolished by restless Enemies, who effected their wicked design soon after; and 'tis supposed, with the greater facility, by reason of the Coldness and Apostasy of the Lord Proprietor of the place, whose Honour and Glory was, about the same time, laid in the Dust with the Ruins of that stately Edifice. I say, I beheld the Author, much I suppose after the same posture Alexander and Paulinus, Bishops of Constantinople and Tyre, were in, when the violent persecutions of the cruel Donatists so far prevailed, as to destroy those sumptuous Fabrics, set apart in those Cities for God's true Worship and Service; and which was doubtless, in effect, the same doleful condition which our pious Bishops and Martyrs, the Famous Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, etc. were involved in, when the Floodgates of Romish Persecution had overflowed the Land.  
I have observed, That Divines (the more to affect us with the greatness of God's Mercy, in continuing the purity of his Word and Sacraments amongst us) many times look back upon the sometime flourishing estate of those happy Souls, who lived under the conduct of their Godly Pastors, in the famous Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, etc. wherein, with pure and undaunted zeal, they sang the Praises of their Glorified Saviour; until, by degrees, the rage of Heathen Enemies, either demolished their Churches and Temples, or, which is worse, introduced Idolatrous and Superstitious Worship into them. We need not now travel so far as Asia nor Greece for Instances to inhaunse our due resentments of God's Benefits, on the one hand; nor to work in us a detestation of the Rage and Cruelty of the Enemies of his Church and People, on the other: our neighbour Nation affords us too fresh and lively a Scene of the sad Catastrophe which happened unto the Primitive Churches, that I had much rather cover with a Veil, than go about to expose unto public view, did not the present occasion invite me to say something relating thereunto.  
All the World knows with what great Advice and Solemnity the Edict of Nantes was agreed upon and confirmed by the great King Henry the Fourth, for settling and assuring the Peace and Safety of the Protestant Churches and Subjects of France. The same Edict was renewed and confirmed by his Son Lewis the Thirteenth, and all the great Officers of his Kingdom, but how well kept, the forcing Rochel, etc. may testify.  
At the Coronation of the present King Lewis the Fourteenth, it was again amply confirmed by him, as it had been before by his Father and Grandfather, and as solemnly sworn unto as the Pyrenaean Treaty, so that every body concluded the Protestants of France would not have been molested nor injured in his Reign; and yet it is in his time found by sad experience, that they have been most of all oppressed and persecuted, and that without any pretence of taxing them of engaging in the Projects of a Queen-mother, or Prince of Conde: but all Civil Dissensions being passed over and pacified, within the compass of these last twenty years, wherein they desired only to live peaceably, under the protection of the Laws and public Faith, contrary thereunto, the insatiable rage of wicked Men hath deprived them of their Commands, Offices, and Employments, and the liberty of executing them, in Civil as well as Military Affairs; whereby many thousands had starved, had they not found support and sanctuary under the Wings of our great Defender of the true Faith. And whereas, by the Laws of the Land, there was no difference to be made betwixt Protestant and Popish Subjects, for enjoying and executing all manner of Trades, and places of trust, the quite contrary hath been practised: the Courts of Judicature, wherein was an equal number of Counsellors and Judges of both Religions, for hearing and determining differences, have been suppressed and quite altered; Attorneys, Apothecaries, Surgeons, and generally all other mechanic and handicraft Trades, not permittedto gain or eat their bread in quiet. But which is most doleful of all to consider, the Ministers of the Gospel are forbidden to preach the word of God, many of them slain, imprisoned, and banished, their Churches pulled down to the ground, and their flock dispersed over the face of the Earth, into England, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Germany, etc. as Sheep having no Shepherd, just as it happened unto their Predecessors, the Albigenses and Waldenses, for the same cause, above Five hundred Years ago; and the few that remain in the Land of their Nativity, waiting for the time that their King and Sovereign, like an other Cyrus, or Charlemagne, his Royal and Religious Ancestor, will give and proclaim deliverance unto the dispersed Tribes, from their cruel Bondage, and from so great a Famine of the Word: for at present they many times see their young Infants yield up their innocent Souls, in carrying them unto places far distant, to receive the Seal of the Covenant of Baptism; others yielding up their Spirits without the Benefit or Help of their Spiritual Guide's consolation at the hour of Death; besides many other great Miseries which they daily suffer in Body, Soul, and Estate: So that the Parisian Maacssre was a kindness, being compared with the present usage which the Protestants of France do receive by the diligence of Romish Emissaries, and from their own unkind Countrymen; for that gave them a speedy deliverance from all miseries, whereas they are now, as it were, held on the Rack, and made suffer a thousand Deaths, before they are freed from the Burden of one miserable Life.  
When our Neighbours and brethren's Houses are burning, and all in a Flame, for the same common Faith and Reformation, all Christians that have any sense of Religion and Piety, have great reason to unite their Prayers unto the God of Heaven, That he would be pleased to avert his just Judgements from falling upon us for our great Impieties, and preserve our Church and Nation from the sad calamities which have ruined so many Christian Families in France, etc. and which threaten the like usage unto the rest of the Reformed World.  
I own, it is the singular Blessing of God, and by the Liberality of the great Encourager of Virtue and Learning, his Grace the Lord Primate and Chancellor of Ireland, that I am happy this day in addressing my self unto you, almost in the Words of S. Paul unto Felix, the Roman Governor, in adventuring to speak the more freely in this matter, because you have been for many years a Righteous Judge unto this Nation, living so that Envy itself dares not whisper the least Corruption or sign of fear or favour to Friends or Enemies, and are perfectly sensible of the verity of these things, which I have only hinted at, to avoid Prolixity, lest I may be thought to write a Book of Martyrs, rather than an Epistle Dedicatory.  
Our Gentry and Gallants formerly were wont, in great numbers, to flock and resort unto Montpellier, Montauban, Bergerac, etc. where they freely exchanged their English Gold for the Nourishment and Recreations they there found, both for Body and Soul. But now it may too truly be said of those places in particular, and of other whole Provinces in general, That the Ark of God, their Glory, is departed from them: and they, as the Asiatic Churches, are overspread with thick and dark Clouds of Profaneness, Atheism, Ignorance, and Superstition; so that those who travel that way, may justly fear it will be to their damage both in Body and Soul. What was the pleasant and beautiful Jerusalem, when the Christians were sent out of it unto Pella, and other places? And what is France, but an Aceldama, now that the Protestants are expelled, contrary to the proceed of the wise and valiant Deal of Lewis the Twelfth, who before he would ruin his Subjects for Religion, sent Commissaries, and not Dragoons, into the several parts of his Dominions, to be justly informed of the truth of matters, who, upon the Report made unto him by his Commissaries, swore a great Oath in presence of his Officers and Counsellors of State, That the Protestants were the best Subjects he had in his Kingdom, and thenceforward commanded that they should not be molested in Body or Estate. And it is well known that the present King has much better knowledge and experience of his Protestant Subjects Loyalty, than that great Prince had occasion to know: so that it is hoped the sinister Councils of a Plotting Jesuitical Faction will not always prevail, to the Ruin of so many faithful good Subjects, and of so flourishing a Kingdom.  
I have presumed here to present unto you an Epitome of the chiefest revolutions which have occurred upon this tremendous Article of Christian Religion, in the Eastern and Western Churches, from the Apostles days unto the last Age, wherein the truth of the chiefest matters negotiated by Emperors, Kings, Councils, Popes, Prelates, and the eminentest Doctors of the Church, in the several Centuries, are retrieved, and recited with as great integrity and moderation aspossible can be.  
I have endeavoured to accommodate myself unto the Author's sense and terms, as near as I could; and if any passage seems to vary from the Doctrine of the Church of England, (which I do not observe through the whole Book) I hope to find a favourable Censure, being only a Translator and not the Author. If the Work be duly weighed, it will not stand in need of much recommendation for the buying and reading of it: such generous WINE needs no Bush; all is Loyal and Orthodox here; it recommends itself unto all sorts of Persons that desire to see the weightiest matters of Religion interwoven with the pleasant light and truth of the purest History of all Ages, whereby Faith, as well as men's Reason, is improved and confirmed, to the eternal silencing of that common question of the Gentlemen of the Roman Persuasion unto Protestants, in ask, Where their Religion was before Luther and Calvin? Here are Depths where Elephants may swim, the learned and curious may find sweetness and satisfaction; also the weakest Lamb, the pious and devout Soul, may wade without fear, and go away plunged and pleased in pleasure and delight. And how could I better expose this Sacred Treasure of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, unto public view, than by recommending my weak endeavours herein unto your favourable acceptance and Patronage, having received the first design of coming to light near the famous Mansion of your worthy Progenitors, where for several years I spent some of the pleasantest days of all my life; wherein I freely confess, as God's Glory and the good of his Church was chief designed by me in the main, so also I thought fit to express my Gratitude unto the great Family of the Windhams in particular, a Family known to be truly Noble and Great in the number of its flourishing Branches, as well as in Riches, Honour, and approved Loyalty unto their King and Country; the true happiness and lasting prosperity whereof, shall ever be sincerely wished and desired by,  
Honoured Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, Jos. Walker.   

THE Author's Preface Translated from the FRENCH.  
THE Controversies about Religion being a kind of War, or if you will a sort of Lawsuit, wherein both Parties plead their Cause with some heat; it seems to me very difficult to write, and not let fall some words that may favour the interest of that side for which we are concerned, because the flesh corrupts the acts of the Understanding, and the old Man never fails to vitiate the purity of the thoughts of the new. I do not here speak of those angry Writers, who in all their Works, do show an unlimited passion for the Cause which they defend, and meditate nothing but disparaging their Adversaries, to make their own Party triumph by the Calumnies which they cast upon the others. I speak of mild and peaceable Spirits, who writ with moderation; who, nevertheless, do it not always so successfully, but they let drop some things which all do not approve of, because their ever remains frailty in man, and the innocency of the second Adam, hath not a complete victory over the first. What I say, is particularly verified in examining the Tradition of the Church, upon the Articles of our Faith; for both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, pretending that it is favourable to their Cause, each allege out of the holy Fathers, to establish their Belief and Religion. This consideration makes me think that the surest way, and most edifying means for Christians, would be plainly to produce what hath been from time to time received and believed in the Church upon the points in Controversy; and Historically without dispute to represent the sentiments of our Ancestors, upon all the Articles which are to be examined. This is what I have endeavoured to do upon the matter of the Eucharist, which is, and will be always (if God prevent it not by his grace) a stone of stumbling, and a means which the Devil will never fail to use, to keep up amongst Christians that unhappy strife wherewith they are so pleased, but which ought to draw tears of blood from those good Souls that are sensibly touched for the glory of God, and that without ceasing by their prayers desire that he will give unto all, the grace to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The better to succeed in my design, and to represent the Sacrament at large, I have divided my Work into three Parts: In the first, I examine the outward Form of Celebration; I prove that Bread and Wine have always been the matter of the Sacrament amongst Christians. I hint at the mixture of Water with the Wine in the holy Cup; and I endeavour to discover the Original, as well as the Mystery which the ancient Doctors of the Church since S. Cyprian, have sought for in this mixture. I mention sundry Sects of Heretics, whereof some have changed the matter of the Sacrament, others have corrupted the Celebration; and lastly, others have quite rejected it, not suffering that it should be celebrated at all. I omit not what S. Ignatius said of certain Heretics who condemned the celebration, nor the Heresy of one called Tanchelin, who also denied it, but through another Principle; I make some mention of the Slanders which the Jews and others, cast upon Christians by reason of the Sacrament; And I treat of the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches, about the using of leavened and unlevened Bread. Then I consider whence the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament was taken, what was the fashion of the Bread, with the innovations and changes which have thereupon happened. From thence I proceed to the consideration of the place of Consecration, of the matter of the Chalices and Patins, that is to say, the Vessels which were used in this holy action; this consideration is followed with an inquiry of the Language wherein Consecration was made, and wherein all the Service was generally performed; and from this Inquiry, I proceed to the Examination of Ceremonies, and of the Form of Consecration; I mean, the words of Consecration, to know whether the ancient Church did consecrate by Prayers, Blessings, and giving of Thanks, or by these words, This is my Body, as is now the practice of the Latin Church. Then I treat of the Oblation or the Form of the Sacrifice, and I show the Reasons and Motives which obliged the holy Fathers to give to the Eucharist the name of Oblation and Sacrifice: I annex unto the consideration of the Oblation, that of the Elevation, and of the Fraction; and I show at what time the Latins began to lift up the Host, to warn the people to adore it: moreover, I examine the Distribution and Communion, and in the first place, the Time, the Place, and the Posture of the Communicant, the Persons who distributed, those who communicated, with the words of the one and the other, and then of the Thing distributed, treating at large the Question of the Communion under both kinds. I also show, that for several Ages, Communicants received the Eucharist with their hand; that they were permitted to carry it unto their Houses, and to carry it along with them in their Journeys and Travels; and that the ancient Christians were so little scrupulous in this matter, that sometimes they sent the Sacrament unto the Sick by Lay persons, Men, Women, Acolytes, and young Boys; and not only so, but they made Plasters of it, they buried it with the Dead. In some Churches they burned the remainder of the Sacrament, and in others, they caused it to be eaten by little Infants. Sometimes they took consecrated Wine and mixed it with Ink, than they dipped their Pen in these mixed Liquors, the more to confirm the Acts they intended to sign. In the Second Part, I describe the History of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, upon this weighty Article, beginning with the reflections they have made upon the words of Institution, and upon the interpretation they have given of these words, This is my Body; and after these Reflections, I represent a great number of Testimonies, wherein they call the Eucharist, Bread and Wine, in the very act of communicating; they affirm it is Bread which is broken, that it is Corn, Wheat, the fruit of the Vine, Fruits of the Earth, and like terms: They positively say, That it is Bread and Wine; Bread, wherewith our Bodies are nourished, the matter whereof passeth through the natural accidents of our common Food, Bread which is consumed in the celebration of the Sacrament. They affirm, that the Bread and the Cup, which we receive at the Lord's Table, are things inanimate; that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration: and because: one is found amongst them that much varies from this language, I represent unto the Reader what some have said to reconcile this Author with others who have expressed themselves otherwise than he hath done. Then reassuming the thread of my History, I make appear, that these same Doctors have believed, that participating of the Eucharist, broke the fast, and that they have spoken of what is received in the Communion, as of a thing whereof one received a little, a morsel, a piece, a small portion. And having seen what they believed, and what they said of the things which we receive in the Eucharist, I inquire what they taught of the Use, the Office, and Employ of the sacred Symbols: And they tell us, that the Eucharist is the Sacrament, the Sign, the Figure, the Type, the Antitype, the Symbol, the Image, the Similitude, and the resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And the better to instruct us in the nature and force of these expressions, they will have us make these two observations, First, that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign, a Figure, an Image, it is in opposition to the reality, which they consider as absent. The other is, that they constantly hold, that the Image and the Figure cannot be that whereof they are the Image and Figure. And indeed, not to leave their Doctrine exposed unto the strokes of Calumny, they declare, that if the Eucharist be a Figure, and an Image, it is not a bare Figure, nor an Image without operation; but a Figure, an Image, and a Sacrament replenished with all the virtue and all the efficacy of the Body and Blood of our blessed Saviour, clothed, if it may be so said, with the Majesty of his person, and accompanied in the lawful Celebration with all the fruits, and with all the benefits of his death and Sufferings. But because the same Fathers who affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, and who say, that it is the Sign, the Symbol, the Figure, and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, do say also, That it is his Body and his Blood, that it passeth and is turned into his Body and Blood; I have not omitted to report the explications which they give us thereupon, and to show which of those sorts of expressions they have limited; for by this means it is easy to comprehend their words, and intentions. Having ended the Examination of their Doctrine, I have applied myself unto the search and inquiry of its consequence, to know if they believed the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, with the mouth of the body, the eating of the same Flesh by the wicked, as well as by the righteous, and the presence of the Lord upon Earth, as to his Humanity, and how they understood the following Maxims, whether a Body can be in several places at the same time; whether it can subsist invisibly after the manner of a Spirit, without occupying any space; whether what hath been done long since, can still be done every day; whether the Cause can be later than the Effect; whether that which containeth, ought not to be greater than that which is contained; whether Accidents can exist without their Subject; whether the Senses may be deceived in the report they make of sensible Objects, when there is no defect in the Organ, or in the medium, or situation of the Object; whether a Body ought to be visible, and palpable, and whether it ought to have its parts so distinguished the one from the other, that each part ought to answer the respective part of place; whether there may be penetration of dimensions; whether one may dwell in himself; whether a Body may be all entirely in one of its parts; and whether whatsoever is seen and touched, and falls under sense, be a Body. And to the end nothing be wanting to establish the Doctrine of the Fathers in the point of the Eucharist, I add unto direct proofs, a great many indirect proofs, taken from their words and actions, whence are drawn several inductions, which contribute very much to show what were their sentiments of this Article of our Faith. Then I represent the Alterations and changes happened in the ancient expressions and Doctrine, the contests of the Ninth Age, whereunto if I mistake not, I have given much light by certain considerations, which show as clear as the light, which of the two Opinions had the better, that of Paschasius, or that of his Adversaries. The History of the Tenth Age, shall be represented in such a manner I hope, as will not be displeasing unto the candid Reader, seeing it will inform him that in that Age, which I consider neither as an Age of Darkness, nor of Light, but participating of both, wherein things passed otherwise than hath been hitherto believed. I treat exactly of what passed in the Eleventh Century, in regard of Berengarius, and his Followers; in regard of the Albigenses, and Waldenses, in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries; of Wicklif, and the Lollards in England; in the Fourteenth Age, of the Taborites in Bohemia; in the Fifteenth, and until the separation of the Protestants, with some Observations which I make from Age to Age, upon the Greek Church. And in the last Part, wherein I treat of the Worship, I examine the preparations which precede the Celebration; I inquire the time wherein Christians began to introduce in the exercise of their Religion, the use of Incense and Candles, especially at the Celebration of the Sacrament. Unto this practice, I add that of the sign of the Cross, and also of material Crosses; the consideration of holy Vestments, and of those particularly appointed for this holy Ceremony, not forgetting that of Flowers, which were used in form of Coronets, or otherwise, in honour of the Eucharist. I make one Chapter of the dispositions requisite for a Communicant in respect of God, and of Jesus Christ; and another, of those which he ought to have in regard of the Sacrament; which engageth me to speak something of Auricular Confession, and to inquire whether the Holy Fathers have required it as a disposition absolutely necessary unto a lawful Communion: And I conclude the whole Work with the question of the Adoration of the Sacrament, which I treat of with some care and exactness, to the end, the Reader might see what hath been the Belief and practice of the ancient Church on so important a point as this is, and when the first Decrees were made for worshipping the Host.  
I know very well there can be nothing of testimony, be it never so clear; but the subtlety of men will find means to elude, and this is it which hath rendered, and will render the disputes of Religion immortal, many of those who handle them, seeking more their own, than God's glory, and examining the passages of the Ancients, with the prejudices they have been before prepossessed with. Thence it is, that beholding them in a bad light, they can never rightly understand what was the true Belief of the Church upon the Controversies wherewith it hath been agitated so many years. Nevertheless, there is nothing we should more endeavour, than to represent, and discover the naked truth; not caring that men should triumph over us, so that truth might triumph over us all. It is with this design, that I have undertaken to discover sincerely what Christians have believed in past Ages, and the Article of the Eucharist, which seems to me, one of the most essential, and which causeth the greatest division amongst Christians in the West.  
But to the end that none may be mistaken in the explication of the testimonies of the holy Fathers, and not swerve from their Intentions, I will propose some means, which seem not to me improper, and the practice whereof may be of great use unto all such as desire to be instructed in what they believed. In the first place, their Works ought to be read without any prejudice, I speak of their genuine, not forged, Works; for when one is pre-occupyed in favour of an Opinion, and sets about reading them, one shall find, what is not intended therein, prejudice so darkening the understanding, that many times the shadow is taken for the substance; and a fallacious appearance, for the truth, because that prejudice predominates, and makes men incapable of rightly judging what they read; the Idea of the opinion which prepossesseth us, so filling the faculty of the Understanding, that it can receive no other impression until we dismiss these prejudices. Wherefore the first thing to be done when we set about reading the Monuments, which we still enjoy, of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, is well to examine ourselves, to see if we be free from all sorts of preoccupation. For, provided we bring unto this study nothing of our own, but attention, and a sincere desire of knowing the truth, we shall gather Fruits full of consolation and joy, and we shall doubtless discover, what hath been the belief of those ancient Doctors upon the point which we examine. Secondly, great heed must be taken not to separate what God hath joined together, I mean, the nature, and the matter of the Symbols, from their efficacy, and from their virtue, in their lawful use: for then these things are inseparable, although they be different one from another; for the nature of Bread and Wine is one thing, and the grace and virtue which the Consecration addeth unto their nature, is another thing: and therefore it is, that the holy Fathers spoke not so honourably of the Sacrament, when they consider the substance of the Symbols, as when they regard their efficacy and virtue. And indeed, when they have a design to represent this efficacy, they make use of the loftiest and most magnificent expressions, to raise the Dignity of this Mystery, and to make us conceive a grand Idea of it; and certainly it is with great reason, because 'tis a thing very worthy our admiration, and which I may say doth surpass our understanding, that Christ Jesus should accompany his Sacraments with so great a power, that he should cleanse our Souls with a few drops of Water, and that he should nourish them with a few crumbs of Bread, and a few drops of Wine, but after a manner so Noble, so Heavenly, and so Divine, that all we can do is, to feel the fruits and advantages, without conceiving the manner, or how it is effected: And therein is seen that magnificence of the Works of God, 
Tertul. de Baptis. c. 2.  which is promised in the effect; whereof Tertullian speaks, and which he opposeth unto the simplicity of these same Works, which appears in the Action; and in respect of which Simplicity, the Fathers have expressed themselves, in terms more humble, and not so lofty, agreeable unto the nature of Symbols. This second means shall be followed by a third, which is not the least considerable; and for the understanding whereof, it is necessary to observe, that the Holy Fathers have used two sorts of expressions in speaking of the Eucharist: by the one, they affirm, that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine; and by the other, they say, it is the Body and Blood of Christ: These two sorts of expressions taken literally, cannot agree together, nor be both true in relation to one and the same Subject. For if the Eucharist be properly the Body of Jesus Christ, it is not properly Bread; and if it be properly Bread, it cannot be understood to be properly the Body of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless the Fathers who have said, that the Eucharist is Bread, have also said that it is the Body of Jesus Christ; how shall we then do, to give a right sense unto expressions so different, and which in appearance are so inconsistent? That which we should do, is maturely to consider what these Holy Doctors have said for explanation of their meaning; and that cannot better be done, than by diligently searching their Works; that of the two sorts of expressions which they have used, they have restrained the one, without giving any limitation unto the other: for in equity it must be granted that those which they have limited, ought not to be explained according to their intention, without the restrictions which they have used; and that on the contrary the others which have received no limitation should be understood simply and absolutely, and in the proper terms wherein they have expressed them; and to say the truth, had they intended that these two so different expressions should have been understood in the same manner, wherefore should they have taken so much care and pains to limit and restrain the one, and never heed to take the least care in restraining or sweetening the others? Such different proceed in regard of these kinds of expressions, doth it not plainly declare that they intended that they should be differently understood, and that there should be given unto those which they have restrained, a Figurative and Metaphorical Sense? and unto those which were not restrained, a proper and literal Sense? that is to say, that the former should be taken for Figurative Speeches, and the latter for proper expressions, and without any Figure. If then they have restrained and limited the expressions which do affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine, and if they have not limited those which affirm that 'tis the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it must be concluded, that those which declare that the Sacrament is Bread and Wine, are improper and figurative Speeches; and that the others which say that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord, are proper and literal expressions. But if on the other side, they have taken exact care to restrain the propositions which say, That the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ without adding any limitation unto the others which asserted that it is Bread, it must be necessarily inferred, that when they said that the Eucharist is the Body of our Lord, they spoke improperly and figuratively; and on the contrary, that they spoke literally and properly, when they affirmed that it is Bread and Wine. Now the Reader will perceive in perusing this Treatise, what manner of speaking these Holy Doctors have used herein; for it is enough for me here to propose unto him the means of right understanding them.  
The fourth rule to be observed for the right understanding their testimonies, is not to make them clash one against another, nor to imbroil them in contradictions: for it must be supposed, that they were prudent and judicious enough not to contradict themselves, and to keep themselves from a reproach which would have been cast on them, had that befallen them. There are two things in their works relating to the matter we treat of, which should be carefully distinguished, but in such sort as to take them always in good Sense; I mean the ground of their Doctrine, and its consequences. And indeed the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers having had its consequences, as the greatest number of Doctrines have had, it is evident that of two explications which may be given unto it, there is but one that is true; that which shall make a contradiction betwixt the Doctrine and its consequences, and the consequences and the Doctrine, is false, and contrary to their Intention; whereas that, that reconciles both, is lawful and genuine: for their Doctrine must be considered with its consequences, as a Body, whereof all the parts should have a dependence, the one to the other, and all tend to the same end, as so many lines to the centre. I have examined a great many of these consequences in this History, to the end that those who read it, may judge if they agree with the foundation of the Doctrine, and if the Doctrine and its consequences; do favour the substantial change for if the consequences favour this change, it will be a great presumption that the Doctrine doth not disfavour it, although it should not so positively establish it, as the Latins have done. But also if all these consequences are directly opposite unto the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, it will be a manifest proof, that the ground of the Doctrine is no less opposite unto it, and that the Ancients have not received this Doctrine into the Object of their Faith, and that they made it not an Article of their Belief. This fourth rule shall be strengthened with a fifth, which appears no less important unto me, and which only demands, that doubtful and uncertain passages ought to be explained by certain passages, and the obscure by the clear and manifest ones. This is a Maxim of Tertullian's which I'll not allege in this place, because it is alleged in the Body of the Work: but after all, there's nothing more just and reasonable. It often befalls most Authors to deliver themselves more happily at one time than at another, though they treat of the same Subject; it happens unto some through neglect, or not having well digested their thoughts, it being impossible to express themselves clearly on a Subject, if the mind have only confused notions of it; others do so for reason, which may here be said particularly of the Fathers of the Church, when they treat of the Sacraments, principally of that of the Eucharist; for there were certain Times and Places when they explained not themselves so clearly as at other times, although they never said any thing contrary to their Sentiments, the discipline of their times not suffering them to do otherwise. But however the matter happened, it seems very just and equal when the mind of an Author would be known upon a matter which he hath treated in divers Places, in some places clearer than at others, to have recourse unto those Places wherein he hath most clearly explained himself, and by those to interpret the others wherein he expressed himself more obscurely, either through inadvertency, or for reason more darkly and ambiguously; this kind of proceeding is natural unto all Mankind, and reason shows 'tis the safest way can be taken in these occasions. I will not fear to say that 'tis the only means to terminate the Disputes and Controversies of Religion, because, they all arising from the several interpretations given unto passages of the Holy Scriptures, and of those of the ancient Doctors of the Church, they might be easily reconciled if Men would agree that the most clear and intelligible should serve as a Commentary unto the more difficult and obscure. Unto all these rules I will add a sixth, which shall be the last. The Father's being on this occasion to be considered as witnesses examined, to learn of them what was the belief of the ancient Church touching the Sacrament, there's no question to be made but that the greater number ought to be preferred before the less, and that the lesser number ought to submit unto the greater, things being otherwise alike; I mean both the one and the other being of equal Authority, and their Testimony alike worthy of belief: for instance, if eight or ten amongst them should unanimously depose, that the substance of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is abolished by the Consecration, and that there remain only the accidents and appearance, which subsist miraculously without any Subject; and that there was but one, that said to the contrary: It is not to be doubted but the testimony of the Ten, aught to be preferred before one single Person; because every one of the Ten is as credible in his particular, as he that is alone of his own Opinion, and that there is much more likelihood that one single Person may be mistaken in relating the belief of the Church, than ten Persons that agree in their Testimonies. But by the same reason, if Ten be found that testify that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration; and that on the contrary, one single Person shall say, it is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: we are obliged to confess, that the belief for the which the ten Persons do declare, hath been the true Belief of the ancient Church; and that the sentiments of this single Person, is a particular Opinion which ought to be rejected, or at the least, if possible, endeavour to recover him unto the general Opinion believed amongst the Christians of his time, by giving unto his words a more mild Explication, and the most favourable Construction that may be. I think no Body can reasonably condemn the Means which I have proposed, the practice whereof may conduce very much to the right understanding of the Holy Fathers, provided we observe them sincerely, and no other end be proposed in explaining their Testimonies, but what I have had in reporting them in this Treatise, that is, a love of the Truth, 
Tertul. de Virgin. veland. c. 1.  Against which no prescription can be made, neither by length of time, by the credit of Persons, nor by the Privileges of countries'. To conclude, the Reader may be pleased to take notice, that if in this History I have spoken of the Country of the Abassins' as of the Kingdom of Prester John, it was to accomnodate myself with the vulgar Opinion, without making exact inquiry what it is, and without troubling myself at this time, to reconcile Historians and Travellers that have written diversely of it.   

THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS.  

PART I.  
Containing the outward form of Celebration.  

CHAP. I. WHerein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament. Page 1  
CHAP. II. Wherein is mention made of divers sorts of Heretics, as far only as may suffice to clear the Point in Question. p. 7  
CHAP. III. Progress of Considerations of the Matter of the Sacrament, wherein is examined what is said by S. Ignatius of certain Heretics that rejected the Sacrament; the Heresy of one Tanchelin, who also rejected it, but by another principle; the reproaches of Jews, and other Enemies, and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches, about leavened and unleavened Bread. p. 22  
CHAP. IV. Wherein is showed, whence the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament was had, and what was the form of the Bread, with the innovations and changes which thereupon succeeded. p. 30.  
CHAP. V Of the Consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, and first of the place where they were Consecrated, and of the Matter of Chalices and Patins. p. 39  
CHAP. VI Of the Language wherein Consecration, and generally of all the Service. p. 54  
CHAP. VII. Of the Ceremonies and form of Consecration. p. 65  
CHAP. VIII. Of the Oblation or form of the Sacrifice. p. 81  
CHAP. IX. Of the Elevation, and breaking the Bread. p. 101  
CHAP. X. Of the Distribution, and of the Communion; and first of the Time, the Place, and Posture of Communicants. p. 110  
CHAP. XI. Of him that distributes the Sacrament, and of him that communicates, with the words both of the one and the other p. 121  
CHAP. XII. Of the thing Distributed and Received. p. 131  
CHAP. XIII. The Eucharist received with the Hand. p. 150  
CHAP. XIV. Of the liberty of carrying the Eucharist home, after having taken it in the Church, and of carrying it in Journeys, and Voyages. p. 160  
CHAP. XV. The Eucharist s●nt unto the absent, and the Sick; unto whom it was sometimes sent by Lay-people, Men, Women, Children, etc. p. 164  
CHAP. XVI. Divers Uses, and divers Customs touching the Eucharist. p. 169    

PART II.  
Containing the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers.  

CHAP. I. REflections made by the Holy Fathers upon the Institution of the Sacrament. p. 187  
CHAP. II. What the ●●thers believed of the things we receive in the Sacrament, and wh●● they said of them. p. 199  
CHAP. III. Of the use, and office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament. p. 213  
CHAP. IV. Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers. p. 231  
CHAP. V Continuation of the Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers. p. 246  
CHAP. VI Other proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, with the Inferences drawn by Protestants from them. p. 265  
CHAP. VII. Continuation of the Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and of the Inductions of Protestants. p. 277  
CHAP. VIII. Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, drawn by Protestants from some practices of the Ancient Church. p. 291  
CHAP. IX. Other Proofs drawn from the silence of Pagans, and of certain things objected against them by the Holy Fathers. p. 298  
CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what passed in regard of Heretics, either of their silence, or of the Father's dispute against them. p. 308  
CHAP. XI. Of the change made in the Expressions, or the History of the Seventh Century. p. 361  
CHAP. XII. Wherein is Examined what ensued in the Eighth Century. p. 365  
CHAP. XIII. Containing the History of the Ninth Century. p. 385  
CHAP. XIV. Continuation of the Ninth Century, wherein is treated of the Dignities and Promotions of Heribold. p. 4●5  
CHAP. XV. Continuation of the History of the Ninth Century, wherein is examined the silence of Pope Nicholas the First, and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church. p. 430  
CHAP. XVI. Of the State of the Tenth Century. p. 439  
CHAP. XVII. Of what passed in the Eleventh Century. p. 450  
CHAP. XVIII. Continuation of the History of the Eucharist, or the state of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. p. 465  
CHAP. XIX. The History of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, p. 497    

PART III.  
Wherein is treated of the worshipping the Sacrament.  

CHAP. I. OF the Preparations which go before the Celebration. p. 521  
CHAP. II. Of Dispositions necessary for the Communion; and first, of the Motions of the believing Soul, in regard of God, and of Jesus Christ. p. 541  
CHAP. III. Of the motions and dispositions of the Receiver, in regard of the Sacrament. p. 548  
CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of Adoration is examined. p. 556     

THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST.  
VINCENTIUS Lerinensis hath left us for a Maxim above M C. years ago, 
Vincent. In common.  That great heed must be taken to retain in the Catholic Church what hath been believed every where, always, and by all; This Maxim appears so just and reasonable, that Christians should make no difficulty to submit unto it, however divided they be, otherwise, in matters of Religion; and although the Author was not wholly without blame, seeing there are some which think that he fought under the Ensigns of the demi Pelagians, that he was very opposite unto St. Augustine's Doctrine touching Predestination, and that it was against him that St. Prosper did write, in answering the Objections which go under the name of Vincentius. Nevertheless I do not judge that any fault is to be found in his Maxim, nor that any difficulty ought to be made in receiving it, seeing that St. Austin himself, whose name and memory shall ever be in veneration amongst good Men, hath written something to the same purpose before Vincentius Lerinensis. 
Aug. l. 4. de bapt. c. 24. t. 7.  It is very justly supposed (saith he) that what the Catholic Church believes, and hath not been instituted by Councils, but hath been always believed, is derived only from Apostolical Authority. Undertaking then to treat Historically of the Eucharist, and by God's assistante to show what hath been believed in all Ages in the Church, touching this so important point of our Salvation, there is a necessity that we should look back unto Jesus Christ the Author of this august Sacrament, and the true beginning of the Antiquity we are to inquire into; for as the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian said, If Jesus Christ only ought to be heard, 
Cyprian. Ep. 63. ad Caecil.  we should not regard what some before us have thought fit to be done, but what Jesus Christ who is before all, hath first done: for we ought not to follow the customs of Men, but the truth of God. To know what he hath said and done in the institution of this Mystery, the Evangelists and St. Paul must be consulted, who tell us, that our Saviour having finished the solemnity of the ancient Passover, and intending to proceed unto the institution of the New; I mean of the Eucharist, to leave unto the Church an Illustrious Monument of his great Love and Charity▪ he took Bread, and having given thanks unto his Father over the Bread, that is to say, having blessed and consecrated it, he broke it into morsels, and gave it unto his Disciples, saying, Take, eat; also he took the Cup wherein was Wine, and having blessed it, as he had done the Bread, he gave it unto them, saying these words, Drink ye all of it; that in distributing the Bread, he said unto them, That it was his Body give● or broken for them; and giving them the Cup he said, That i● wa● his Blood, or the New Testament in his Blood, shed for many for the remission of Sins, and that he would drink no more of that fruit of the Vine, until he drank it new in the Kingdom of his Father; commanding them expressly to celebrate this Divine Sacrament until his coming from Heaven, to show in the Celebration of it, the remembrance of his Person and sufferings; whereunto St. Paul doth add the preparations which Communicants ought to bring unto the Holy Table, for fear lest this mystery which is intended unto the Salvation and consolation of Men, should turn unto their judgement and condemnation, if they partake thereof unworthily. But because the actions of Jesus Christ do prescribe unto us, if I may so speak, the manner how we should celebrate this holy Mystery, that his words instruct us what we ought to believe, and that the preparations which St. Paul requires of us, contain in effect, all the motions of a faithful Soul that disposes itself to partake thereof; motions which, as I conceive, are again contained, either in whole or in part in the commemoration which our Saviour hath recommended to us; we have thought fit to follow this Divine pattern, and thereupon to erect the platform and Oeconomy of our work. For besides that in so doing, we shall imitate as much as possible may be, the Example of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which ought to be our Law and guide; we shall also ease the memory of the Readers, we shall facilitate the understanding of those things we have to say, and we shall lead them safely, by the way which in all likelihood is best and plainest, unto the clear and distinct knowledge of the constant and universal tradition of the Christian Church upon this Article of our Faith. To this purpose we will divide our Treatise into three Parts; the first shall treat of the exterior Worship of the Sacrament, and generally of what concerns it, and of what is founded as well on the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating, as of the blessed Apostles communicating. The second shall contain the Doctrine of the holy Fathers, the true tradition of the Church, which derives its Original and Authority of what our Saviour said unto his Disciples, that the Bread which he gave them, was his Body broken, and the Cup his Blood shed, and in that he commanded them to celebrate this Sacrament in remembrance of him and of his death. And lastly, the third shall examine the Worship, I mean the dispositions which ought to precede the Communion, the motions of the Soul of the Communicant, whether it be in regard of God and of Jesus Christ, or in regard of the Sacrament; in a word, all things which do relate unto it. And in each of these three Parts, we will observe, with the help of our blessed Saviour, all the exactness and sincerity that can be, in showing the Innovations and changes that have thereupon ensued.   

THE LIFE OF Monsieur L'ARROQUE.  
IT is with very great displeasure that I insert in my first Essay of this nature, an Elegy, which nevertheless will render it very acceptable; I had much rather have wanted so good a Subject of Recommendation to my first undertaking, than to have obtained it by suffering so great a loss: But seeing Death will not be subject unto our desires, let us acquit ourselves according to the various conjunctures, whether they be pleasing or not.  
Monsieur L'ARROQVE departed this Life at Roven, the 31 of January 1684, Aged 65 years, born at Lairac, a Town not far from Again in Guien, his Father and Mother dying almost at the same time, left him very young, under the Conduct of his Relations, and which is the common Fate of Scholars, without much Wealth; but his great love for Learning comforted him in the midst of all his Troubles: Having made some progress therein under several Masters, he advanced the same considerably in the Academy of Montauban, and having applied himself unto the study of Divinity under Messieurs Charles, and Garrisoles, eminent Professors, who also had at the same time the famous Monsieur Claud to be their Pupil, in a short time he there made so great a progress in his studies, that he was judged worthy of the Ministry: He was accordingly admitted betimes, and by the Synod of Guienne, sent unto a little Church, called Poujols: He had scarce been there one year, but the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome opposed his Ministry, which obliged him to make a Journey to Paris: He there became acquainted with Messieurs Le Faucheur, and Mestrezat; who from that very time prophesied very advantageously of him. He preached at Charanton with great Success, and was so well approved by the late lady Duchess of Tremovile, that she desired he might be settled at the Church of Vitry in Britain, where she commonly made her residence. For several reasons he consented unto the demands of this Princess, and went to Vitry, where he lived 26 years, so confined unto his Closet, that he therein spent 14 or 15 hours each day.  
The world soon became sensible of his great industry, by a Treatise which Monsieur L'ARROQVE published against a Minister, who having changed his Religion, caused to be Printed the motives which induced him thereunto. By this Answer it was seen the Author had already attained great knowledge in Antiquity, joined with a very solid and clear way of reasoning, which was ever the character of the late Monsieur L'ARROQVES Genius. Some years after, scil. in the year 1665, he made a very learned Answer unto the Book of the Office of the holy Sacrament, written by the Gentlemen of Port Royal, wherein he shown unto those Illustrious Friars, that they had alleged and translated the passages of Ancient Fathers, either very negligently, or very falsely. His History of the EUCHARIST (which may well be termed his Masterpiece) appeared four years after, and did fully manifest the merits of this Excellent Person. Having composed so many Learned Volumes, the Protestants of Paris, looked upon him as a Subject very worthy of their choice, and resolved to establish him in the midst of them; this honest design had been accomplished, had not his credit, and adhering unto the Interests of two Illustrious Persons, whose names are sufficiently known, incited some envious 
* Busy Jesuits.  Persons to prepossess the King with prejudice against him. By this means they obtained an Injunction of not proceeding to this nomination. The Marquis de Ruvigny appeared at Court in this affair, and engaged himself unto the King for Monsiver L'ARROQVES Zeal and Fidelity in his Majesty's Service. The King (who is naturally inclined to goodness) thereupon answered the Marquis de Ruvigny the Deputy General, that some went about to give him other impressions of Monsieur L'ARROQVE, but seeing he would be Caution for the party accused, he would permit this Minister to Exercise his profession in any other place, excepting Paris.  
A business of this moment made as great noise as could be imagined, but did not prejudice Monsieur L'ARROQVE, as much as his Enemies could have wished; for soon after he was sought unto by several considerable Churches, but he accepted of none, but the proposal which was made unto him by that of Saumur. The Church and the Academy were then vacant, both of a Minister and of a Professor in Divinity; he was offered both, but whether it was through modesty, or that he desired not to vary from his former kind of Study, much different from that to be performed by a Professor in Divinity, he only accepted the former. As he was preparing to enter upon it, the Intendant of the Province appeared against it, for what reason is not known. The Consistory of the Church of Saumur used such Arguments to remove this Opposition, that in fine it was removed. Nevertheless Monsieur L'ARROQVE thought it not convenient to accept the offer, being so advised by Monsieur Conrart, for whom he had a singular kindness, who represented unto him, that the Intendant would always bear him a grudge, and that therefore it would not be safe to be under his power.  
The Counsel of this incomparable Friend induced Monsieur L'ARROQVE to incline unto other offers, made unto him at that time from divers places. The Church of Montauban, that of Bourdeaux, and that of Roven desired to have him for their Minister; he preferred the latter before the two others, by the advice of Friends, he accordingly went to Roven, there to Exercise his Ministry, and there 'twas that improving the rare Talents that God had endowed him with, he laboured until his Death in the conversion of Souls, and in explaining the holy Scriptures with indefatigable diligence and Industry. Roven was a place very convenient for such a person, for 'tis a City abounding with great wits, and well furnished with good Libraries: He there acquired a great reputation amongst the learned Men, even of the Contrary party; And the Illustrious Monsieur Bigot, at whose House they Assemble once a week, and entertain curious and learned discourse, was very well pleased to have Monsieur L'ARROQVE of the number, who also went unto their Assembly, where his profound Knowledge in Ecclesiastical History, was much admired and esteemed by them all.  
A little after his coming to Roven, Monsieur David, so well known amongst the learned for his great Literature, and by his contests with Messieurs de Marca, Justel, and de Launay, carped at him about one of the two Latin Dissertations which he published in the year 1670. and dedicated unto Monsieur d'Amproux, Councillor in the Parliament of Paris, whose Wit, Probity and Learning are esteemed by all who know him. Monsieur L'ARROQVE had refuted the Opinion of Father Petau, touching the time of the Birth and Condemnation of the History of Photin. His Reasons appeared very solid unto a great many, but Monsieur David, who otherways was well satisfied Father Petau's Epoch was wrong, fancied that Monsieur L'ARROQVE had not sufficiently refuted it, therefore took occasion to write against him, which was the cause of Monsieur L'ARROQVES reply, which he dedicated unto Monsieur Conrart, an intimate Friend to them both.  
Since which time this learned Minister hath published divers excellent Treatises on several Subjects. He wrote one, entitled, Considerations upon the Nature of the Church; Another much larger, wherein he shows the conformity of the Discipline of the Protestants of France, with that of the Primitive Church. Another in Latin, in defence of the Sentiments of Monsieur Daille touching St Ignatius his Letters, and the Apostolical Constitutions, against Messieurs Pearson, and Beverige, two famous English Doctors. They have writ a second time in defence of their Opinion, and he had designed a Reply, as hath been seen by a Manuscript Copy found near finished amongst his Papers, but at the request of some persons favouring Episcopacy, he did not finish his Answer. The last work he published is an Answer unto a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux, of the Communion under both kinds; although his name was not to it, yet it was judged to be his; it was known by the manner in which it was written, clear, free from digressions and superfluous Ornaments, and full of solid remarks drawn from the profoundest Antiquity.  
But how great an Idea soever the printed Works of the late Monsieur L'ARROQVE gives us of the greatness and Exactness of his Wisdom, it may be termed but small, in comparison of what would have been seen if God had been pleased to have spared him to finish what he had begun; he being esteemed one of the fittest men of France to compose an Ecclesiastical History, all his Friends entreated him to set about it, and accordingly he laboured effectually therein with all diligence; He intended to have published one Volume every year, and to have joined thereunto sundry dissertations, which would equally have demonstrated his sincerity and his learning; He had carried on his work but unto the middle of the fourth Century, which is the only thing the public will not lose of so vast and rich a Structure. There was also found amongst his Papers a very exact Treatise of the Regale, wherein he proves, that the Kings of France since Clovis, had this Right over all the Cathedral Churches in their Kingdom. This with some other small Tracts, which this Illustrious person had finished before his Death, may make a complete Volume; Monsieur L'ARROQVE the worthy Son of such a Father, will be careful of communicating them unto the World.  
But he confines not himself only thereunto, he promiseth also an Exact Collection of all the Dissertations which he hath found in the History of the first 350 years of the Church, and he intends to publish them in Latin, for the benefit of Strangers. Every body will be glad to hear this News, especially if we add somewhat touching the particulars of this Collection. Therefore I now give notice that therein will be seen, Dissertations 1. Upon the thundering Legion, where shall be shown, that what hath been said of it, is very uncertain. 2. Upon the original of shaving of Priests. 3. De Orariis. 4. Of the manner that the Clergy saluted the People, which shall serve to explain this passage of St. Cyprian, in regard of Aurelius, whom he 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 described than in all the former Histories, because Monsieur L'ARROQVE hath borrowed 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, etc.— 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, EPISCOPUS 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 endowed with much wit and learning, it needs not be feared that they will in his hands lose any thing of their lustre 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 discovered 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 called to Saumur; I say he would neither discontinue the Duties of his Ministry, nor those of his studies, although the Physicians 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; Two rempublicam casus secuti 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 exterior Form of Celebration.  

CHAP. I.  
Wherein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament.  
THE first thing that presents itself 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 testify 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 employed 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 choose 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 signify 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 virtue 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 virtue, 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, 
●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 virtue 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 Bread and Wine may naturally have with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, is a general, uncertain, and undetermined resemblance, and which of itself is not sufficient to make them Sacraments of this Divine Body, and of this precious Blood. It is necessary that the Benediction and Consecration confer upon them this quality, and invest them with this dignity, which they cannot have by Nature; and that setting them apart from the profane and common uses, which they have in Nature, it should apply them unto a Religious and Divine use in Grace. Nevertheless it may be affirmed, that this likeness and relation which they have by Nature with the Body and Blood of this Divine Saviour, were, as it may be said, the first ground and the first motive of the choice which our Saviour was pleased to make of them; for what St. Austin said in one of his Letters, may well be applied unto this matter: 
Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif.  That if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments, they would be no Sacraments. The Holy Fathers confirm this resemblance, some in the composition of Bread and Wine, and say, That the Bread is called the Body, because it is made of several grains, and the Wine the Blood, because it is gathered from sundry grapes. This is the Notion of 
* Comm. in Matth. c. 26.  Theophilus of Antioch, of 
† Ep. 76.  St. Cyprian, and of some others: Others ground it in the Effects, and say, That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ, because it doth nourish and strengthen the body; and that the Wine is called his Blood, because it increaseth blood in the body, and rejoiceth the heart. This is the Reason given by St. 
‖ Lib. l. deoffie. Eccl●s. c. 18.  Isidore Archbishop of Sevil, 
* Comm in Marc. 14.  Bede, 
† Lib. 〈◊〉 In●●● cleric. c. 31.  Rabanus, and 
‖ Comm. in Matth. 26.  Christian Drutmer, and I make no question but when Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine to make them Sacraments and Types of his Body and Blood, he had regard unto the Effects which they produced.  
And seeing the four Divine Writers which have related in their sacred books the history of the Institution of the Sacrament, have not mentioned whether the Wine which our Saviour used in instituting and celebrating the Sacrament, was pure, or mixed; the ancient Christians made no scruple to mingle water with the Wine in the Communion. The Jewish Rituals, as a learned 
* Buxt●●f. 〈◊〉 hist. S. 〈◊〉. § 20.  person, and extremely well versed in the knowledge of the Uses and Customs of that Nation, observes, left it unto the free will and choice of every person in celebrating the Passover, to use pure Wine, or Wine mixed with water; so that our blessed Saviour accommodating himself as much as he could in the Celebration of his Sacrament, with what was practised in the celebrating the Jews Passover, it seemeth to me impossible, considering the silence of the Evangelists and of S. Paul, to determine whether the Wine employed in the celebrating of his Sacrament, was mixed with water or not: Nevertheless it is most certain that the Ancients believed there was water mingled with the Wine, and that it was upon this persuasion that they established the custom of so doing; a very ancient practice, seeing that St. Justin Martyr, who wrote about fifty two years after the death of St. John, doth expressly mention it: for in showing the manner of celebrating the Sacrament in his time, 
Just. Martyr Apolog. 2 or rather 1.  he observes positively that there was presented unto the Pastor, Bread, and a Cup with Wine mingled with Water; that after he had blessed and consecrated them, all those which were there present received of the Bread, the Wine, and the Water, which had been consecrated. Indeed as the first Christians sought not so many mysteries as those which came after, I mean that they troubled not themselves in seeking out of Mysteries in most things relating to Religion, so they satisfied themselves with the innocent practice of this custom, and religiously to observe this use, with much simplicity; but about one hundred years after St. Justin had writ what is above expressed, they bethought themselves of seeking a mystery in this mingling of water with the Wine: The first, if I mistake not, that pleased himself to discover a Mystical signification in the Wine and Water in the holy Cup, and of the mingling the one with the other was the glorious Martyr S. Cyprian, who would that the Wine should represent the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Water should show the believing people, and that the mingling the one with the other, should show the indissoluble union which there is betwixt Christ and Believers; 
Cyprian ●p. 63.  The faithful people (saith he) is understood by the Water, and the Blood of Jesus Christ is denoted by the Wine; and when the Water is mingled with the Wine in the Cup, the People are united unto Jesus Christ, and the body of the faithful are incorporated in him, in whom they believed: and this mixture of water and wine in the Cup of the Lord, is such, that those things cannot be any more separated; whence it follows, that nothing can separate the Church from the Communion of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the Believers which are in the Church, and do persevere faithfully and firmly in what they believed, nor hinder but this indivisible Love shall subsist. Therefore it is not permitted in consecrating the Cup of Our Lord, to offer Wine alone, or Water alone; for if only Wine were offered, it might be said that the Blood was separate from the people; and if only Water were offered, it might be said the people were absent from Christ; but when they are mingled and inseparably joined together, then is effected the Spiritual and Heavenly Sacrament. St. Cyprian was followed by the 
* Can. 2.  third Council of Braga in the year 675, by 
† De offic. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 18.  Isidore, by 
‖ In Marc. 14.  Bede, by 
‖‖ De Corp. & long. Dom.  Bertram or Ratramne. But in fine, the Holy Fathers have thought this mixture so Essential unto the Holy Sacrament, that the sixth Ecumenical Council assembled in the year 691, reckon it amongst the Heresies of the Armenians, that they celebrated the Eucharist with pure Wine, because they justified themselves in this practice by the Authority of St. Chrysostom. The Fathers explain the passage of this holy Doctor, whereof the Armenians made use to authorise the practice of their Churches, and having explained it, they make this Decree: 
Concil. Trullan. Can. 32.  If any Bishop or other Priest doth not follow the Order left by the Apostles, and if they mingle not Water with the Wine to offer the spotless Sacrifice, let him be deposed, because he declares the mystery imperfectly, and by that means introduceth a change in the Traditions. But notwithstanding all that, the Armenians desisted not to persevere in this practice, and always to celebrate the Sacrament with pure Wine, until the year 1439. that they sent their Deputies unto the Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius the IVth. but they arrived not until after the departure of the Greeks, as appears by the History of that Council, transmitted unto us by Sylvester Sguropulus a great Prelate of the Church of Constantinople, which was present at all that there happened: Nevertheless in the direction given unto those Deputies on the behalf of the said Pope Eugenius, but in the name of the Council as if it had still been Assembled, which might have been so in regard of the Latins, but not of the Greeks, who were gone home; in this Instruction I say, The Armenians were enjoined to conform themselves unto all the other Christians, 
To. 8. Concil. p. 866.  and to mingle a little Water with the Wine in the oblation of the Cup: but there is no great likelihood that this Decree was much regarded in this Christian Communion, seeing we find by their Liturgies that they continued in the Custom of not mingling Water with the Wine in the holy Cup. 
Apud Cassand in Lit. C. 12.  But besides this Mystical signification which the Holy Fathers have discovered of this mingling Water with the Wine of the Eucharist, I find they have used it to represent the Water and Blood which issued out of the pierced side of Jesus Christ at his passion, and when he was on the Cross; 
Concil. Trull. Can. 32.  It is the Doctrine of the Eastern Council before mentioned, and which was Assembled in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople. As for St. Athanasius he resembles this mixture unto the Union of the Eternal Word with the human Nature; 
Athan. in Psal. 74. apud Combesis auct. Bibl. Pat. t. 2. pa. 435.  The mystical Cup of the Communion, saith he, was given, mingled with Water, because the pure Wine doth signify the Divine Nature which is unmixed, and in that 'tis tempered with Water, it intimates the Union which is betwixt us. And there is no question to be made but these Holy Doctors pleased themselves in searching out these Mystical significations not only in one of the Symbols of the Sacrament, but also in the other. In fine, as they discovered Mysteries in mixing Water with the Wine, practised by the Ancient Church, so they also discovered other Mysteries in making the Bread: for they believed that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body composed of sundry grains, represented very well the Body of the Church composed of sundry believers united into one Society: It is also the Doctrine of S. Cyprian; 
Cyprian. Ep. 76. vide 63.  When. (saith he) the Lord called his Body, Bread, composed of sundry grains of Wheat, he would denote the believing people which he bore, in as much as 'tis but one people; and when he termed his Blood, the Wine, which is made of several Clusters of Grapes pressed together, and reduced to one, he again signified the same faithful People, composed of sundry Persons in one and the same Body. It is the frequent Doctrine of 
* Serm. ad Infant. tract. 26. in Joan. & Serm. 83. de divers.  S. Augustin, and generally of all the Holy Fathers, of 
† Com. in Matth.  Theophilus of Antioch, of 
‖ Hom. 24. in 1 Cor.  S. Chrysostom, of 
* De Offa Eccles. lib. 1. c. 18.  Isidore of Sevil, of 
† Com. in 1 Cor. 10.  Bede, of 
‖ De Reb. Eccles. c. 16.  Walafridus Strabo, of 
‖‖ De Instit. Cler. lib. 1. c. 31.  Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence, and of many others: but alas, at the same time that these Holy Doctors pleased themselves in finding out all these Mystical Significations wherein they took so much delight; the Devil, who is always vigilant to disturb the peace of the Church, and who always finds occasions to worry it, failed not to raise her up Enemies, even from her Infancy, and to spew out from his dark Dungeon sundry sorts of Sects and Heretics, totake occasion either to slander the Innocency of her Mysteries by the Gnostics, or to corrupt their purity by the Montanists and Pepusians, if what some have written be true; or to gainsay their Utility, by the Ascodrupites, or to make them pass for dreams and delusions, by the Marcosians, or to render them odious, by the Ophites, or to change the matter, either by adding of some strange things, as the Artotyrites, or by taking away the Essentials, as the Hydroparastates, or Aquarians; and this is what we intent to examine in the following Chapter.   

CHAP. II.  
Wherein is discoursed of sundry sorts of Sects and Heresies, only so as may be sufficient to give light unto the present Subject.  
THE first Heretics which the Devil stirred up to trouble the Church upon the matter of the Sacraments, were the Gnostics, that is, such as assumed to themselves that proud and insolent Title, to persuade the ignorant People that they were possessed with great Wisdom, and that they were able to dive into the knowledge of the most obscure and difficult Mysteries: some derive their Original from the Nicolaïtans; others say they had for their Leader an eminent Heretic called Carpocrates: but from what Original soever they came, it cannot be doubted, but it was very pernicious, seeing it produced so cursed an offspring; certainly this fountain was very corrupt, seeing the streams were so infectious; and the Root of this cursed Tree was very venomous, seeing the Branches produced no less than the bitter Fruit of mortal Poison; an infamous brood as ever was, whose Mysteries abounded with Abomination and Horror; therefore were they also called Borborites or Borborians, to denote their filthiness and vileness: these miserable wretches suffered themselves to be swayed by their own corrupt desires, and being Slaves unto their passions and disordered Lusts, they polluted themselves frequently with Women, which were in common amongst them; and coveting nothing more than this filthy practice, they were blindly led on by their wicked concupiscence, and without any restraint wallowed in the most brutish Actions, the very thoughts whereof fills me with amazement and horror: But what is most dreadful and strange in the conduct of these Organs of the Evil Spirit, is, that they acted their greatest abominations in their Assemblies, and in the Places where they were accustomed to meet to exercise their Diabolical Religion. S. Epiphanius, who more exactly than any other of the Ancients relates unto us all that passed in the abominable mysteries of these Wretches, is ashamed to write, and were it not in some sort necessary to be published to render them odious unto all the World, he would have forborn to have related the Brutalities and Filthinesses which they were not ashamed to commit. As for my own particular, although I have learned from S. Paul that all things are pu●e unto the pure, yet I will forbear reciting all the Impurities which were acted in the Assemblies of these milerable Creatures, which cannot be read without horror; and on this occasion I had rather imitate the modesty of S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, than the liberty of S. Epiphanius; that is, be as wary in writing these abominable Mysteries, as S. Cyrill was in Preaching, when he was absolutely necessitated to say something of them. Nevertheless those who desire to see the particularities of what passed in the Celebration, 
Epiphan. hares. 26.  which these miserable Wretches pretended to make in the Eucharist, need only read what S. Epiphanius hath writ in the Heresy of the Gnostics, whilst I shall only mark, that when any of the Women, which they had debauched, were with Child, they used means to make her miscarry, and discharge her burden when they listed: then would they take the Infant and pound it in a Mortar with Honey, Pepper, and other Aromatic drugs; after which, this Fraternity of Swine and Dogs being assembled, each of them would take of this Infant so pounded, and would eat of it; which done, they would make their Prayers unto God, and esteemed this Ceremony for a perfect and complete Sacrament: And because these abominable Heretics assumed the name of Christians, they were the cause that Pagans and Infidels imputed unto the whole Christian Church these horrible impieties, and it was the end which Satan proposed in raising up these execrable Wretches. 
●useb hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 7.  The Devil (saith Eusebius) making use of these instruments, hath in the first place east into Hell like so many slaves, those whom they had seduced; then he gave unto the Gentiles, professed Enemies of our Religion, a large and ample Subject and Matter to scandalise and speak evil of the Gospel; in as much as this Infamy, which took its Original from the Gnostics, was imputed unto all the Christians to disgrace them. He also observes that it was from thence the false rumours were raised and spread abroad of their unlawful Copulations, wherewith they were aspersed, of Brethren with Sisters, and Children with their own Mothers, as also of these barbarous and inhuman Feasts, where the flesh of some little innocent Infant was served up as meat and nourishment. 
Epiph. ub. sup.  S. Epiphanius hath also observed that it was a device of the Devil to slander the purity of the Christian Religion, and to stop the progress of the Gospel of the Son of God; 
Orig. cour troth Cells l. 2. & l. 2. in Rom. Baron. ad an. 120. ● 125, 126, 129. Cyrill. Hieros'. Catech. 16.  it is also unto the abominable Mysteries of the Gnostics, that Origen imputes the cause of those same Infamous reports; and Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals, refers them unto the same cause, and confesseth they were their Rise and Original. S. cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechisms derives these reproaches against Christians, and those calumnies wherewith they aspersed their Holy Profession, not from the Mysteries of the Gnostics as others did, but from those of the Montanists; which nevertheless cannot be, because S. Justin Martyr, who lived before Montanus, makes mention of it: Nevertheless S. Cyrill imputing something of that kind unto the Montanists, we shall be obliged to say something thereof, when we shall have done with the Gnostics; in the mean while I shall say two things, First, That several of the Holy Fathers have in their Writings hinted these false reports, which were spread abroad to the disgrace of Christians, but without touching the cause that produced them; as Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras in their Apologies, Tatian against the Greeks, Theophilus of Antioch in his Books to Autolycus, Tertullian in his Treatise to the Nations, and in his Apologetic; Minutius Felix in his Octavius. The Second thing is, that although several have spoke of the Gnostics besides S. Epiphanius, as S. Iraeneus, Philastrius Bishop of Bresse, S. Austin and Theodoret, and that the three last have mentioned their abominable Mysteries; Nevertheless because S. Epiphanius hath done it more exactly than any of them, and that he hath particularly observed all things that were practised in those wicked Assemblies, we have followed what he hath written of them. But because some of the Fathers have said that the Montanists and Pepusians practised something very like the abominations of the Gnostics, it will be necessary, after having treated of the Mysteries of the one, to examine and treat of the Mysteries and Eucharist of the others. Montanus was an Arch-Heretick, born in a Village called Ardaba in a part of Myssia bordering upon Phrygia, and not being able to satisfy his Ambition, which made him aspire unto the chiefest power in the place of his Birth, he suffered himself to be corrupted with the inspirations of the Devil, and as if he had been possessed with a Prophetic Spirit; he undertook to reveal things to come, and chose for his Companions Priscilla and Maximilla, which he made pass for Prophetesses: Some say, that he called himself the Paraclete; others say, that he taught that it was in him the promise was to be accomplished, which Jesus Christ made of sending his Spirit after his Ascension into Heaven, and not upon the Apostles, as the Gospel doth testify: S. Epiphanius and others say that he differed nothing from the Catholics and the Orthodox as to matter of Doctrine, but only as to Discipline, which he established more strict and austere than other Christians. This severity was so taking with Tertullian, that he suffered himself to be surprised, and was so obstinate, that although he was one of the greatest Wits and learnedst Men of his time, yet he called the Catholics mere Libertines, Sensual and Carnal; but in fine, he left great Numbers of Sectaries and Followers, which, from him, were called Montanists; Cataphrygians, from Phrygia, where they made their chiefest residence; and Pepusians', from a little Village of that Country called Pepusia, but by them called Jerusalem, to make it the more famous, and to raise the Dignity and Credit of it; and it is unto these Followers of Montanus, that several have imputed the like Mysteries of the abominable Gnostics. 
Philast. de Haeres. l. 4. Bibl. Pat. p. 13.  Philastrius. in his Catalogue of Heresies chargeth them with Celebrating the Mystery of the Cynics, and the execrable impiety which is committed in murdering a little. Infant, whose Blood they mingled (as he saith) in their Passeover and in their Sacrifice. 
Isid. Pelus. l. 1. Ep. 242. cyril Hierosol. Carech. 16. p. 178.  S. Isidore of Damieta mentions somewhat in his Letters; but 'tis nothing in respect of what S. Cyrill of Jerusalem reports in his Catechisms: This Montanus (saith he) being distracted and out of his wits, had the impudence to say that he was the Holy Ghost, he that was a miserable, a vile, wretched Man, and full of all mann●r of impiety and wickedness, which it is sufficient to intimate by some signs, ethrough respect, which is to be had unto some Women here present; he strangled young Children, and cut them in pieces to make them serve as abominable Food, under a pretence of Mysteries celebrated amongst them, (that is, amongst the Montanists) therefore during the late persecutions, the Gentiles imagined we did the same things, because the Montanists assumed the name of Christians, but falsely. Apparently, nothing can be said more formal, nor more positively on this Subject: nevertheless I find S. Austin comes nothing short of S. Cyrill, and that he speaks as full as he, only saving that he doth not expressly mention the kill of a young Child: these are his words, It is reported that they have pernicious Sacraments, 
August de haeres. 26.  for it is said they make their Sacrament with the blood of a little Infant of a year old, which they make to issue from all parts of the Body, by pricking it all over; and mingling this Blood with Flower, they make Bread of it, and if the Child die, they esteem it a Martyr; but if it recover and live, it is esteemed amongst them as a great Priest or Sacrificer. Then distinguishing the Pepusians from the Cavaphrygians and Montanists, he saith, they do like the others in their Eucharist; so that after so many witnesses, should not one absolutely acquiesce, in all likelihood one should be reputed a self-willed person: Nevertheless I would desire the Reader a little to suspend his Judgement, for if I mistake not, Theodoret doth not fully agree to this matter, at least he observes that when the Montanists were taxed with the thing, they denied it, and looked on this accusation as an imposture, and grievous calumny; and I cannot tell but in such like occasions, the Declaration of the Party ought to be believed rather than the Accusations, which many times have no other ground, but a popular Report and Fame, which every one knows relate things false as well as true. 
Theodore●. haeret. sab. ●. 3. c. 2.  As to their mysteries (saith Theodoret) some do relate things which they do not own, which they deny and agree not unto, but they call this accusaetion a false calumny: and to say the truth, not one of the Ancients which was contemporary with Montanus, not one of those which opposed his Heresy when it first appeared in the World, with the predictions of his Prophetesses, having imputed any such thing unto this Sect, I cannot easily imagine they were guilty of the abominations of the Gnostics, which were laid to their charge, especially when I consider that Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, making mention of many that were filled with a zeal for the glory of God, writ very earnestly against the extravagancies of this pretended Paraclete, and of his Prophetesses, and hath preseved some fragments of their Works, 
Apud Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 18.  without any mention therein of these abominable Mysteries: there is no great likelihood that Apollonius who in Eusebius reproacheth this Montanus, That he established Laws touching Fasts, and for dissolving of Marriages, would have spared him on a matter, which alone would have rendered him odious and execrable unto all the World: nor that Tertullian, whom a too ridgid piety precipitated into the Sect of this false Paraclete, would have embraced such a Sect, wherein such execrable Mysteries were celebrated: nor lastly, that the Ancients which lamented his misfortune, and his contending for the defence of the Discipline of his Montanus, would have passed over in silence so considerable a circumstance, which was able to startle and cover with eternal Infamy, all the Followers of this hypocritical Impostor. Yet I would not be thought to reject or despise the testimony of the Ancients, whose testimonies we have heard; I would only follow the distinction which S. Epiphanius hath made of the Montanists and Cataphrygians, from the Quintilians, 
Epiph. haer. 48. Extr.  the Priscillianists and the Pepusians, unto whom he seems to join the Tascodrugites; for he acquits the former from the crime of Infant-killing, and only imputes unto the others the celebrating of the Sacrament with the blood of a little Child; for by this means, it appears that they may be compared both together, or we at least the better judge of the matter in question. But the Devil rested not there; for having declared a mortal hatred against Mankind, especially against Christians, because the establishing of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, whom they adore, is the utter subversion of his, he useth his greatest force and cunning, skill and power, to effect the wicked devices which he plotteth against them, laying many snares and traps at once, to the end that if he fail in the one, he may not in the other. By the Gnostics and the Pepusians he endeavoured to disgrace the holiness of their Discipline, and to vilify their most sacred and Religious Mysteries; other stratagems he made Use of to oppose their Utility, and to destroy the necessity of their use and Celebration. There were Heretics called Ascodrutes or Ascodrupites, who pretending to greater degrees of purity, and to calumniate the Creator of the World, taught that all visible things were the production of Ignorance and Passion, and that Divine Mysteries which are the Symbols and Images of invisible things, ought not to be celebrated by things visible, nor incorporeal by things visible and corporeal; and that there is nothing in the whole compass of the Redemption but is purely Spiritual: therefore they did neither celebrate Baptism nor the Lord's Supper, the two Sacraments which our Saviour instituted to convey his Blessings unto us. But let us hear Theodoret who plainly describes them unto us; These Persons say, 
Theoder. haret. fab. l. 1. c. 10.  The Divine Mysteries ought not to be celebrated, which are the Symbols of invisible things, with things visible; nor to represent incorcoporeal things, by things which are corporeal and sensible; that the complete redemption is nothing else but a true apprehension and knowledge of what it is; that all visible things, which are the effect of ignorance and passion, are made void by Knowledge: therefore the redemption must be also Spiritual. He also adds, That they did not baptise those which turned unto their Sect, and that the Sacrament of Baptism was not celebrated amongst them; for they termed Redemption the knowledge of all things. Some think that these Ascodrupites are the same with those which S. Epiphanius calls Tascodrugites, 
Epiph. haer. 48.  giving also the meaning of this name which was given them, because praying they put the forefinger in their Nose as a mark of sadness and voluntary equity, and that in their Language, Tascus, signified a perch, and Drugus, the Nose; but in that behalf they are to be accquitted of the crime which was imputed unto the Pepusians, with whom Epiphanius was wont to join them, that is, of celebrating the Eucharist with the blood of an Infant; S. Epiphanius doth not positively affirm it of them, he only saith that this cruelty was committed either amongst them, or amongst the Pepusians: so that this wickedness is not likely to have been acted amongst the Tascodrugites, if it be true that they were the same with Theodoret's Ascodrupites; seeing they rejected the Celebration of the Eucharist. And whereas S. Epiphanius seems to make them all one with the Pepusians, that makes nothing against what Theodoret relates unto us of his Ascodrupites; the rather, because, exactly considering the words of Epiphanius, there is nothing which obliges us to join the Tascodrugites with the Pepusians in the execrable Subject now in hand, seeing he speaks of them severally, although in effect he reports not of the Tascodrugites, what Theodoret saith of the Ascodrupites. But what induceth me to think that the Tascodrugites and Ascodrupites were but one Sect, wherein the Sacraments were not celebrated, is a certain kind of Dialogue of Timothy, Priest or Bishop of Constantinople; (for this is not the place of clearing a question which makes nothing to our Subject.) In the little Treatise which Father Combefis a Dominican hath left us in Greek and Latin, much larger than it is in the Library of the Fathers, but in Latin only; he treats of the manner of receiving Heretics into the Catholic Church, and reducing them into three Orders: he will have the former to be admitted by Baptising them; those of the Second, by Anointing them; and those of the Third sort, by making them only to Anathematise their Heresy. In the first sort he ranges the Tascodrugites, unto whom in effect he imputes part of what Theodoret relates unto us of the Ascodrupites, as the laying aside Baptism, 
Apud combef. Auct. Bib. Par. t. 2. p. 450.  one of the Symbols which they condemned, saying, That there ought not to be made upon Earth, Images and Figures of things Heavenly and Invisible, nor may we represent Spiritual things by corporeal things. I only observe, that this Timothy who wrote after Theodoret, is in all likelihood mistaken when he saith that the Tascodrugites rejected all Divine Knowledge; for on the contrary, they made our entire Redemption to consist, by the report of Theodoret, in the Knowledge of all things. As of all the Emissaries the Devil makes use of, and of all the Agents he employs to do his work in seducing Mankind, there are scarce any more at his beck, nor more ready to execute his commands, than Sorcerers, Soothsayers, Enchanters, and such as use Witchcrafts and Magic, so it is not to be wondered, if to disturb the Church in its Infancy in the celebrating its Sacraments, he made use of these kinds of Instruments and wicked Agents: for he made use of one Mark, whereof the Ascodrupites were as it were a Limb and Branch; this wretch amongst many other impieties which he spewed out, exercised the Magic Art, and by means of his Delusions and Witchcrafts, he seduced many ignorant Persons, which suffered themselves to be blinded by his Enchantments: Tertullian relates it in his Book of Prescriptions against Heretics; Philastrius in his Catalogue of Heresies; also S. Austin and Theodoret: This latter hath also recited some of his Enchantments and Witchcrafts: S. Epiphanius treats at large of the Heresy of the Marcosians or Marcites, which were so called after his Name; but because our design doth not require that we should examine all the Impieties and Dreams of these Heretics, but only what they did in celebrating the Eucharist, and that S. Epiphanius hath taken from S. Irenaeus what he reports, let us inform ourselves of this latter, which was so famous in our France, as well for his Piety and Learning, as also for having written so vigorously against all those Enemies of growing Christianity. This Doctor having said that this Mark was well skilled in Magic, by means whereof he seduced much people, both Men and Women, he instances in several proofs of his delusions, and particularly what he did in celebrating the Sacrament. 
Iren. adv. Haere●● l. 1. c. 9  He made show (saith he) of consecrating Cups full of Wine; and enlarging on the words of Consecration and Prayer, he made them appear red and of a Purple colour, to the end to make them believe that Grace (it was one of the Divinities which he had invented or borrowed from the School of Valentine) made to come down from the highest Heaven, his blood into the Cup, by means of invocation, and that those present earnestly desiring to drink of the Cup, to the end that the same Grace, which this Sorcerer invoked, might also come into them; then giving unto the Women, of those Cups full of Wine, he commanded them to give thanks in his presence; and when they had done, he himself presents another Cup much larger than that which was presented by the simple Woman which he seduced; he pours out of the lesser Cup, which the Woman had consecrated, into that brought by himself, and which is much larger, saying these words; That Grace which is before all things, and that is not to be expressed nor conceived, may fill your inward Man, and increase his knowledge in you, sowing the grain of Mustardseed in good ground: and in saying these things, S. Irenaeus addeth; troubling the Spirit of this poor Creature, he seemeth to do things that are miraculous, when he so filleth the greater Cup with what is in the lesser Cup, that the liquor raiseth itself above the brims, in doing whereof he destroyed sundry Persons by seducing of them. Therefore the same S. Irenaeus supposed he had some familiar Spirit by whose inspirations he seemed to prophesy, and caused all those Women to prophesy which he thought worthy to participate of his Grace: But that nothing may be wanting unto the History of what these miserable wretches practised in celebrating their Mysteries, we will call to our aid S. Epiphanius, who although he borrows from S. Irenaeus most part of what he saith, yet marks one particular circumstance worthy of consideration, which is, that in this Sect of Marcites, 
Epiph. haeres. 34. init.  or Marcosians, there were prepared three Chalices of Crystal glass, which were filled with White Wine, and that after Mark 's enchantment, which was esteemed a Prayer, or giving Thanks, they were presently changed, the one became red as Blood, the second of a Purple colour, and the third Blue: And it is very probable he made use of Glass Chalices, which was a thing frequent amongst the Catholics of his time, and that he filled them with White Wine, to give the greater likelihood and probability unto his Impostures and Witchcrafts, which only tended to the deluding those miserable Women which he seduced, and with whom he satisfied the disordered passions of his filthy lusts: for as our S. Hilary hath excellently well observed, It often is seen, 
Hilar. in frag. 23. Iren 〈◊〉 1. Cap. 18. Epiph. haeres. 34.  that after a multitude of vices hath prevailed over the love of God, there evidently springs up the folly of corrupt knowledge. And as to what S. Irenaeus, and after him Epiphanius, hath written, that the Followers of Mark were of the same Sentiment, which Theodoret attributes unto the Ascodrupites, it must be understood only of those Ascodrupites, which were, as we have said, a branch of the Marcostans; also S. Irenaeus doth not impute this belief unto all the Followers of this Impostor, but only unto some of them, that is unto the Ascodrupites, according to the explication given us by Theodoret, who in all likelihood had learned of S. Irenaeus, or of Epiphanius, what he hath said, as S. Epiphanius had collected it out of S. Irenaeus. Ever since God put enmity betwixt the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent, because the Devil made use of this unhappy Instrument to seduce and ruin our first Parents, Mankind have generally an aversion against Serpents; I speak of the generality of men; for if some are to be found otherwise inclined, yet it is an exception which doth not destroy the general rule: therefore it is that the Devil, who is not ignorant of it, hath thought that one of the most effectual means that he could invent to disparage and make odious the Mysteries of the Christians, was to persuade some of those which made an outward profession of Christianity, to adore Serpents, and to make use of them for the Consecration of their detestable Mysteries; his design was not wholly ineffectual, seeing he found some that were so blind and wretched, as to follow his cursed Inspirations, in rendering unto the Serpent a worship and service diabolically religious. From hence it was they were called by the name of Ophites, as who should say, the Disciples or worshippers of the Serpent, which by the report of Tertullian they preferred before Jesus Christ, 
Tertul. de prescript. Cap. 47.  as having given unto mankind the Knowledge of good and Evil. They taught that Moses having understood the power and Majesty of them, made one of brass, and that all those that beheld it, were made whole; that Jesus Christ himself in the Gospel imitated the power of the holy Serpent, in saying, as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness, so also shall the Son of Man be lifted up; and several other things which are to be found in the Works of those which have written of Heresies, especially in S. Epiphanius, Theodoret, and S. Austin, this last saying, they affirmed that the Serpent which deceived Adam and Eve, was Jesus Christ: but what makes properly for the Subject we treat of, and whereto all the Ancients agree, is, that they bred up a Serpent or Snake, which they tamed, and made to come out of the hollow place where he lay, at the time that they intended to celebrate their ridiculous and wicked Eucharist; and that by Sorcery they made it come upon the Table where they celebrated, to the end it should lick their Oblations, and that it should roll and twist itself round about them; after which they broke them, and it became their Eucharist, sanctified by the Serpent Christ. Thus it is related by S. Austin; but because S. Epiphanius speaks yet more distinctly, 
August. haeres. 17. Epiph. haeres. 37.  it will not be amiss here to insert what he saith of it. They nourish a Serpent, saith he, in a Den or Cave, and about the time that they intent to celebrate their mysteries, they present Bread at the entrance of his Cave, and set other Bread upon the Table; then they call the Serpent, and having opened the place wherein he is kept, he comes forward, and being come, according to their folly, he gets upon the Table, and rolls himself amongst the loaves, which they believe, and take to be a perfect Sacrifice. Thence also is it (he adds) as I have been informed, that they not only break the loaves amongst which the Serpent had rolled, and that they distribute it amongst those which are present, who receive it, but also that every one salutes the Serpent, and kisses him with their mouth; whether it were that he was so made tame by Witchcraft and Enchantments, or that by some other operation of the Devil, this Beast kisseth them to their destruction. Now they adore this Serpent and call it Prayer or Consecration, which was done on the Table, when he rolled and twisted himself about the loaves, which had been offered: they say also that they offer by him a Hymn unto the heavenly Father, and so they accomplish their mysteries.  
S. Paul speaking of the wisdom of God, 
Ephes. 3.  saith, That it is wonderful in divers manners: we may say on the contrary, that the malice of the Devil worketh also diversely, and that he exerciseth an infinite number of Slights and Artifices; therefore S. John in his Revelations, 
Rev. 2.  speaks of the depths of Satan, to show that he is a spring and Fountain of wiles and subtleties, and a bottomless Pit of frauds and deceits: Hitherto we have seen it in the great variety of Heretics which he stirred up, to disturb the Church in the enjoyment of the Ordinances, I mean of her Sacraments, which are as the sacred Channels, whereby God conveys his graces unto her; but being still afraid not to succeed in his design, and of not effecting his malicious purposes, he maketh use of several means, and tries several ways to surprise the Church, and to obtain some victory over her Children; it is by this principle of Malice and Envy, that he inspired some others with the design of changing the matter of the Eucharist, either by adding things unfit, and which our Saviour had not chosen to make his Sacrament; or by cutting off those things which he had chosen, and which are not to be laid aside without destroying its Essence and Nature: the former were certain Heretics of Phrygia or of Galatia, who instead of making use of Bread and Wine in celebrating this Mystery, as our Saviour had appointed, and the Church had always practised, they made use of Bread and Cheese; from whence they were called Artotyrites, from a name that contained both the things which they offered, and with which they celebrated their Eucharist. They were called Artotyrites (saith Epiphanius) because they offered Bread and Cheese in their Mysteries, 
Epiph. haeres. 49. August. haeres. 28.  and that they so celebrated them. S. Austin adds, that they said, That men formerly did celebrate the Oblations of Fruits of the Earth and of Sheep. In Spain in the VII. Century there were some that instead of offering Bread and Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament, offered Bread and Milk, which the Council of Braga, assembled Anno 675. condemned as a Rebellion against the Institution and Example of Jesus Christ.  
But if those offered strange file unto God, as Nadab and Abihu did; See here others which had the temerity and boldness not to offer unto him what he required, that is, the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, because instead of Wine they used Water in celebrating their Mysteries, thereby depriving him of a part of what he commanded to be offered; almost like the Sons of Old Ely, that stole part of the Sacrifices offered unto God under the Law; such were the Encratites, which are descended, as the Ancients believe, from one Tatian, who was Disciple unto Justin Martyr; this man during the life of his excellent Master, continued in the right way of the truth of the Gospel, but after his death he departed from the simplicity which is in Jesus Christ, being deceived by the wiles of the Devil: And although Epiphanius makes a difference betwixt the Tatianites and the Encratites, yet he owneth that these latter derived their Original from Tatian as well as the former, only he thinks they added something unto the Heresy of the Tatianites: but in fine, these Encratites had an aversion against Marriage, the flesh of Beasts, and Wine, as if they were things evil in themselves, and in their Nature; and from thence it was that they were called Encratites: But because upon this principle of hating Wine as an evil thing, they made use of fair Water in the Celebration of the Sacrament, they were called by the name of Aquarians or Hydroparastates: in fine, all the Ancients which have treated of this Heresy, witness with one accord, that they offered Water instead of Wine in their Mysteries, and that it was with Water that they celebrated them, which made Epiphanius say, That their Mysteries were not Mysteries, 
Epiph. haeres. 47.  but that they were made falsely in imitation of true ones; and that our Saviour would reprove them for it at the last day, because he said, I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine; and a long time before him, 
Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. cap. 2.  Clement of Alexandria opposed these same Heretics by the example of Jesus Christ, which used Wine both at his common meals, and in his Eucharist; and having proved both the one and the other, he adds, Let these things be firmly rooted in our minds, against those which are called Encratites. 
Chrysost. hom. 83. in Matth.  S. Chrysostom also presseth this example of Jesus Christ against the same Heretics, and saith, that in as much as our Saviour used Wine both in the Celebration of his Sacrament, and after his Resurrection, at a common Table, It was to pluck up by the roots this pernicious Heresy. As for S. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, and glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ, he disputeth in his small Treatise of the Sacrament of the Cup, which is his 63. Epistle unto Cecilius, against some Christians of his time, which used only Water in the celebrating of the Eucharist, and for that reason may be called Aquarians. But methinks it is evident enough in all his Treatise, that these latter Aquarians were very different from the former; for the former were wretched and wicked Heretics, which detested and abominated Wine as a wicked Creature and an evil production; but as for those spoken of by S. Cyprian, they had doubtless other sentiments; and indeed he neither calls them Enemies nor Heretics; the former did celebrate their Mystery with Water, because they abominated Wine; but these did so for two reasons much different from the Encratites, 
Cyprian Ep. ● 3.  the first proceeded from the ignorance and simplicity of some of their Teachers, Some (saith S. Cyprian in the beginning of his Treatise) either through ignorance or simplicity do not what Christ did, when they consecrate the Cup of our Lord, and distribute it unto the people; and towards the end, If any of our Predecessors have not observed or practised either through ignorance or folly, what the Lord commanded us to do both by his precepts and example; 
Id. ibid.  the Lord by his goodness may pardon his ignorance, but as for us, we cannot be pardoned, being informed and taught as we have been by the Lord, to offer a Cup with Wine, as our blessed Saviour offered. Therefore in another part of his Epistle, he saith, that he cannot sufficiently admire whence the custom should come: 
Id. ibid.  That in some places was offered Water in the Cup of our Lord, contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical discipline, forasmuch as Water alone cannot represent the blood of Christ. The second motive which caused those Christians to do so, was the fear of persecution, they feared that in their Assemblies, which they made early in the morning, should they have used Wine in the Eucharist, the smell of the liquor might discover them, and thereby might have exposed them unto the persecutions which Heathens made against Christians. All the discipline (saith S. Cyprian) of Religion and of the truth is wholly overthrown, 
Id. ibid.  if what was commanded, spiritually and faithfully be not observed, if haply some be not afraid that it should be known that they participated of the blood of Jesus Christ by the scent of the Wine which they received in the Morning-Oblations: and to the end it should not be thought that in these Morning-Assemblies they abstained offering Wine, or drinking it through aversion, as if it were an evil and abominable thing, they made use of it in the Evening-Assemblies, because not being obliged at that season to be present amongst the Unbelievers, they feared not to be discovered by that means to be Christians, and for persons that came from receiving the Sacrament, as they thought they might have cause to believe, if they had employed Wine in the celebration of the Sacrament in the Assemblies which met before day; besides that there were none Fasting at night, so that the scent of Wine could not so particularly be discerned at that season. 
Id. ibid.  Thus much St. Cyprian would intimate by these words, Is it that any one can deceive himself with this thought? that is, that he shall imitate the example of Jesus Christ, if he celebrate the Sacrament at Suppertime with the Cup mingled with Wine, though in the morning he offers but Water only. This holy Doctor condemns this practice, and with great reason, seeing it was from a fleshly and carnal motion, which fearing the Cross and Sufferings, suggested such thoughts and counsels into weak and timorous Christians, which considered not that in acting after that manner they followed the Inspirations of the Devil, which commonly sets on men in their weakest part, and never slips any occasion to seize their hearts, and to destroy them, to render them companions of his pains and torments. See here another instance to the same purpose; The Devil not content to stir up the Eucratites in the second Century, to change the Essence of the Sacrament by using of Water instead of Wine, which they had in aversion, and not content in the third with the simplicity, timidity, and weakness of some Catholic Christians, and Orthodox in the main, to give some attempt against this Sacrament of our Salvation; he began anew in the fifth Century to surprise others through a pretext of sobriety: for as sometimes men pass to vice by the way of virtue, so it fell out that this pretext was made use of to deceive men, and to plunge them in Error. This also he did in respect of those of whom Gennadius, Priest and not Bishop of Marseilles, as Pope Adrian styles him, doth speak; for he makes mention of certain persons, 
Genna●. l de Dogm. Eccles. c. 75.  That under pretence of sobriety, would not celebrate the Eucharist with Wine, but with Water only. All the attempts of this Enemy of the Salvation of Mankind, have proved vain in this regard: God hath not suffered him to prevail in this matter over his Church; for all Christian Communions have faithfully retained the use of Bread and Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament, insomuch as even in those Countries where Wine doth not grow, they endeavour to imitate the best they can the other Christians, who live in those Climates which abound with it: For instance, the Christians of St. Thomas, in the Indies, where there is no Wine, use dry Grapes, brought from Mecha and Ormus, and steep them a whole night in Water; next day they press them, and with the Liquor that comes out they celebrate the Eucharist instead of Wine. 
Ramusio. vol. 1. p. 313. a●d several others also.  The Abassins' also do in like manner, as Francis Alvarez, in his Voyage into Ethiopia, doth testify.  
But upon this matter of the Wine of the Eucharist, it may not be altogether needless to consider what was the Sentiment of Antiquity touching the two Cups mentioned by St. Luke, which were distributed by our Saviour unto his Disciples, as is alleged by St. Luke in his Gospel, observing also that it was in giving the former that he said, I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine, which he mentions not to be spoken by our Saviour in distributing the latter. Now seeing that St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Rusp in Africa, hath collected the several judgements of those which preceded or were his contemporaries, what we find in his Writings shall suffice, and I hope the Reader will not be displeased to satisfy his curiosity on this matter: 
Fulgent. ad ●●rrand. Diacon de quinque quast c ●5.  Some persons (saith he) would have this passage of the Gospel understood, viz. That the Lord gave not two Cups; but rather they affirm that he said so by way of anticipation, and that there was indeed but one sole Cup; of which first there is mention made that it should be divided, and then that it should be given to the Disciples to drink of it: Others there be that affirm, That there were two Cups distributed; but which opinion soever of them is followed, the sense of the one and the other is no way contrary to the true Faith. Those which think our Saviour gave two Cups, say that it was done mystically, and that by the former Cup he would prefigure his Passion, and by the second, that of his followers: Others again have said that the two Cups did represent what had been commanded under the old Testament, viz. that whosoever had not celebrated the Passover of the first Month in eating a Lamb, should do it the second Month in eating a Kid. As for me, (adds St. Fulgentius) it seems there is here discovered another Mystery, which accords very well with the Christian Faith, viz. that both in the one and the other Cup, aught to be understood both the Old and New Testaments, especially seeing the Truth itself hath so plainly declared it unto us, that there remains no doubt of it unto those which search the truth: For the Lord himself called the New Testament the Cup which he gave us to drink; and afterwards, 
Ibid. c. 38.  in this part of the Gospel whereof we now dispute, we are not permitted to understand any thing else but what we are taught by our Saviour's own words, who saith, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; and according to this rule, whereby the Cup is termed the New Testament, is very justly to be understood the Old Testament in the Cup which he gave first: The same Lord then which gave unto his Disciples both Testaments, gave also both Cups; therefore at the same Supper he eat of the Jewish Passover, which was to be offered, and distributed the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which was to be instituted for the Salvation of Believers; he eat the Passover of the Jews, whereby Jesus Christ was promised to come unto our Passover, which he became, when sacrificed himself. In fine, consider what the Evangelist St. Luke relates that he said unto his Disciples; for he saith thus, When the hour was come, he sat down at the Table, and the twelve Apostles with him, and he said unto them, With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: he eat therefore the Passover, by which he was represented to suffer, before he suffered voluntarily for us; there is also in the words of our Saviour something which ought diligently to be considered by Believers, and wherein may be perceived a difference betwixt both Testaments; for St. Luke thus speaketh of the Cup which he first mentioned, And having taken the Cup, he gave Thanks, and said, Take ye it, and divide it amongst you; but speaking afterwards of the Bread and the Cup, he saith, And having taken the Bread, he gave Thanks, and broke it, and gave it unto them, saying, This is my Body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me. Also he gave them the Cup after Supper, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Of all the opinions or divers Interpretations cited by St. Fulgentius, I find his own the most reasonable, because in effect St. Luke hath mentioned two several Cups, the Paschal Cup, and the Eucharistical Cup; the former being a Sign and Seal of the first Covenant, and the latter the Sign and Seal of the new Covenant. If this Evangelist hath not taken notice of our Saviour's saying of the Eucharistical Cup, I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine, but only in speaking of the Paschal Cup, it is in the first place because he considered our Saviour's whole action to be but one Supper, at the end whereof he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist; so that 'tis as if he should have made our Saviour say, After this Supper, and my now sitting at Table with you, I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine. Secondly, That although Jesus Christ might have said so of the two Cups, the Paschal and Eucharistical; yet nevertheless S. Luke, seeing the two other Evangelists had not observed it of the Paschal, he contented himself to observe it of the Paschal, and not of the Eucharistick, the Evangelists being accustomed to supply in this manner the omissions one of another; I mean, that the one observes some things the others had omitted, that it might not be thought they had all written of design and by consent.   

CHAP. III.  
Continuation of the considerations of the matter of the Eucharist, wherein is examined what S. Ignatius saith of certain Heretics which rejected the Sacrament; the Heresy of one named Tanchelin who also rejected it, but upon another Principle; the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies, and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about Bread leavened or unleavened.  
SAint Ignatius was a Disciple of the Apostles, and particularly of St. John, Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Antioch, and moreover a glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ; for he suffered Martyrdom at Rome the first of February, Anno 107. or 109. in the Eleventh Year of the Emperor Trajan; and if the Epistles which go in his name, were truly his, it were not to be questioned, but that towards the end of the first age of Christianity, or at farthest the beginning of the second, there were Heretics which rejected the use of the Sacrament. When I mention his Epistles, I speak not generally of all those which go in his name, but only of the seven most ancient, seeing 'tis above 1300 years since Eusebius saw them; and after Eusebius, they were cited by some of the Fathers of the Church; because it is of these seven that the moderate persons, both Roman catholics and Protestants, seem to make greatest difficulty, I mean the Protestants that admit them as legitimate; for I find several that question them all, and that cannot persuade themselves that they were the genuine Issue of that Illustrious Martyr, as Messieurs de Saumaise, Blondel, Aubertin, Daillé; this latter having also examined in a particular Treatise, all the marks of forgery that he could discover in these Epistles. I freely confess myself to be in this Error if it be an Error, and that of a long time, I have therein observed several things which suffered me not to believe that S. Ignatius had writ them; but as this is not the place to show it, and that besides it hath been performed by others, it shall suffice to consider what he hath said of these Heretics; 
Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn.  They abstain (saith he) from the Eucharist and from Prayer, because they believe not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father raised up by his goodness. It is a long time since Theodoret cited this passage; but instead of these words, they abstained from the Eucharist and Prayer, he used these, they admitted not Sacraments nor Oblations, I think the word Oblations is more significant than that of Prayer, for there's nothing more frivolous, than to represent unto us those Heretics as abstaining from Prayer, because they owned not the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ; and I see no connexion betwixt these two things, nor that they have any dependence the one upon the other, unless some will say, that they did not mean generally all manner of Prayer, but only that whereby the Symbols of the Sacrament were consecrated, and which many think was the Lord's Prayer, which they suppose the Apostles used for the consecrating this Mystery: and therefore it is probable, that the Fathers called it the Mystical Prayer, and that it was not permitted unto the Catechumeni to repeat it, because not having yet received holy Baptism, they could not, as they supposed, call God Father, nor participate of the Sacrament whereunto they were admitted immediately after Baptism: but in fine, these very words make me suspect the truth of the Epistle; it might be, and I'll not deny but that towards the end of the third Century there might be Heretics which did so, and that he who forged the Epistle of S. Ignatius living at that time, and opposing these Enemies of Christianity, hath expressly observed it, not considering, as it often happens to that sort of men, that it was not so in the time of this glorious Martyr, under whose name he would cover himself. I farther confess that if those Heretics which I suppose to be the Docetes and Putatives, that is, those which denied the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and which only allowed him an imaginary Body, a fantome and shadow of a Body: I say, I grant, that had they acted according to their Hypothesis, they would not have allowed of the Eucharist, seeing they could not allow it without ruining their abominable Doctrine, by an infallible consequence. But this is not the place to consider what they ought to have done, but what they did: now it is most certain that in the time of the true S. Ignatius, none of these Heretics denied the Eucharist, for none of the Ancients have observed it; which they would not have omitted to do, as well those which have treated of Heresies, as those which have written particularly against the Heretics whereof we now treat, The first which refused to celebrate the Sacrament, were as we have been informed by the Holy Fathers, the Ascodrupites, which were a Limb of the Impostor Mark, and Mark an unhappy Branch of Valentine, which Valentine began not to appear till thirty years after the death of S. Ignatius; and as for those concerned in the Epistle which we examine, how could they abstain from the Eucharist in the time of our glorious Martyr, seeing they abstained not from it a hundred years after? 
Tertul. advers. Marc. l. 1. c. 14.  For Tertullian doth formally tellus, that Martion which was one of the chief of these Heretics, persisted in the use of the Sacrament, seeing he declares that the God of Martion, shows his Body by the Bread: otherwise the Orthodox could not have drawn from the Sacrament any advantage against them for the truth of his Body, and for the incarnation of Jesus Christ: for when one disputes with another, they must dispute upon common principles, and which are acknowled on both sides. I should think then, and to end the consideration of this matter, that these Heretics which opposed not so much the Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. §. ne auth.  as the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, as Cardinal Bellarmin hath well observed, taking notice of the neglect of their Predecessors, and seeing they admitted the use of the Sacrament, they gave the Catholics strong Arms to contradict them, they abstained from celebrating it as the Ascodrupites had done a long while before them, although upon another account; but besides these two sorts of Heretics, both which, the one after the other, rejected the celebrating of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, although upon different principles, we shall see in the XII. Century a new Heretic that towards Flanders, and especially in Brabant where he spread abroad his Heresy and the poison of his pernicious Doctrine (it was one called Tanchelin) who having a design to ruin the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and to forbid the use of it unto all those which he could seduce, did so well by his cunning, and by the help of the evil Spirit under whom he had enroled himself, that he persuaded the people of Antwerp, (a great and populous City) that the participation of the Eucharist was not necessary unto Salvation; wherefore they continued several years without communicating, as the 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 forced to enlarge upon this History, which plainly shows 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 'tis 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 Heretics to combat 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 itself consecrated the Shewbread. 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 steeped in the Blood of a young Child, a calumny occasioned, in all likelihood, by the abominations of the Gnostics; 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 'tis Bread, will not he conclude that 'tis 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 'tis that Bread which was said to be steeped in the Blood of a little Child; which Calumny at that time much troubled the Christians? I said expressly 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 Tert●llian himself represents unto us the unbelieving Husband suspecting the Christian Wife to go about to poison him: 
Id. ibid.  Will he (saith he) suffer these things without sighing, and without being in doubt whether it be Bread or Poison. Therefore I leave the Reader at his liberty to incline unto which side he please.  
But because a Kingdom divided against itself 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-willed 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 Symbols of his Sacrament, a Figure of the virtue and efficacy of his Body broken, and of his Blood shed for the nourishment of our Souls, by the relation they have unto the virtue 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 Countries 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 being taken from the Offerings which Christians offered upon the Table in the Church at the usual times that they assembled unto the Communion, as we shall make appear in the Fourth Chapter, which will plainly evidence, That these Offerings were of the very same kind of Bread, as that which was used in the ordinary actions of Life; and if in process of time, there ensued any alteration, it was not in respect of the nature or quality of Bread: as if that of common use was leavened, and that of the Eucharist unleavened, seeing it was but one and the same sort of Bread; all the difference consisted, first, in that the Bread of the Eucharist was to be of a round form; secondly, about the seventh Century they began to prepare it expressly and on purpose for the celebrating of the Sacrament, as appears by the sixth Canon of the sixteenth Council of Toledo, assembled Anno 693. which we will cite at large in the following Chapter, by some words of Cardinal Humbert, 
T. 4. Bibl. pa●. part. 2. p. 212. l. 3 c. 33. t. 4. Spicil.  which wrote in the Eleventh Century, and of the ancient customs of the Monastery of Clunie, written in the same Century, whereto there were many Ceremonies multiplied for the preparing the Bread of the Sacrament, whereas there was none at all at first, because it was not made of set purpose, but with the common Bread; and even when it was begun to be made of purpose, we do not find there was any great Ceremony used about it: In fine, it was thought good in process of time, to make upon the Bread the sign of the Cross, unto which Custom Father Sirmond doth apply the third Canon of the second Council of Tours, 
Sirmond de Azymo, c. 4.  assembled Anno 567. and the first of the fifth Council of Arles, held in the year 554. although to my seeming, there is nothing very clear in these two Canons for authorising this Custom. Also the same Sirmond doth confess in the same place, That the Interpretation which he giveth unto the Council of Tours, which is the plainest of the two alleged by him, is not allowed by all; and indeed it is not very likely that the Christians of the West which began not to prepare the Bread of the Sacrament separately from ordinary Bread until about the seventh or eighth Century, should have marked it before that time with the sign of the Cross: But so it is for certain, that the use of leavened Bread in the Eucharist continued still in the Latin Church in the time of Gregory the first, 
Vit. Greg. l. 2. c. 41.  as the History of that Woman doth import, who admired that this Pope should call the Body of the Lord a Loaf, which she knew very well she had made with her own hands. And this custom continued not only in Gregory's time, but also a good part of the Ninth Century, at which time a great difference having broke out betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches, we do not find that, amongst sundry reproaches, and some of them either very light, or it may be unjust, made by the Greeks against the Latins, that they have in any manner touched the question of leavened or unleavened Bread; which they would not have omitted, if the Latins had used unleavened Bread in their Eucharist, as they failed not to condemn this practice in the Eleventh Century, at which time this contention was managed with greater heat on both sides: a manifest sign that the Latin Church did not begin to use unleavened Bread in the celebration of her Sacrament, but in that space of time which passed betwixt the Ninth and the Eleventh Century. 
Sirmond de Azymo.  Father Sirmond hath at large justified this truth, and after his manner confirmed it with such clear and strong reasons, and particularly those , that nothing can be added unto what he hath said, having very solidly refuted what Cardinal Baronius alleged against it, and shown that Hugo Tuscus and Rupert de Duitz were deceived when they imagined, as well as Baronius, that the Latin Church had always used unleavened Bread in the Eucharist. 
Hist Concil. Florent. Sguropuli. Sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278.  In the Council of Florance, held under Pope Eugenius the Fourth, where was made, by Interest of State and Policy, a seeming accord betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches, it was concluded, as to what concerned leavened or unleavened Bread, That each Church should retain its own custom, viz. That the Eastern Church should make their Eucharist with leavened Bread, and the Western with unleavened Bread, so that the one should not be obliged to follow the use and custom of the other. 
Raban. de instit. Cleric. l. 1. c. 14.  Nevertheless I cannot pass by what Rabanus, Archbishop of Mayence, wrote in the Ninth Century, That unleavened Bread should be sanctified, and Wine mingled with Water, to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which he proves by the authority of the Book of Leviticus, and by the Example of Jesus Christ, which used unleavened Bread in the Institution of his Sacrament: But it must either be said, That this Opinion was a particular Opinion of his own, or that he intended only it should be so used the Thursday before Easter, exactly to imitate the practice of our Saviour; or in fine, what I believe to be more probable, That this custom began to be introduced into the Diocese of that Prelate; if it were not safer to say, That this long Observation of unleavened Bread was added unto Rabanus his works, which I dare not affirm, not being on the place to compare the Printed Copies with the Manuscripts.   

CHAP. IU.  
Wherein is showed from whence were taken the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, and what was the form of the Bread, with the innovations and changes which ensued thereupon.  
IT is not sufficient to show that Bread and Wine have always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist amongst Christians, excepting some few Heretics which had changed it, others that had miserably altered and corrupted the Celebration; and in fine, others which had wholly rejected it, though upon several motives and different Principles: Neither is it sufficient to have hinted at the reproaches which were made against Christians upon account of the Bread and Wine in this Divine Sacrament, and to have examined the great controversy which armed (if it may be so said) the Greek Church against the Latin Church, in the XI. Century, touching the Nature and quality of the Bread of the Sacrament, to know whether it should be Leavened or Unleavened. To the end nothing should be wanting unto this consideration, we must endeavour to find out from whence was taken the Bread and Wine, employed by Christians in the celebration of their Sacrament. I make no question but they proceeded from the liberality of Believers, who being inflamed in those happy times, with the divine fire of Charity, which the Ancients term, The mother and root of all Riches, the death of Sin, the life of Virtue, and the way which leads unto Paradise; they cheerfully with their Goods relieved the necessities of the Church, whereof they were Members, and in the Communion of which the Lord was pleased by his grace to settle them, to make them partakers of his great Salvation. S. Luke gives us so clear and full a representation in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that it cannot be thought of without admiration, and at the same time, without lamenting and deploring the dulness and coldness of these last times, wherein is too plainly seen the accomplishment of the words of our Saviour who foretold, That iniquity should abound, and the love of many should wax cold. But at the beginning of Christian Religion, as this charity was in its greatest beauty, the whole Church offered unto God upon the Table every Lord's day, or on the days when they Assembled to participate of this Sacrament of their Salvation, and of there Union, their Oblations for the support of their Spiritual Guides or Ministers, for the relief of their Poor, and for the other Necessities of the whole Church; and out of these Offerings there was taken as much Bread and Wine as was needful for the holy Communion; a custom which if I mistake not, began to be practised in the days of the Apostles: for S. Clement one of their Disciples, 
Clement. Epist ad Cor. p. 53.  speaks of it as of a matter already established, in that excellent Letter which he wrote unto the Church of Corinth in the name of that of Rome, whereof he was one of the Pastors. Those (saith he) which make their oblations at the time appointed, are agreeable and blessed; for obeying the command of God, they do not sin. 
Just Mart. Apolog. 1. p. 60.  And Justin Martyr in his first Apology for the Christians (it is commonly called the second) showeth that in his time, the Food which was offered unto God by Believers with Prayers and Thanksgiving to be eaten, and to relieve the Poor, were called Oblations; and towards the conclusion of that excellent work he saith, That after Prayers and the kiss of Charity, there was presented unto the Pastor, Bread, and a Cup mingled with Wine and Water; and that he having received these things, rendered praise and thanks unto God the Father of all, in the name of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  
And there also he distinguisheth the Prayers of the Minister for the Consecration of the Eucharist, from the action of the people presenting him the Bread and Wine, which action he calls Oblation: which he repeats again afterwards. 
Cypr de operib. & Eleemos.  S. Cyprian also mentions these Oblations, but under the name of Sacrifices, when he reproacheth a rich and covetous Widow, That she came into the Assembly (or unto the Sacrament) of the Lord, without an Oblation; and that she took part of the Sacrifice which the Poor had offered. 
Hieron. in ●erem. c. 11. & in Ezech. c. 18. Innoc. ad D●cent. c. 3. Ambros. in. P●al. 118.  In like manner S. Jerom, and Pope Innocent the first, inform us, that in their time the Deacon did publicly repeat in the Church the names of those which offered. S. Ambrose Bishop of Milan in the argument upon the 118. Psalms, and according to the Hebrews the 119. teacheth us, that he that would communicate after having received holy Baptism, was obliged to offer his present or gift at the Altar: in the Constitutions which commonly go under the Apostles names, 
Conslit. Apost. l. 8. s. 10.  Prayers are made for them which offered Sacrifices and the first-fruits, to the end God would render them an hundred fold; and there is to be seen in the same piece, several rules touching those Oblations; 
Sozom. hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 15. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 17. Aug. Ep. 122.  Sozomen observes in his Church-History, that the Emperor Valens came to Church, offered the gift upon the Table. Theodoret reports the same of the Emperor Theodosius. And S. Austin speaking of two Christian Women Captives who deploring their misery, said, amongst other things, that in the place where they were, They could neither carry their Oblations unto the Altar of God, nor find any Priest unto whom to present it. 
Id. Serm. 215. de temp. if it were his.  And elsewhere recommending unto his flock the use and practice of these Oblations: Offer (saith he) the Oblations which are consecrated at the Altar; that man that is able to offer and doth not, aught to blush for shame, if he communicates of the offering of another. And because the charity of Christians decayed by little and little, and their zeal insensibly failing and losing daily some of its ardour and strength, these Oblations were not so numerous as they were wont to be, every one easily dispensing with himself in not offering at the Table of the Lord as they were accustomed to do; the Councils were obliged by their Canons and decrees to kindle the fire of this zeal which was almost extinguished; whereunto tended that of the second Council of Mascon Assembled Anno 585, 
Concil. Matisc. 2. can 4.  which ordains that all the people should offer every Lord's day the Oblation of Bread and Wine; and that of the Council of Mayence, Anno 813. Which requires that Christian people should continually be put in mind to make the Oblations; 
Con. Mogunt. an. 813. can. 44. Capitul. 858. c. 53. t. 3. Concil. Gall.  which is also repeated in the fifth Book of the Capitularies of Charlemagne Chap. 94. It was also one of the instructions which Herard Archbishop of Tours gave unto his Priests Anno 858. that they should exhort the people to offer their Oblations to God, and also in many other parts of the writings of the Ancients. I know not whether that Woman mentioned by John the Deacon in the life of Gregory the first needed those exhortations of presenting her offering unto God, or whether she did it of her own free will, and by that ardent zeal which inspired the primitive Christians with such commendable sentiments of pity and charity; 
Vita Gregor. 1. l. 2. c. 41.  but in fine he writes, That a certain Woman did offer unto Gregory as he celebrated the solemnity of the Mass, the usual Oblations; and that afterwards Gregory said in giving her the Sacrament, The body of our Lord preserve your Soul; she smiled, in that he called the loaf of Bread which she made herself, the body of Christ: And forasmuch as for the most part none were admitted unto the participation of the Eucharist, but those which presented their Oblations, there is a very great number of Canons in the Councils which prescribe, to whom the Oblations were to be distributed, and to whom not; but it is not necessary to allege more proofs of this Ancient custom, seeing the matter admits of no difficulty.  
Nevertheless, this is not all that we intent to observe: every one may easily judge by what hath been hitherto said, that what was offered for the celebration of the Sacrament, was Bread and Wine; but it may be all the world do not know, that they were not the only things which were offered at first: for the charitable Oblations of Believers being appointed not only for the Celebration of the Sacrament, but also for the support of the Ministers and Pastors, for relief of the Poor, and generally for the necessity of the Church; it cannot be questioned as I suppose, that besides the Bread and Wine, of which was taken what was convenient for the Sacrament, there were also other things offered; and if we should make any question of it, the directions which we shall allege, will soon remove this doubt and scruple. In fine, the Pastors of Christian Churches having in time thought convenient to set apart the Oblation of Bread and Wine for the Celebration of the Eucharist, from all the other Oblations made by Believers, they absolutely prohibited that any thing else should be offered for the celebration of the Sacrament but Bread and Wine: in pursuance whereof the third Canon, attributed to the Apostles, doth reprove and censure those who offered Honey, 
Can. 3. Apost. & can. 4.  Milk, Birds, Beasts or Roots upon the Altar; and in the fourth it allows of offering Oil for the lights, and incense for the times of Oblation. But to prove what hath been said, by a better authority, recourse must be had unto more Authentic Monuments, and to such as bear not the marks of Forgery, as these Canons do. The first of these Monuments which presents itself unto our sight, is the third Council of Carthage, assembled Anno 397. for in one of its Canons which is the 37. of the Code of the Church of Africa, it makes this Decree, That in the Sacraments, 
Concil. Carthag. 3. can. 24.  (or as Martin de Braga reads it in his Collection) that in the Sanctuary nothing else be offered but the body and blood of our Lord, as our Saviour hath taught; that is to say, Bread, and Wine mingled with Water: and to distinguish this Oblation which related unto the Eucharist, from the others offered by the faithful people, the Council adds, As for the first-fruits, whether it be Honey, or Milk, let them be offered after the usual manner, upon some solemn day for the mystery of Infants; and if these things, especially the Milk, be offered at the Altar, yet let them receive their particular blessing, to distinguish them from the consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord; and as to first-fruits, that nothing be offered but Grapes and Wheat. Martin Bishop of Braga in his Collection of Canons, hath expressed in these words, that of the Council of Carthage; There ought nothing to be offered in the Sanctuary, 
Collect can. c. 55.  but the Bread and Wine which are blessed in Type or in Figure, of Jesus Christ. And the fourth Council of Orleans Anno 541. makes this decree, That none presume to offer in the Oblation of the holy Cup ought else but the fruit of the Vine mingled with Water; 
Concil. Aurel. 4 c 4.  it is what is repeated in the VIII. Canon of the Synod of Auxerre Anno. 578. The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled the year 675. going about to reform some Abuses crept into Spain, touching this Oblation, made this Decree, which Gratian and others ignorantly allege as a fragment of a Letter of Pope Julius unto the Egyptians. 
Concil. 3. Bracar. c. 1. al. 2.  We have been informed that certain Persons puffed up with a Schismatical ambition, do offer Milk instead of Wine at the Holy Offertory contrary to the command of God, and contrary to the institution of the Apostles: and that there be others which do not offer at the Sacrament of the Cup of our Lord, the Wine pressed out, but they communicate the people with Grapes which have been offered: and having alleged against this abuse, the Authority and Example of Jesus Christ, these Fathers add, That they should therefore forbear offering Milk at the Sacrifice, because the manifest and evident Example of the Evangelical truth hath appeared, the which permits only that Bread and Wine should be offered. This was also the method of the VI Ecumenical, Council when it transcribes in the 32. Canon, that which hath been above alleged of the Synod of Carthage, and in transcribing they appropriate it unto themselves, and make it their own. But if any ask the reason of this proceeding of the Fathers, I mean wherefore they thought fit to distinguish the Oblation of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist from all other things, which in all likelihood were promiscuously offered at the same time with these things, because these kinds of charitable Oblations had not for their scope the celebration of the Sacrament only: I answer, that by reason of the silence of Ancient Writers, it is very difficult to answer distinctly this question; yet I will nevertheless thereupon offer my conjectures: I say then in the first place, I suppose the Fathers have thus done in honour and respect unto the Sacrament, imagining that it was very just and reasonable that this Bread and Wine which by consecration were to be made the efficacious and Divine Symbols of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ, should not be offered conjunctly with other things which indeed were to be applied unto pious uses, but less noble and considerable; and methinks the Fathers of the Council of Carthage give us sufficient ground to conclude so from their Decree. Secondly, I think that having made this distinction, they provided some other way for the maintenance of Churchmen, and for the relief of the Poor; and so there being nothing else wanting but for the Sacrament, the holy Fathers judged fit to limit the Oblations only to the species of Bread and Wine, the two only things necessary for the celebration of the Divine Mystery. Whereunto possibly it might be added, that by this wise conduct they would prevent a growing superstition; the multitude being but too much inclined to abuse the most innocent ceremonies, being always sensual and carnal, they might imagine that the Oblations made at the Altar, being called First-fruits, were of the same kind with the first-fruits of the Law, whereof the Oblation sanctified the whole Lump; so that the Fruits of the Earth might not be lawfully used until the first-fruits had been first offered unto God upon the holy Table, as if, without this Sanctification, the use had been unlawful: I cannot see but it may be so inferred from the words of Theodoret, who speaking of the Oblation which the Church makes of the Symbols of the Body and Blood of the Lord, saith, That it sanctifieth the whole Lump by the first-fruits. 
Theod. in Psalm 109.  And what renders this conjecture the more probable, is, what S. Austin observed, 
Aug. de Civit. Del, l. 8. c. ult.  That many amongst the Christians carried sundry sorts of meat unto the Monuments of Martyrs, and after Prayers they carried them to their Houses, eaten of them, and gave Alms, with an opinion that they were sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs.  
But now 'tis high time to inquire what was the form of the Bread which was offered for the Celebration of the Eucharist. The Apostle S. Paul says in the tenth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, That we are all partakers of one Bread: This makes me think that they offered upon the holy Table a Loaf, greater or less, according to the number of Communicants; the unity of this Loaf representing the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ: and this Loaf was broken into pieces, to give a share unto each Communicant. The Author of the Letter unto the Philadelphians, under the name of St. Ignatius, gives us no leave to doubt of it; for we therein read these words, There is one only Bread broke unto all: 
Ign. ad Philad. Id. ad Ephes.  and in that to the Ephesians, he speaks after this sort, of breaking one only Loaf. Durandus hath well observed it in his Rational, above 300 years ago: They offered (saith he) a great Loaf, which served them all: 
Durand. Bat. l. 4. c. 53. ●● 3  It is said the Greeks still observe the same Custom; which is very true, and also several Christian Communions observe it at this present time; that is, that they proportion the Bread of the Eucharist unto the number of Communicants, whether they offer them whole upon the Table of the Church, as it is supposed to be the practice at this day amongst the Abassins', or whether it be divided into pieces or parcels before they are offered. 
Epiph. in Anch. Greg. 1. Dial. l. 4. c. 55.  These Loaves were of a round form, as S. Epiphanus tells us, and were like Loaves or Cakes; therefore in the Dialogues of Gregory the first, they are called Crowns: for he makes mention of a Priest that carried to a certain person two Crowns of Oblations; therefore a certain Interpreter of the Roman Order in Cassander has this observation, 
Apud Cassan. in Liturg. p. 60.  That although it appeared that the form and measure of Oblations did anciently depend on the Zeal and Devotion of each particular person, yet we may gather from the works of St. Gregory some marks of this custom. And having produced what hath been above alleged of the Fourth Book of his Dialogues, he adds, These Crowns were like those which Christians were wont to offer unto God at that time, for themselves, and for theirs. Then again (saith he) it appears of what bigness and form the Oblations of Sacrificers ought to be, which they are bound to make of a bandful of Flower, and in form of a Crown, which is to offer a Loaf of Bread. Such were the Oblations which were found in the Grave of S. Othmar, in the Eighth Century, when Solomon Bishop of Constance opened it; 
V●t. O hmar. apud Sur. An. ●20. 16. Nou.  for 'tis said, That there were found under his head certain pieces of Bread of a round form, which are commonly called Oblations. At this time, many would call them Wafers, but then they were still called Oblations; and there is no question to be made, but those Loaves were, for their greatness and bigness, proportioned unto the number of Believers which were to Communicate. This custom was so well settled, that 'tis not to be found in the Books of the Ancients, that there befell any alteration until the end of the Seventh Century, that some Priests in Spain bethought themselves of raising into a round form a little Crust of bread, which they had prepared for their own use, the which they employed in making their Sacrament. But the Sixteenth Council of Toledo, assembled Anno 693. provided against this disorder and abuse, by the Sixth Canon which contains this excellent Rule; 
Concil. 16. Tolet c. 6.  It is come unto the knowledge of our Assembly, that in some part of Spain, certain Priests, either through ignorance, or impudent temerity, do not offer upon the Lord's Table Loaves of Bread fitted and prepared on purpose, but as each one is thereto inclined by necessity, or carried by inclination, they raise hastily and in a round form little Crusts of Bread, intended for their particular use, and offer them at the Altar, with Water and Wine, for an holy Oblation: and thereupon having alleged the Texts of three Evangelists, and of St. Paul, the Council doth thus determine; In fine, what we can collect, is, That taking a whole Loaf, he broke it, and blessed it, and gave it by Parcels unto each of his Disciples, to show us to do the like for time to come, and without doubt to signify that each morsel is Bread, but that all Bread is not a Morsel; whence it is that he saith in the following words, pointing at him that was to betray him, Unto whom I shall give the Sop, he it is; therefore seeing the words of our Redeemer show that he took a whole Loaf, and not a morsel, and that he gave it by parcels unto his Disciples, in breaking it after having blessed it; and also seeing the Apostle St. Paul mentions that he took Bread and broke it, giving Thanks, etc. is it not to teach us that we should take a whole Loaf, and set it upon the Lord's Table to be Blessed, and not a piece of Bread, seeing that our Lord did not so? for if man be careful with affection to employ all the diligence he can possible for preserving his Life, how much more care and exactness ought he to show for the purity which ought to be observed in the service of God? therefore desiring to set bounds unto this temerity or ignorance, we have with a full consent thought fit that the Bread set upon the Table of the Lord, to be sanctified by the Ministerial Benediction, should be an entire clean and whole Loaf prepared for that purpose. Afterwards the Fathers do recommend the use of middling Oblations, intending, as I conjecture, that the quantity of Bread should be proportioned to the number of Communicants, to the end that what remains, say they, may the better be kept; or if it be eaten, that it should not incommode the Stomach by its quantity and weight, and that it may appear that 'tis intended rather to feed the Soul than the Body. It may therefore easily be conceived that these middling Oblations, mentioned by the Council of Toledo, are so called in reference to the number of Communicants which were to participate of the holy Sacrament, unto whom the Bread offered for the Communion was to be proportioned, and that they should not be made too big, fearing lest it should be thought that more regard was had unto the matter of the Sacrament than unto the Virtue, and to feeding the Body by digestion, than to strengthening the Soul by Heavenly and Spiritual Nourishment. Yet, nevertheless this Decree be very good for the time wherein it was made, and doth clearly justify what we have said touching the nature and form of the Bread which Christians were accustomed to use in the celebration of the Eucharist, I cannot find that there happened any other alteration, until at last in the Eleventh Century they began in some Churches in the West to change the form and quality of the Bread which had been always used in this Sacrament, using instead of it little Hosts, like Wafers, round and white, and very thin and slender: Whereof the Interpreter of the Roman Order, who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Century, of whom we have already spoke, makes great complaints, 
Apud Cassand in Li●turg. p. 61.  not enduring this great innovation. The quantity (saith he) of a handful is the least of all measures to make Bread of, which quantity is very justly appointed unto those which sacrificed for the Ministry of the Altar; and if there is not to be found in all the Old nor the New Testament a smaller measure than a handful, and if nothing aught to be done within the Temple of the Lord, nor out of it, without order and measure, these despicable little Oblations seem no way unto me fit for Jesus Christ and the Church, because they be without measure, and without reason, Cassander, who had seen the Book, and who relates several passages in his Liturgies, adds, This Author, otherwise pious, prudent, 
Ibid. p. 62.  and very well versed in the Traditions of the Church, saith thereupon several other things; it appears that he had much ado to suffer, that in his time in some Churches, the Oblations of Bread, which by an ancient custom of the Church were offered by the faithful people upon the Lord's Table, for the use of the Sacrifice, were reduced unto the form of a Crown-Piece, and a slight slender substance, much different from the form of true Bread; therefore it is that by contempt they call them slender Wafers made in the form of pieces of Money, which we call Crowns; they attribute unto them an imaginary shadowy lightness, and affirm they do not deserve the name of Bread, they are so thin; and that by reason of them, Divine Service, and the Religion of Ecclesiastical Offices, doth receive in all respects very great Damage, and inveighs against them in sundry other sharp and harsh expressions, all which things I have not thought fit here to recite. But whatever this learned Interpreter of the Roman Order could say or do, he could not hinder but that the use of these Wafers was established in the whole extent of the Latin Church; and that also some other Christians, who hold no Communion with the Latin Church, have held and retained it amongst them, although in other things they declare themselves to be contrary unto her, both in Doctrine and Worship: But yet things rested not there; for instead of Bread in the Eucharist, offered by Believers, or at least, Flower, whereof it was made, they obliged the people to offer pieces of Money, as Honorius of Autun (who lived in the Twelfth or Thirteenth Centuries) doth inform us: his words deserve to be here inserted; 
Honor. Augustodun. in gem. anim. c. 66.  It is said, that anciently the Priest received Flower from each house or Family, which is still practised by the Greeks, and that they made thereof the Bread of the Lord, which they offered for the People, and distributed it amongst them, after it was consecrated; for all those which offered Flower assisted at Mass, and it was said for them in the Canon; of all those which are here present which offer unto thee this Sacrifice of praise; but after the Church was increased in number, and decreased in holiness, it was decreed by reason of carnal Men, that those that could, should communicate every Lord's day, or every third Sunday, or on great Festival days, or three times a year; and by reason of the People's seldom communicating, it was not needful to make so great a Loaf, it was ordered, that it should be made in the form of a piece of Money, and that the People should offer pieces of Money instead of Meal; which is to this time practised in the whole Communion of the Church of Rome. I have enlarged upon this custom, and have made no difficulty to examine it from first to last; because that the change happened in this custom, seems to me of greater importance than many imagine; for men are not usually inclined unto the changes of this Nature, without some weighty reasons; it must needs be that those which have changed the form, the consistence, and the quality of the Eucharist, have been thereunto induced for some great design: there be some which think that the motive (there soon following it such change in the Doctrine) was nothing else but a design to remove and banish from the mind and thoughts of Communicants, that that, which was received by the hand at the Lords Table, and was put into the mouth, was Bread; to which purpose, say they, these Wafers were very fit, which were presented unto them, or rather were put into their Mouths, seeing they have neither the form nor Figure of true Bread, and that never any People or Nation in the World, used this kind of food; and what doth the more confirm them in this belief is, that this change happened not as they suppose until after the condemnation of Berengar (viz.) towards the end of the XI. Century. But as these conjectures do not much concern us, so I leave unto the Reader to determine whether they are to be admitted or not; and proceed to the examination of the Consecration of the Symbols.   

CHAP. V.  
Of the Consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, and first of the place where they were Consecrated, and of the matter of Chalices and Patins.  
AFTER Jesus Christ had taken the Bread and the Cup, the Evangelists observe that he gave thanks, that is, that he Blessed and Consecrated them; the Church that imitated him in the first Action, hath also done the like in the second, although in process of time she hath added divers Ceremonies which were not therein at first: but because the Consecration contains several things, as the place where it is done, the matter of Chalices and Patins, the Language, the Ceremonies, and the Form of Consecrating, that is to say, the Consecrating Liturgy; these things must be examined in Order, to avoid obscurity and confusion. In this Chapter I design to treat of the Place of Consecration, and of the Matter of Chalices. As to the Place, it is to be considered either generally or particularly: in the former sense it was the place where Christians assembled together for the worship of Almighty God, wherein they performed their exercise of Piety and Devotion, and wherein for a long time they eat altogether: for in the same place wherein they made their Agapae, and where they took these Love-feasts, they also did celebrate the Sacrament; and indeed all generally agree, that the Primitive Christians did frequently eat in common, every one contributing as they were able, unto these Feasts, unto which the Poor had as free access as the Rich, although they were not able to join their portion unto their Brethren. S. Paul explains himself clearly, 
1 Cor 11.  when he saith unto the Believers of Corinth; When you meet together, this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord; for each one hasteth to eat his own Supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken, What have you not houses to eat and to drink in? or do you despise the house of God, and shame them which have not? It is also granted that the Eucharist was celebrated at the same Times and Places where the Christians made these meals together; and therefore it is the Apostle speaks of eating the Supper of the Lord, backing the censure which he pronounced against the Corinthians by reason of disorders and excesses which they committed in these Feasts of Charity, with the History of the Institution of the Sacrament, which he recites at large; an undoubted proof that this Sacrament was celebrated in the Time, and at the Places where Believers did eat together. S. Luke makes it appear evidently, when speaking of the first Christians of the Church of Jerusalem, 
Acts 2.42.  he saith, That they all did persevere in the Doctrine and Communion of the Apostles, 
verse 46.  and in breaking Bread, and of Prayers; and afterwards, That they daily went unto the Temple, and breaking Bread from house to house, they eat their Bread with joy and singleness of heart: and in the same Book he farther observes, 
Act. 20.7.  That the first day of the week, that is, the Lords day, the Disciples met together to break Bread: S. Peter speaks of this Feast when he saith unto the Believers, 
2 Pet. 2.13.  to whom he wrote his Second Epistle, That Seducers and Hypocrites were blots and stains, which took pleasure in unrighteousness, feasting together with you. S. Judas, whose Epistle is only an abridgement of S. Peter's, speaks so plainly, that he leaves us not the least cause of doubt, 
Judas 12.  saying of these same persons, That they are spots in the Christian Feasts of Charity; it is in S. Judes' Language, in the Agapae: this word Agape, which was very famous in this sense in the Ancient Church, signifying properly in our Language, Love or Dilection; the practice of these Agapae continued a long while amongst Christians, and Tertullian who lived towards the end of the II. Century and the beginning of the III. gives us an agreeable description of it: 
Tertul. Apolog. cap. 39  Our Supper (saith he) shows what it is, by the name which it bears; it is called by a name which signifies Love, amongst the Greeks; we comfort the Poor by this refreshment, we sit not down to Table till after Prayers, we eat to suffice hunger, and drink what Decency and Purity will allow; we there take our Meals, but like Persons which consider that they must again return unto the Worship and service of God during the whole night; we there discourse with one another, but so, as knowing that God heareth them which discourse; after washing our hands, and that lights are brought, those that are present are desired to assist in singing some Hymn unto God, as every one is able to do; either out of the Holy Scriptures, or out of his own mind: it is observed from thence how he hath drank; and in fine, the Feast is ended with Prayer, as it was begun. It is true, Tertullian doth not speak of the Celebration of the Sacrament in all this Discourse, but it may suffice that he gives it sufficiently to be understood, that they attended the Service of God in the same places where Christians made their Agapae: for it may easily be gathered that they did there celebrate the Eucharist, as often as they held these Feasts. To know precisely how often the Feasts of Charity were joined to the Celebration of the Sacrament, is what is not easily done; it will not be so hard to show how long they continued these Agapae and common Feasts in the places where they assembled for the service of God, and where by consequence, they celebrated the Eucharist. For I find that this was practised towards the end of the iv Century; but because there were great abuses crept into these Feasts, the Council of Laodicea assembled about the year of our Lord 360. was constrained to forbid the use of them in the Temples and Churches; You must forbear (saith he) making the Agapae in the Temples, 
Concil. Laodic. cap. 28.  or of setting up Tables, and eating in the house of God. It appears by what hath been said, that for the most part, the place where the Eucharist was celebrated and consecrated, was the place where Believers met together to serve God, and where for a long time they made their Feasts of Charity, even at the same time that they celebrated the Sacrament. It is true those places were very different according to the diversity of states and conditions wherein the Church of Christ was; at the first beginning of Christianity, they assembled in private houses, sometimes in one place, sometimes in another; in private and obscure places to be sheltered, as well from the rage of the Jews, as the fury of the Gentiles: therefore it was that they assembled before day, and in the night time; and they continued so to do for a long time, whilst the Church was harrassed with Persecutions, and because that sometimes they assembled together at the Tombs of Martyrs, they also there celebrated the Eucharist; at least the Pontifical Book observes in the life of Felix the first, towards the end of the III. Century, that this Pope decreed, That Masses should be celebrated upon the Sepulchers of Martyrs; which by the Emperor Constantine is called a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, in his discourse unto the Assembly of Saints, or to the Church of God; because in celebrating the Sacrament, thanks were given unto God for the Victories of Martyrs, as S. Austin speaketh, who makes mention of this same custom in the last Chapter of the VIII. Book De Civit. Dei. Yet it must not be imagined, but that during these sad and troublesome times, they had some fixed places destinated for their Exercises; for there were sufficient intermissions, during the which they built, certain little Houses joining to their Churchyards, which were places distant from the sight of Men, where by consequence they assembled with greater safety. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius doth testify so much, and in several places mentions those places where Christians were wont to assemble; observing that before the persecution of Dioclesian, they had some intermissions under certain Emperors, during which they atempted some better and larger Buildings, than those which they had before. But God would humble his Church, which went about to lose amongst Lilies, the beauty which she had acquired amongst Thorns: he stirred up this cruel Emperor, who, by the first Edict he made to be published against Christians the 19 year of his Reign, commanded to be demolished and destroyed to the ground their Oratories and Churches, which continued until Constantine embraced the Christian Religion. For then the Church breathing quietly under a Prince which cherished her, and gratified her in all that could be desired; Christians were seen striving who could surpass each other in building magnificent and beautiful Churches and Temples, which were so many illustrious Monuments of the Rest and Plenty which they enjoyed under the first Christian Emperor.  
Having considered the Places wherein Christians assembled themselves but by relation unto the Celebration of the Sacrament, I have not amply treated the Question of Temples or Churches; and I have so done the rather, because an occasion of examining it more at large may in some short time offer itself. I only say that it was in the iv Century that they began to be consecrated, but after a manner entirely different from that at this time used amongst the Latins; and that it was about the same time prohibitions were made of celebrating the Sacrament only in consecrated places. This general consideration of the place where Christians assembled, and where they celebrated their Sacrament, may give us some light to design the particular place where the Consecration was made: whilst they assembled in private houses, there is no question to be made, but that they placed in some convenient place in the Chamber, a Table whereupon they did consecrate the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, and where they distributed the holy Communion unto Believers: the example of Jesus Christ served them instead of a Law, for he celebrated his Eucharist in the same place where he had eaten the paschal Lamb, there he consecrated and distributed it, neither the Evangelists nor S. Paul having said any thing that may make us think otherwise. Moreover, the Roman Catholics and the Protestants confess, that the Corinthians did celebrate the Eucharist in the same place where they made their Love-feasts; and if there be any contests, I do not say betwixt Communion and Communion, but betwixt particular Doctors in each of both Communions; it is not in regard of the place, but in respect of the time, to wit, whether the Sacrament was celebrated before the Agapae, or afterwards, which doth not relate to the Subject we now treat of: seeing than that the Corinthians made their Feasts of Charity, and made altogether these Feasts upon Tables, or at least on things that served to that purpose, methinks it cannot be at all questioned, but that they did celebrate and also consecrate their Eucharist upon the same Table, seeing they did celebrate it in the same place and at the same time where they did eat together. S. Justin Martyr in the Account of this Sacrament which he hath left us, hath not mentioned the place where this Consecration was made: but to consider the innocency of those times, and the manner of consecrating the Symbols which he represents unto us, one cannot but conclude, but that it was upon a Table that they consecrated them, after that the people had presented them unto the Passover, as he saith; the word [Supper] used by S. Paul, directed them unto this use and practice, as well as the example of Jesus Christ: 
Origen. l. 20. c. 2.  For as S. Isidore of Sevill saith, It is called a Supper from the Communion of those which eat; 
Chrysost. t. 5. homil. 21.  whereunto also doth amount what S. Chrysostom observed before him. That the Apostle calleth the Supper of the Lord that, of which all, that are invited, do participate in common, and with love. For those expressions do import a Holy and Divine repast, common unto all the faithful, and which requires a Table to take it, and to eat of it altogether: when therefore Christians had places destinated for the exercise of their holy Religion, it is evident there was a certain place where this Eucharistical Table was placed, there to consecrate this august Sacrament, and there to distribute it unto all the faithful Communicants. And when under Constantine the Great, the Temples of Christians began to be Stately and Magnificent, there was a particular place called the Sanctuary, where the mystical Table was set, whereupon Consecration was made. In Minutius Felix, the Infidel demands, 
Min. Fel. in Octau.  Wherefore Christians have no Altars? and the Christian answers thus, whereby he confesseth they have none; Do you think that we hid what we do adore, because we have no Temples nor Altars? 
Orig. contr. Cells. l. 8. p 389. ult. Edit.  The Philosopher Celsus gives them the same reproach in Origen, saying, that they would not erect Altars. Which Origen doth not gainsay, but saith only, That every one of them hath his Soul and thought for an Altar, from whence do ascend truly and intelligibly, the perfumes of a sweet smell, that is, prayers from a pure conscience. Christians nevertheless did not omit to celebrate and participate of the Sacrament; it must needs follow then that it was upon a Table. Nevertheless it is certain there is nothing more frequent in the writings of the Fathers than the name of Altar, to design the place of Consecration and of celebrating the Eucharist; yet I judge that the first place of Antiquity where the Altar is mentioned, is (if my memory fail me not) in the Book of Prayer made by Tertullian. 
Tertul. de Orat. c. ult.  Your Station. (saith he) will be more solemn, if you stand-upright at the Altar of God. Since which time the Ancient Doctors have frequently used that manner of Speech; and as they frequently spoke of the Altar, so they commonly spoke of the Table: and I verily believe whosoever would collect the expressions of Table and Altar, which are to be found in the writings of the Ancients, to denote the place where the Consecration of the Eucharist was made, might compose a complete Volume of them: so that there being nothing more frequent in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity than the terms of Altar and of Table, to signify one and the same thing; it were to tyre the Readers patience, to allege proofs of so evident a truth, and which is owned by all: for I do not find that the Protestants deny unto the Roman Catholics, that the Fathers have often called the holy Table an Altar; and in truth they cannot without renouncing all sincerity and modesty: neither do I find that the Roman Catholics do deny unto the Protestants, but that the same Fathers do often make mention of the Eucharistical Table, the Divine Table, the Holy Table, and the Mystical Table; neither can they, without a manifest contradiction against an infinite number of passages of Antiquity, that are scarcely to be numbered in the writings of S. Chrysostom, and S. Austin; and if any desire to satisfy their curiosity thereupon, they may consult of the former, Oration 19 and 20. to the people of Antioch, that of Anger, of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, that of the birth of our Saviour, and the 17. Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews; and of the other, the 59th. Epistle and first Book and 20. Chap. of Merits and of the Remission of Sins, the 26. Treatise upon S. John; to which may be joined S. Athanasius in his Epistle to the Hermits, and in that which he writ unto the Orthodox; S. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations, 2, 4, 17, 19, 20, 23, 28. and 40. and at the end of his first Poem, and in his iambics 11. and 15. S. Ambrose upon the 9 of S. Luke; Hilary Deacon, upon the 10. and 11. Chapters of the first to the Corinthians; S. Basil, Ep. 72. Synesius, Epistle 67. Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. 1. c. 20, 25. and Sozomen Lib. 6. c. 29. and Lib. 8. Cap. 7. and many others wherein the same expressions are to be found. But this is not yet all, these Altars or these Eucharistical Tables were made of wood, which seems to imply that as yet in the iv Century, what the Fathers called Altars, were no other than Tables, whereunto they gave improperly the name of Altars. S. Optatus Bishop of Milevis who lived in that Age, doth formally say that the Altars were of Wood; for describing the rage of the Donatists, he reproaches them, That they had broken, torn, and carried them away; 
Opta●. l. 6. page 94.  that they had warmed Water with the pieces of these. Altars; that in some places the great quantity of Wood moved them to break them, and that in other places the want of Wood made them break them; in other places partly for shame they caused them to be taken away: and a little afterwards, Who of the Believers (saith he) knows not that in celebrating the Mysteries, the Table is covered with a linen cloth. 
Aug. li●. 3. contra Cres●. cap. 43.  S. Austin makes mention of a Catholic Bishop who was killed by these barbarous and inhuman Schismatics with the Wood or pieces of an Altar which they had broken. S. Athanasius doth expressly observe in his Letter unto the Mourners, 
Page 847. Ep. 67.  That the Sacramental Table was of Wood: And Synesius seems to teach us the same thing, when he represents unto us this Table as to be born from one place to another; also the first Canon which commands Altars of stone only to be consecrated, is, to the best of my remembrance, the 26. Canon of a private Council of Epaume, assembled Anno 517. 
Oration. in Bapt Christ Hom. 20 in 2. Cor.  although before this Decree Gregory of Nyssen and S. Chrysostom make mention of Altars of stone. Secondly I observe that the Eucharistical Table was not made exactly in the form of an Altar, but rather in the form of a Table where one eats and takes his usual Meals; for men grown to full Age and Stature might lie along under these Tables, which is impossible to do under an Altar, after the manner that they are erected. The Historian Socrates writes that Alexander Bishop of Constantinople did pray with tears, lying along upon his face under the Holy Table; and Zozomen, 
S●crea●. l. i. ●. l. 1. c. 25. Sozom 〈◊〉 l 8. c 7.  that the Eunuch Eutropius, seeking a safe Sanctuary in the Church, lay down under the Communion Table: it was the same course that Maximinian a Catholic Bishop of Bagaia took to preserve himself from the Cruelty of the Donatists, which S. Austin tells us was slain by those cruel persons, which slew him with the pieces of the Altar, 
August. l. 3. contra Cross. c. 43.  under which he lay. Moreover, it must be considered that when the Ancients do speak of an Altar, they do not mean the thing whereon the Eucharist was celebrated, and which they promiscuously called Table and Altar, they meant sometimes the place where the Holy Table was set, whereupon the Consecration was made, and the whole Celebration of the Sacrament. It is in this sense it is taken in Socrates, Lib. 1. C. 20. and 25▪ in some places of Gregory Nazianzen, in the Canons 19 and 44. of the Council of Laodicea, and the 69. of the Council of Trullo, and elsewhere; and that place was, as hath been said, called the Sanctuary, and was separated from the rest of the Temple by Curtains: 
Theodor. hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 31. Synes. Ep. 67.  whence it is that Theodoret, speaking of the Temple of Jerusalem, saith, That it was beautified with Curtains or Royal Tapestries; this is in all likelihood what is intended by Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, by the mystical Veil, if he did not thereby mean the Linnen-Cloth wherewith in some places they covered the Bread of the Sacrament. And to the end that the place where the holy Table stood, should not be accessible and alike common unto all persons, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 10. c. 4.  it was compassed in with wooden Rails, as is observed by Eusebius in the description of the Church of Tyre, and as it appears by sundry other passages of the Ancients. In fine, we learn by the Writings of the Ancients, That there was but one Altar, or one Table, in each Temple and Church. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, representing the Beauty and magnificent Building of the Temple of Tyre, which Paulin, Bishop of the place, caused to be built, and descending to particularise what was most curious and rare in it, he observes amongst other things, That there was but one sole Altar in it, 
Id. l. 10. c. 4.  and seeks in the unity of this Altar, and its situation in the middle of the Church, an image or representation of the Soul of Paulin its Pastor, of whom he speaks as of its most holy place. 
Chrysost. hom. 7. in Rom. Id. ●om. 18. 2 Cor. Hier. Ep. 2. Id. in cap. 3. Amos.  St. Chrysostom speaks plainly of the Altar of the Temple where he lived, as having but one; and elsewhere he takes occasion to exhort his hearers unto unity, because there is but one Baptism, one only Table, and one Baptismal Fountain. St. Hierom also speaks of the Altar of the Church in the singular number, as being but one; and elsewhere he saith, That the Church hath but one Altar, which he could not have said, if there had been indeed several in one Church. This is also what Socrates would intimate, 
Soerat. hist. l. 5. c. 21.  when observing that the Church of Antioch was contrived after a manner very different from other Churches, 
Athan. ad Solit.  he gives this reason, That the Altar therein stood to the West, and not to the East. St. Athanasius, making mention of the plundering of the eminentest Church of Alexandria, speaks of the holy Table in the Singular Number, even as of the Episcopal Chair; whereby he gives it plainly to be understood that there was but one Table, or one Altar, as there was but one Chair. It is also the Language of Peter his Successor; 
Apud Theod. l. 4. c. 20.  for describing the Outrages which the Pagans committed in the Church of Theonas at Alexandria, he speaks of the Altar of this Church, as being but one. In like manner the Priests, 
Libel. prec. p. 64. & 79.  Marcellini and Faustin, representing in their request unto the Emperors, the ruin of two Temples, one in Spain, the other in Egypt, mention but one Altar in each Church. Whereunto may be added that the Author of the Letter to the Philadelphians, under the name of St. Ignatius, writes, 
Ignat. Ep. ad Philad.  That there is but one Altar in each Church, as there is but one Bishop; and he speaks of it as of a thing known to every body, and which admits of no difficulty. Agobard, Archbishop of Lions, writing against Amalarius in the Ninth Century, speaks of one sole Altar in each Church. If then the Fathers sometimes speak of Altars in the Plural number, of necessity they must then intent or mean several Churches, or that it must be an indefinite proposition, and not to be applied unto any particular place. This custom of one Table or one Altar in each Church hath been retained even until our days amongst the greatest Christian Communions, excepting the Latins; as amongst the Greeks, which admit but of one Altar in a Church, 
Gore in Eucholog. p. 16. Sigism. Baro de rebus Moscov. Lib. itin. Aeth. c. 11.  as Gore observes in his Notes upon the Euchologie or Ritual of that Nation; nor amongst the Moscovites, by the relation of Sigismond, in his Memoirs of Muscovia; and amongst the Abassins', which are in Prester John's Country, as appears by the relation of Francis Alvarez, an Eye-witness. The Pontifical Book, which is improperly attributed unto Pope Damasus, never speaks but of one Altar in the Singular, in all the Lives of Popes, until Adrian the First, who lived towards the end of the Eighth Age: for in his life there is mention made of the great Altar, to distinguish it from other Altars which might be in the same Church, which is also observed in the Lives of several Popes who held the Chair after Adrian; whereas before there was mention made but of one Altar, which showeth that by the Thirteen Altars, which, by the relation of Gregory the First, had been erected by Palladius, Bishop of Xaintus, must not be understood Altars or Sacramental Tables, properly so called, but Tombs of Martyrs, which by corruption of Speech were called Altars or Tables, as appears by Optatus, Bishop of Milevis in Numidia, as is confessed by Monsieur de Laubespine, late Bishop of Orleans, in his Notes upon this Author. For if Optatus made no scruple so to call the Tombs of the false Martyrs of the Donatists, whereof he treats in that place; much less would he have feared, if occasion had presented, to attribute this name unto those of Catholic Martyrs, because the Sacrament was there from time to time celebrated: But in fine, since Adrian the First, that is to say, since the eighth Century, and probably since the end of the seventh, 
Capit. Dom. Car. M. c. 6. 1.2. Coneil. Gal. & Capit. Car. M. etc. append. 1. ad l. 4. c. 7.  they began in such a manner to multiply Altars in Churches, that the Emperor Charlemagne, Contemporary with Pope Adrian, was forced to prohibit, in his Capitularies, the too great number of Altars. But to the end nothing may be wanting unto the Question of Altars, the Reader may take notice, if he please, That movable Altars were not introduced amongst Christians, but since the eleventh Century; and also it would be very difficult precisely to determine in what Age, since the eleventh Century, they began to be used. That which some allege of Ives of Chartres, who died in the twelfth Century, not regarding, as I suppose, the use of these kinds of Altars, whatever may be, 
Hist. Relig c. 20.  it sufficiently appears that they were unknown in the fifth Century, because Theodoret made use of the hands of his Deacons, 
Philost. l. 2. c. 14.  instead of an Altar, to celebrate the Sacrament in the Cell of Maris; and before him, the Martyr Lucian made use of his Breast. 
Niceph. Caldist. l. 8. c. 31.   
It may be inferred from what hath been said, That the ancient Christians did not believe, as the Latins do at this time, That an Altar was absolutely necessary for the Celebration of the Sacrament, much less a consecrated Altar. In fine, the three first Ages did not practise the consecrating of Altars, which the Latins at this time believe so necessary, that without it the Celebration there performed is unlawful; but it was otherwise at the beginning▪ 
Add. 9 Nove●b. lect. 4.  Therefore there is to be read in the Roman Breviary, That it is said that Silvester (who was Pope in the Year 314) was the first that instituted the Ceremonies observed by the Roman Church in the consecrating of Churches and Altars. And I do not find that there is any mention of this Consecration made in the Writers of the fourth and fifth Ages; 
Orat. in Chr. bapt. t. 3.  for that whereof mention is made by Gregory of Nyssen, doth not import any Ceremony, nor any form of Consecration, but only a bare application unto a Religious use, which draws a Blessing of God by the Celebration of the Sacrament; whereunto amounts also what is said by St. Chrysostom in some of his Homilies, 
Hom 20. in 2 Cor.  That the Altar is by nature a Stone, but it becomes holy when it receives the Body of Jesus Christ. The first unsuspected place of Antiquity, wherein there is mention made of the consecration of Altars, is the Council of aged, in the year 506. for it prescribes this Rule, 
●●ath. Conc. ● 14.  It hath seemed good unto the Council, that the Altars should be consecrated, not only by the Unction of Chrism, but also by the Priestly Benediction. 
●. 26.  The Council of Epaum●, Anno 517. only speaketh of the Unction of Chrism. In the ninth Century they added Water unto the Chrism, and the Odour of Incense, as we read in Raba●us, 
de instit. Cler. l. 2. c. 45. de reb. Eccl. c. 9  and in Walafridus Strabo, who refer unto the Council of aged the first Institution of the Consecration and Benediction of Altars. But men rested not there; they augmented by degrees the ceremonies of this Consecration, until at length they had reduced them unto the form they are now in amongst the Latins, and which may be seen represented at large in the second part of the Roman Pontifical, in the Title of consecrating of Churches. Unto this mysterious Consecration the Latins add the consecrating of three Table-cloths, of several fashions, wherewith they cover their Altars, and of a kind of a Veil of several colours, according to the quality of the day, wherewith they are wont to cover it, as may be read in the Roman Missal: On Holy-Thursday they keep it uncovered until Saturday. As for the ancient Christians, they contented themselves in spreading upon their Communion-Table, at the time of celebrating the Sacrament, a clean Tablecloth, for decency sake, which is also practised by the Protestants.  
And as there was but one Altar, or one mystical Table in each Church, so also the Eucharist was celebrated but once a day, which also is the present practice in those three spacious Christian Communions above mentioned, as the same Authors testify, whom we have alleged as Witnesses: 
Id. cap 84.  Alvarez observing further that the Abassins' found fault with the Mass of the Romanists, for not administering the Communion unto all that assisted. Cassander, 
Cassand. in liturg. c. 26.  in his Liturgies, has observed, That in the Mass or Eucharist of the Armenians, all did communicate; which doth show, if I mistake not, that this custom was very ancient, seeing this People, who are fallen into ignorance, and multiply the number of Ceremonies, rather than lessen them, have been careful faithfully to preserve it. And we find by a Letter of Leo the First, Bishop of Rome, writing unto Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, That in his time, viz. in the fifth Century, the Sacrament was not celebrated but once a day in each Church, if it were not that the numbers of people were so great, that the Church could not contain them, which happened upon great Festivals; in that case he adviseth Dioscorus to do at Alexandria as they did at Foam, that is, to reiterate the Celebration of the Sacrament as often as the Church should be filled with a new Assembly: 
Leo. 1. Ep. 81. c. 2.  When any great Festival (saith he) makes the Assembly more numerous, and that there meets together so great a number of Believers, that one Church cannot contain them, there is no question to be made, but the Oblation of the Sacrifice must be renewed, fearing lest that if only the former should be admitted unto this Worship, the rest should seem to be excluded: whereas it is a thing very just and reasonable to offer another Sacrifice at each time that the Church is filled with the presence of a new Assembly; for if in keeping the custom of one only Mass, those only which came first should be admitted to offer the Sacrifice, of necessity, some part of the people must be hindered from their Devotion. Behold then the custom and practice of celebrating the Eucharist but once a day in each Church, in the fifth Century, both in East and West, at Rome and at Alexandria, excepting only such occasions as have been mentioned, wherein it was permitted, and could scarce be avoided, to do otherwise than contrary to the usual custom; it is said, That Pope Deodat gave first this permission, because 'tis reported in his life in the Pontifical Book, 
Apud Cassan. in Liturg. c. 35.  That he instituted a second Mass amongst the Clergy; upon which words, Verbetanus hath this observation, Because that at that time there was but one Mass sung in the Church, as the Greeks do, which the ancients thought best for edification. I think both the unity of one Altar, and the celebration of one Sacrament in one Church upon one day, may be gathered from the Lausiack History of Palladius, who wrote in the fifth Century; for he makes mention of a great Church, which was in the Mount of Nitria, where there were eight Priests to conduct it, 
Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. c. 6.  and observes, That whilst the chiefest of them lived, neither of the others could consecrate, nor censure, 
Apud Cassian. in Litur. c. 35.  nor preach. St. Francis, writing unto the Priests of his Order, conjures them, Not to celebrate Mass, but once a day in the places they shall dwell in, after the example of the Church of Rome; and if there be several Priests in the same place, that but one of them do celebrate, 
Gore in Euch. p. ●6.  and the rest content themselves in hearing him. Gore, upon the Euchologie of the Greeks, saith, That for this cause there was not formerly, at Rome, nor at Paris, nor in all the East, but one Priest to each Church, but that Churches were frequent, that the people might satisfy the motions of their Piety and Devotion; 
Apud Cassan. uo● supra.  and Cochleus, writing against Musculus, a Protestant, confesseth, That within 400 years, Altars have exceedingly multiplied.  
But having sought for the place of consecrating the Eucharist, let us consider the matter of Chalices and Patins, the two sorts of vessels used both for the Consecration and distribution; as for the Bread of the Sacrament it is put upon a Dish or Plate on a Linen-cloth, and because this Bread after Consecration is called the Body of Jesus Christ, this linen on which 'tis laid, is called the cloth of the Body; there be some which call it Palla, either for that it covers the sacred mystery, or because it serves for a Vesture or Covering unto the Typical Body of Jesus Christ upon the Holy Table. 
Optar. l 6. p. 98.  Optatus reproacheth the Donatists that they had taken away these Body Clothes, and these Linens, and that they had washed them as if they had been dirty; and Victor, 
Vict. Vitens. de persec. Afric. l. 1.  not of Utica, as he is commonly called, but of Vita, complains that Proculus, Executioner of the cruelties of Gensericus King of the Vandals, against Catholics, That he had made Shirts and Drawers of them; this Body-cloth was to be of very fine Linen, and not of Silk, 
Raban de instit. cleric. l. 1. c. 33.  nor of Purple, nor of any coloured stuff, as Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence reports, which refers this ordinance unto Pope Silvester, others refer it unto Pope Eusebius. Venerable Bede, 
Beda in c. 15. Marc.  speaking of the action of Joseph of Arimathea, who having obtained of Pilate the Body of Christ, carried him in a sheet, and makes this reflection, Thence is taken the custom of the Church of celebrating the Sacrifice of the Altar, not upon Silk or coloured stuff, but upon Linen, as the Body of our Lord was buried in a clean Linen Sheet. Which he attributes unto Silvester as well as Rabanus, 
Isid. Pelus. l. 1. Ep. 123.  from whence S. Isidore of Damieta saith, This clean Linen which is speed at the Celebration of the Divine gifts is the Ministry of Joseph of Arimathea; for as he buried the Body of Jesus, having wrapped it in a Sheet, so also we consecrate the Shewbread upon a Linen, or Tablecloth. Some writ that in Italy and in Germany they use two Corporals of fine Linen, whereas in France there was but one. 
Radulph. Tungrens. de can. observant. propos. ult.  But as for Chalices they were not at all times nor in all places of one and the same matter: whilst the Church was in an afflicted and low condition, it is very probable they used Chalices made of ordinary matter, and small price; but when riches flowed in upon it in Constantine's time, there's no question but metal of greater value was chosen to make their Chalices; but of greater and less price, according to the substance and stock of each Church: but at first in sundry places they were made of Glass or of Wood, as will appear; and to speak the truth, if at Rome in the beginning of the III. Century they used Glass Chalices, it is very probable they did so in many other places. Now that they used such at Rome at that time may be gathered from some passages of Tertullian; for answering an argument which the Catholics drew from a picture they had in their Chalices, and which represented the good Shepherd carrying the lost Sheep upon his back; Put in practice (saith he,) the very Pictures of your Chalices; 
Tertul. de pudic. c. 7. Ibid. c. 10  and to mark that these Chalices were Glass, he opposeth unto this Painting, The writing of the Shepherd which cannot be blotted out. Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse towards the end of the iv Century and at the beginning of the V made use of no other Chalices but of Glass. S. Jerom who presseth him very much, 
Hieron. ep. 4. extr.  saith amongst other things of him, That nothing is richer than him, which carries the Body of our Lord in a little wicker Basket, and his blood in a Glass. In the VI Century, Cyprian, not the famous Bishop of Carthage which was dead three hundred years before, but another Cyprian a French Man, 
Vi● 〈◊〉 Arel.  Author of the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who died towards the middle of the VI Century, observing as an action worthy of commendation, that he redeemed a great many Slaves with the Gold and Silver of the Church, saying that a great many praised him for so doing but would not follow his example, he adds, The blood of Christ is it not in a Glass? And although this Author saith there were many who would not imitate him in an Action which they could not but commend; yet I cannot be persuaded, but that there were to be found other good Bishops, who considering, as Exuperius of Tholouse, and S. Caesarius of Arles, that the riches of the Church are the Patrimony of the Poor, did in suffering and calamitous times, employ all the Gold and Silver of their Churches, either to sustain their Poor or redeem Captives, and that they had rather make use of Chalices of Glass, as those did, than to be wanting in this necessary duty of Christian charity. 
Greg. 1. dialog. l. 1. c. 7.  In the Dialogues of Gregory the first, there is mention of one Donatus who by his Prayers mended a Glass Chalice which had been broke; but let us hear what Cardinal Baronius saith upon this Subject: 
Baron. Martyr Rom. 7. Agust.  The Chalices of Glass and Plates or Patins of Glass were anciently made use of in Livine Service, there is mention made of Plates of Glass in the Pontifical in the life of Pope Zephyrin, of a Glass Chalice in the 4th. Epistle of S. Jerom to Rusticus, speaking of S. Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse, and also our French Cyprian in the life of Caesarius Bishop of Arles who flourished in the time of Theodorick King of Italy. Is not (saith he) the Blood of Christ kept in a Glass: for it seemeth that Glass Chalices have been used ever since the Apostles days: whence 'tis that Mark the Heretic who lived presently after their days, to imitate the Catholic Church, using a Glass Chalice in his divine Service bewitched the people with certain impostures, and by Sorcery making the Wine which looked white in the Glass, to turn Red by his slights, so that the Wine seemed to be changed into Blood; but in the Council of Rheems held under Charles the great, Glass Chalices were forbidden and that very reasonably, because of the danger there was in that brittle stuff; you have thereupon the Canon, ut Calix de Consecrat. distinct. 1. as also the Chalices of wood are forbidden in the Canon, Vasa in quibus, in the same distinction. Binius relates almost the very same thing upon the life of Pope Zephyrin. What Baronius saith of the prohibiting of Glass Chalices in the Reign of Charlemagne, 
T. 1. Concil. p. 96.  in one of the Councils of Rheems, he takes from the Canonist Gratian, whose authority is not always to be allowed, no more than the other Collectors of Canons; for as Monsieur de Launoy a Doctor of Sorbon hath judiciously observed in his Treatise of the times, anciently appointed for administering holy Baptism, 
Cap. 9 p. 184.  The Ancient Collectors do change and cut off from the Canons of Councils what things they suppose either to be abolished and useless, or different from the customs of their times. They have (saith he) fitted the Ancient Canons to the discipline of their own times. 
Ibid.  And Cardinal Bellarmine in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, 
In Grat. ad an. 1145.  saith in particular of Gratian, That he had not well chosen the Authors from whence he had gathered his Decrees; and he instances in some examples which he pretends to be so many mistakes in the Author, and indeed to return to the prohibition of Glass Chalicesby a Council of Rheems, we find no such matter, if my memory fail not, in any of the Councils held under Charlemagne, although we have a great number of them: as for Wooden Chalices, we have at this time the Canon whence Gratian took it, it is the 18. of the council of Trybur assembled Anno 895. 
Tom. 7. Concil. p. 151.  That for the future no Priest dare presume in any wise to consecrate in Chalices of Wood, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord. But the Council doth observe in the same Canon that Boniface Bishop of Mayence, being asked if it were lawful to consecrate the Sacraments in Vessels of Wood, he made this answer, Heretofore Golden Priests made use of Wooden Chalices, and now on the contrary, Wooden Priests do use Golden Chalices. But it is plainly evident by what hath been said, that Chalices of Glass and of Wood were used in the Church for the space of eight or nine hundred years; and what is said of Chalices may also be said of Plates or Patins, whereupon we have said was put the Bread of the Sacrament; they were at least broad round Vessels a little hollow, which cannot be resembled to any thing better than Dishes, which were greater or less according to the number of Communicants. The Latin Church doth not suffer Consecration to be made in any thing but a Gold or Silver Chalice, or at least of Pewter, and a Council of Albi assembled Anno. 1254 commanded all Churches whose Rents amounted yearly unto fifteen livres French Money, to have a Silver Chalice. 
T. 2. Sp●cil. c. 12. p. 638.  I deny not but in the four first Ages of Christianity, several Churches had Silver Chalices, and it may be also of Gold, such as whereof in all likelihood those were, spoken of by Optatus Bishop of Milevis, 
Optat. l. 6. p. 94.  when he reproacheth the Donatists, that they broke them, and gathering up the pieces, they melted them into lumps, and sold it; but this makes nothing against the simplicity of others, who contented themselves with Glass Chalices: for instance that of Tholouse in the time of S. Exuperius, no body ever condemning this simplicity, there were several that much commended it, the Ancient Christians never having been blamed for consecrating and administering the Sacrament in Glass Chalices.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the Language used at Consecration, and wherein Service was generally performed.  
HAving considered the place of Consecration, and the Vessels used about this Ceremony, the order which we proposed to follow, requires that in this Chapter we treat of the Language which was used in the Celebration of the Sacrament, and generally in the whole Divine Service. When Jesus Christ consecrated and blessed the Bread and Wine, it was in the Language of the Country which he spoke always during his living in the Flesh, and during the course of his Ministry; otherwise he could not have been understood of the People, whom he intended to instruct and bring unto his Knowledge and Communion. And this Language was not pure Hebrew after the return of the Babylonish Captivity, as it was before, at the time of our Saviour's coming into the World, but was a corrupt Hebrew, and altered and mixed with Chaldee, and Syriack; especially the latter: so that the Jewish Language at that time was composed as much of Syriack as of the Hebrew. It was then in that Language which was composed of two Languages, that our Saviour consecrated and celebrated his Eucharist, having even retained some expressions which the Father of the Family was wont to use amongst the Jews at the time of celebrating the Passover. The Apostles did religiously follow the example of their Master who bestowed not upon them the gift of Tongues merely for converting the World, but also that they might preach the Gospel, administer the Sacraments, and in a word exercise all the other functions of their Divine and glorious Ministry, in the Language of each Nation and People where his Providence should send them; this is so evident a truth, that there is no Christian never so little reasonable but will believe it; but if any the least doubt rests upon him in this matter, I doubt not but he will overcome it easily, if he takes the pains to read what the Apostle hath left written of this Doctrine in the 14. Chap. of the 1. Epistle to the Corinthians, as all the ancient Commentators, Greek and Latin, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, the Greek chain of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Hilary a Deacon of Rome, Pelagius, Primasius, Sedulius; Secondly the Translation of the Holy Bible into all Languages shows very clearly, that every People and Nation desired to serve God in their own Language; S. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. John; 
Homil. 2. in Joan. Graec.  The Syrians (saith he) the Egyptians, the Indians, the Persians, the Ethiopians, and a great number of other Nations have translated into their Language, the Doctrines by him introduced, he speaks of S. John, and those Barbarous Men have begun to Philosophise: 
Hom. 3.  and upon the 2 Epistle of the Thessalonians, These things have been spoken in Hebrew, in Latin, or in any other Tongue? are they not declared in Greek, because it was the Vulgar Tongue; Theodoret upon the 14 Chap. 
In. cap 14. 1 ad Cor.  of the 1 to the Corinthians saith, It hath been given to Preachers by reason of the Diversities of men's Languages, that those sent unto the Indians should carry unto them the predication of the word in their own Language, and also conversing with Persians, the Seythians, the Romans, the Egyptians, they should preach unto them in their own Language the Evangelical Doctrine; it would have been in vain for those who preached at Corinth to have used the Language of the Scythians, Persians, or Egyptians, because the Corinthians could not have understood them. And in his Therapeutic or manner of healing the affections of the Greeks; 
Serm. 5. t. 4. p. 555.  We do plainly and evidently show unto you the force and vigour of the Prophetical and Evangelical Doctrine; for all parts of the World under the Sun are filled with the fame of it, 
See Cass●od. on Psalm 44.  and the Hebrew Tongue was not only translated into Greek, but also into that of the Romans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Indians, Armenians, Scythians, and Sarmatians; and in a word, into all Languages used throughout the world unto this day. And a great while before Chrysostom and Theodoret, 
Cap. 17.  Eusebius said in his Oration on the praise of Constantine, That the authority of the Books of the holy Scriptures was so great, that having been translated throughout the World, into the Languages of all Nations, as well Greeks as Barbarians, all Nations, learned them diligently, and believed that what they contained, were Divine Oracles. And in his Evangelical Demonstration, 
Lib. 3.  The Gospel (saith he,) was in a very short space preached throughout the whole world, and the Barbarians and the Greeks received in their Characters or Letters, and in their own Languages, the things which are written of Jesus Christ. According whereunto we find by the Acts of the Martyr Procopius, which Monsieur de Valois hath inserted in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History, that they were so accustomed to read the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Assemblies in the Language of the Country, that if they read them in another Tongue, they presently expounded them by an Interpreter in the Language understood by the People; and the Martyr Procopius performed this office of Interpreter at Scythopolis in Palestine, interpreting the holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country, which was Syriack, if they were read in Greek, which the people did not understand. And S. Jerom, doth he not say in his Preface to the four Evangelists, 
Ad Damas'. praefat. 122. t. 3 p. 698.  That the Holy Scriptures were translated into several Languages. 
* August●in. de doctr. Christ. l. 2. c 5.  S. Austin; From thence it is, that the holy Scriptures which are a remedy of so many troubles in men's minds, having begun to be published in a Language which might be so conveniently spread over the face of the Earth, were manifested unto all Nations for their Salvation, being spread far and wide, by means of the divers Tongues of Interpreters. As in the Gothick, by ulphilas Bishop of the Goths under the Emperor Constance, as Socrates doth testify in his Ecclesiastical History; the Tripartite History; Isidore of Sevil in his History of the Goths, and sundry others: whereunto probably Salvian had regard when he said in his fifth Book of God's Providence, That although those amongst barbarous Nations, seem in their Books, to have the holy Scriptures less altered and less strange, yet they have them not but corrupted, by the Tradition of their Ancient Masters. In the Armenian Tongue by Chrysostom at the beginning of the fifth Century, as many do believe; and we do find Theodoret to affirm, that in his time the Armenians had a Translation of the Holy Scriptures in their Language; now Theodoret flourished about 40 years after the death of the great Chrysostom. Into that of the Dalmatians by S. Jerom who died in the year of our Lord 420. In the Arabic Tongue Anno. 717. by John Archbishop of Sevil in Spain. In Saxon by King Alfred who reigned in England in the VIII. Century, as is affirmed by those who have transferred unto us Bede's Ecclesiastical History in Anglo-Saxon, and in Latin, in the Preface to the Reader; and Bede himself translated the Gospel of S. John into the vulgar Tongue, as is to be seen in his life, partly written by himself, and partly by one of his Disciples. Into the Slavonian Tongue by Methodius in the IX. Century. And I do not think that ever any body amongst the Christians ever thought of condemning this wise conduct of the Church until the year 1228 that a certain Council of Tholouse, 
Tom. 2. Spicil. c. 4. p. ● 24.  assembled against the Albigenses and Waldenses made this Decree; We also forbidden to give unto the Lay-people permission to have the Books of the Old and of the New Testament, except that probably some for devotion sake desire to have the Psalter or the Breviary for the Divine Service, or the blessed Virgin's Prayer-Book, neither are they to have these Books in the Vulgar Tongue. But this Decree did not hinder but that James de Voragine Translated the Bible into Italian about the year 1290. Nicholas Orem into French under Charles the fifth called the wise Son of King John, and Father of Charles the sixth, and at the beginning of the XV. Century an anonymous Author made an Apology in England for the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country; 
D● Christian. Eccl. success. p. 81.  as is related by Usher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland. At this time (saith that Author) our Bishops burn the Law of God, because it hath been translated into our Mother Tongue. But in fine, the Council of Trent, Session the fourth Anno. 1546. doth sufficiently give to understand that they tacitly condemn all the Translations of the Holy Scriptures in the Vulgar Languages, allowing only the Latin Translation. It is true, say the Protestants, that whilst the use of the Latin Tongue subsisted in the West, and that that Language was common and frequent unto the Nations of the Western Empire, there were a great many Latin Translations of the Bible; but when the use of that Language ceased, it was necessary to translate it into other Languages for the edification of the people, and Nations which there inhabited, as it had been translated elsewhere into Greek, and Syriack, and generally into all Languages used by all the Nations in the World. Now it is very difficult, say they, to imagine, that care could be taken to make all these Versions in the Vulgar Tongues, if at the same time the people had been obliged to serve God in an unknown Tongue. Besides, may a man say, I would desire to know wherefore the Holy Fathers have so frequently and carefully recommended the reading of the Scriptures unto the people, if it had not been translated into their Language? It is credible, yea certain, that the exhortations which are to be found in the works of S. Jerom and S. Chrysostom, only for injoining the reading of them, would make a just Volume; and what need so many exhortations to read it, but only that by so doing, People might learn to serve God after a right manner?  
But we must make a stricter inquiry into the Celebration of the Eucharist, and the whole Divine Service, to know more particularly if it were performed, as hath been said, in a Language understood by the People: All men will agree, if I mistake not, that Prayers, Invocation, and giving praises unto God, are the essential parts of the Worship and Service of God; now Origen in his excellent work against Celsus, doth formally declare, that every Nation did praise and pray unto God in their own Language. 
Lib. 8. ult. Edit. p. 402.  The Christians (saith he, answering unto an objection of Celsus) even in their Prayers, do not make use of the names attributed unto God in the Holy Scriptures, but the Greeks make use of Greek words, the Romans of Roman words, each one praying unto God in their own Language, and celebrate his praise as they are able; and the glory of all Languages doth hearken unto those which pray unto him in what Language soever it be, as easily understanding those which pray so differently unto him, as if it were, as may be said, all one voice. For the Great God is not like those which have but one Language committed unto them, whether Greek or Barbarian, and are ignorant of all others, and care not for those which speak in other Languages. Thence also is it that S. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress exhorts his Neophytes, 
Tract. 4. t. 2. Bibl. Pat. p. 20. Regul. brevior. q. ●78. t. 2.  to attend diligently with him unto Prayer; S. Basil making this demand to himself, How the Spirit of any one should pray, and that his understanding should receive no fruit, he thus answers; That is said of those which made Prayers in an unknown Tongue with regard to those which heard them: for the Apostle saith, if I pray in an unknown Tongue, I pray in the Spirit, or by the Spirit, but my understanding profiteth not; for when the words of Prayer are not known by those which are present, than the understanding of him which prayeth, is without fruit, no body being the better for it: but when those which are present understand a prayer which may be profitable for the hearers, than he who prayeth hath the benefit of the progress of those which profit by the prayer; it is the same at all times when the word of God is proposed, for it is written, that it might be profitable to the edifying of Faith. 
De Catechis. rudib. c. 9 t. 4.  S. Austin, Care must be taken to warn those which come from Schools, that being clothed with Christian humility, they should learn not to despise those which endeavour rather to shun evil actions than words, etc. by so doing they will not jeer, if by chance they perceive that some Bishops or Ministers of the Church use some Barbarisms or Soloecisms in praying to God, or that they be not ware, or understand not the words they pronounce, and that they deliver confusedly; not but that these things should be amended, to the end the people might say Amen, unto what they plainly understand. But because it may be tolerated in those which have learned, that blessings are given by Prayers in the Church, as one doth bless in the public place with the sound of the voice. 
De divin. offic. l. 1. c. 10.  Isidore of Sevil, The reading of the word of God, is of no small profit unto those which harken unto it; therefore when one sings, all must sing; and when one prays, all must pray; when one reads, let all hearken. It is the same thing in keeping silence, for although some one supply at reading, let him be cuntent to worship God; and having made the sign of the Cross, let him hearken attentively; there is a time to pray when all do pray, to pray in private there is also a time; do not lose the reading under pretext of prayer, because one cannot always have the opportunity of reading, whereas one may pray when they will; therefore the Deacon with a loud voice commands silence, to the end that whether we sing or read, unity may be kept by all, and that what is preached unto all, may equally be heard by all. 
Lib. 3. c. 9  Amalarius treating of Divine offices, The prayer of the Priest is called by the one and the other name, that is by the name of Blessing, and by the name of Prayer; the Apostle saith of blessing, if thou bless in the spirit, how shall the ignorant know to say Amen, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? S. Ambrose calls this Benediction a prayer, saying, for the ignorant hearing what he understandeth not, knoweth not the scope of the prayer, and saith not, Amen, that is, so be it, to the end the benediction should be confirmed; for the confirmation of the prayer is completed by those which say Amen. Cassander in his Liturgies, citys these words out of an ancient Manuscript of the Roman order, 
Cap. 36.  of the Ordination of Readers; The benediction of Readers: O Lord Holy Father, O eternal omnipotent God, be pleased to bless these thy servants. N.N. to perform the office of Readers, to the end that being diligent in reading, they may be fit to declare the word of Life, and to instruct the people in things to be understood by the distinction of the Spirit and of the Voice. And the Roman Pontifical, Imprinted at Venice, Anno 1582. speaking of the Ordination of Readers, 
Pontif. Rom. p. 8.  The Reader must read what he doth preach, and that he sing the Lessons, etc. Study therefore to pronounce distinctly and clearly, without Lying, or any fraud, the Words of God, that is to say, the holy Lessons for the Instruction and Edification of Believers, to the end that the verity of Divine Lessons may not be corrupted, through your negligence, to the prejudice of those who hear and believe with the heart what you read with the mouth, to the end you may teach your Hearers, both by your word and example.  
Now let us come to the Celebration of the Eucharist, to see also if it was not done in a Language understood by the Communicants. In the first place, all the ancient Liturgies are full of the Answers of the people, who could not have answered if they had not understood what the Priest said in officiating, and in celebrating; and the thing is so evident, that there is no need to produce many Proofs of it, there's no need but to look into the Liturgies, which we have, to see if the people do not therein often speak: for instance, St. Cyprian informs us, and all the Liturgies after him, That the people were prepared unto the Communion by this warning, Lift up your hearts; and the people answered, We lift them up unto thee, O Lord. From thence it was that Gregory of Nazianzen said of Nonna, his Mother, in his 13th Oration, That her voice was never heard in the holy Assemblies, excepting at the necessary and mystical words. Secondly, Tertullian, Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, St. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and several others, do teach, That the Communicants answered Amen in receiving the Sacrament, therefore of necessity it must needs be, that they spoke to them in a Language which was understood by them. In the third place, it was anciently the custom amongst Christians, that when the Pastor had made an end of the Prayer, wherewith he consecrated the Eucharist, all the people, joining their Vows, were wont to say with a loud voice, Amen, that is to say, So be it, So be it done; an evident sign that the Prayer of him who consecrated, was understood by them; This is what may be seen in Justin Martyr's second Apology, whose Testimony shall suffice in so evident a matter: to add another, which not only justifies the Language to be understood of the people in the Celebration of the Eucharist, but also in the Administration of Baptism. It is of Denys of Alexandria, in a Letter which he wrote unto Sixtus, Bishop of Rome, wherein he speaks of one of the Brethren who was present with others at the Assemblies of the Church, and who was supposed of a long time to have been a Believer, that is to say, to have been Baptised; 
Apud Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 9  he saith then of him, That he had assisted at the Baptism of those which had of late been Baptised, and that he had heard their Questions and their Answers: afterwards, speaking of the Eucharist, He had (saith he) often heard the Prayers, and answered Amen with the rest. And I am apt to believe that St. Paul alluded unto this custom when he saith in the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
In Cap. 14.1. ad Cori●●h.  If you bless with the Spirit, how shall the Ignorant say Amen unto your Prayers? for he knoweth not what you say. And I find that the Deacon Hilary, in St. Ambrose his Works; doth judge that the Apostle doth there hint at some amongst the Jews, who, to make themselves the more considerable, sometimes used the Syriack Tongue, and oftener the Hebrew, in Sermons, and at the Oblations, in presence of the Greeks.  
Venerable Bede observes in his Ecclesiastical History, That the unity of the Faith was kept in England in five Languages, by five several Nations, the English, Britan's, Scotch, that is, Irish, the Picts, and the Latins. And what he saith of the unity of the Faith, aught, if I mistake not, to be understood also of the unity of Worship in essential things: for as each of those Nations retained the unity of the Faith in their own Language, which was very different from each other, so they had the service and Worship in their own Language. The Reader may take notice if he please, That Bede departed this Life about the middle of the Eighth Century; and if from the Eighth we pass to the Ninth Century, we shall find the Sclavonians celebrating Divine Service in their Mother-Tongue, which was allowed them by the Pope at the request of one Cyrill, who had been instrumental in their Conversion. Aeneas Silvius, afterwards Pope, under the name of Pius the second, thus relates it in his History of Bohemia; 
Hist Bohem. c. 13.  It is said that cyril, being at Rome, desired the Pope that he might be suffered to say Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue, unto those of that Nation, whom he had Baptised, that is to say, Converted; That as the matter was debated in the Sacred College, where there were several that opposed it, there was a voice-heard, as it were sent from Heaven, saying, Let all Flesh praise the Lord, and every Tongue confess his Name: upon which cyril was granted his request. It is said that this Cyril is the same who in the Sclavonian Language is called Chiuppil, That he lived about the Year 860. and that in the Days of Michael the Third, Emperor of the East, and of Pope Nicolas the First; he, with Methodius, Converted unto the Faith of Jesus Christ the Mingrelians, the Circassians, and the Gazarites, and afterwards several of the Sclavonians; therefore in the Roman Martyrology is celebrated the day of his Birth, as was anciently said amongst Christians, that is, of the Death of Cyrill and Methodius in the same day, which is the ninth of March, whence it is also that Pope John the Eighth wrote several Letters unto this Methodius, Companion unto Cyrill, and one of the Apostles of the Sclavonians, according to the Language of those times; and we find by the 247th Letter of this Pope, written Anno 879. unto Sphentopulcher, Prince of the Country, That Methodius had been sent by this Prince unto John the Eighth, who returned him back unto him, to execute the Function of Archbishop, with power to celebrate Mass and Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue. We have just cause to commend (saith this Pope, 
Tom. 7. Council part. 1. Ep. 247. p. 91.  writing unto Sphentopulcher) the Sclavonian Characters, invented by a certain Philosopher, called Constantine, whereby the Praises of God are published abroad, and we command, That in that same Language be recited the Sermons and Works of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; for we are warned by Divine Authority to praise the Lord, not only in three Languages, but also in all; which Authority enjoins us this Commandment when it saith, All Nations praise the Lord, and all People bless his name; and the Apostles, being filled with the Holy Ghost, spoke forth in all Languages the wonderful things of God: Thence also it is that St. Paul, that Heavenly Trumpet, publisheth this Warning, Let every Tongue confess that our Lord Jesus is the Christ, to the Glory of the Father: Touching which Languages also he instructeth us fully and plainly in the 14th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, how we are to edify the Church in speaking several Languages; and certainly it doth in no way prejudice the Faith or Doctrine, to sing Masses in the Sclavonian Tongue, or to read the holy Gospel, or Divine Lessons of the Old and New Testament, well translated and interpreted, or to say or sing all the other Offices; because he who made the three principal Languages, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, is the same which hath also created all other Languages for his Praise and Glory. However we appoint that in all Churches under your inspection, for the greater Honour, the Gospel be read in Latin: and because 'tis translated into Sclavonian, that it be read to the People, who understand not Latin, as it is practised in some Churches. It were to be wished, say the Protestants, that the Christians of the Roman Communion would make serious reflection upon these words of Pope John the Eighth, and that then they would consult the Decree of Innocent the Third, at the Council of Lateran, assembled in the year of our Lord 1215. 
T. 7. Concil. Pa●r. part. 2. Can. 9 p. 8●9.  Because that in most places, in the same City, and in the same Diocese, there be people of divers Languages mingled together, having under one Faith different Ceremonies and Customs; we expressly enjoin the Bishops of those Cities and Dioceses to provide for them persons fit to celebrate Divine Offices, according to the different Ceremonies and Languages, and to administer the Sacraments of the Church, instructing them by their words, and by Example. Cardinal Cajetan, who lived in Luther's time, hath left in his Opuscula, 
Opuscul. t. 3. tract. 15. art. 8.  That it were better for the edification of the Church, tha● public Service and Prayers, which are made in presence of the People, should be made in the Church, rather in the vulgar than in the Latin Tongue; and being blamed for it by some, he answered, That he grounded what he had said, upon the 14th Chapter of the first to the Corinthians. 
De offic. pii viri. p 865.  George Cassander, who lived and died in the Roman Church, wished that it might have been so practised: Methinks, (saith he) it were much to be desired, that according to the Apostles command, and the custom of the ancient Church, some heed were to be taken of the People in the public Prayers of the Church, in the Psalms and Lessons which are used in their behalf, and that the common People should not always be kept strangers from the knowledge of Prayers and Divine Service. The words of St. Paul are clear, That one cannot understand what is said, if it be not said in a known Tongue, and that he that by his ignorance understands not what is said, cannot say Amen unto the Prayers of another: 
Ibid. p. 866.  And having alleged the words of Aeneas Silvius, and those of Cajetan, he adds, Unto those, who have the conduct and Government of the Church at this time, it were no hard matter to establish and settle these and the like things, according to the pure and ancient practice of the Church, if the minds of some persons were not seized with a vain and foolish fear, and if they were not kept back by a vain Superstition; nevertheless unless this be done, I do not see that there is any great hope of an assured agreement and union in the Church, nor that the Seeds of Schisms and Divisions will ever be rooted out; and I cannot conceive how those persons unto whom the oversight of the Church is committed, shall escape rendering an account of the Rents and Divisions in the Church, which they have neglected, and whereof they have not been careful, according to their duty, to prevent the growing Schisms and Heresies. He repeats almost the same things in the consultation, addressed unto the Emperors, Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. where he saith, 
Pag. 995.  amongst other things, That 'twas requisite, Priests should so say Mass, that the People may reap some benefit by it; and not to be barely busied about an outward show. This was also the Testimony of Erasmus which is cited in the Margin of Cassander's Book, just by the words first alleged: 
D● modo orandi.  It were, saith he, much to be desired that the whole Divine Service were said in a Language understood by all the People, as it was wont to be practised in ancient times, and that all things were so plainly and so distinctly spoken, that those which harkened, might understand them. Queen Katherine de Medicis desired of the Pope by her Letters dated Anno. 1561. the use of the Language understood stood by the people, for the Celebration of the Sacrament, as is reported by the Precedent De Thou, in his History. 
Lib. 28.   
We may add unto all that hath been spoken, the practice of the most considerable Christian Communions, which at this time do celebrate Divine Service in the Vulgar Tongue understood by the People, viz. the Abassins' throughout Prester John's Country; the Moscovites and Russians, the Armenians, as is testified by the Friar Alvarez, the Baron Sigismond, James de Vitry, and several others; the Liburnians, the Illyrians or Sclavonians, as is observed by Aventine, and John Baptista Palat. Citizen of Rome, in his Treatise of the manner of Writing. Besides which, all the Protestants in all parts, whose numbers in Europe doth not fall much short of the Roman Catholics. As for the Greek Church which is of a vast extent; it is most certain they celebrate Divine Service in pure Greek, and not in the vulgar Greek now spoken, which hath much degenerated from the Ancient Greek; but thereunto two things are replied: first that the Corruption happened unto the Language of the Greeks under the Tyranny of the Turks, is arrived but of late days; so that before that time, the Greek Church celebrated all their Divine Service in a Language understood by the People. Secondly that how great soever this Corruption is, it could not hinder but the Greeks in the decay of their Language which arrived by little and little, and by degrees, but that they were instructed from Father to Son in the understanding of the ancient Liturgies of St. Basil and of St. Chrysostom, which they make use of; and that by that means notwithstanding the alteration befallen their Language, they understand the things therein expressed. Therefore the people make at this present the same Answers which they did heretofore; the 123. Constitution of the Emperor Jovinian who lived in the VI Century may take place in this matter of the Language understood by the people in Divine Service; for he commands that they should with a loud voice repeat the Prayers made in the Celebration of the Eucharist, and in the administration of Baptism, to the end the people might understand it, and grounds his Decree upon what St. Paul saith in the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. But, in fine, if any now demand the reason wherefore the Latin Church which could and ought to celebrate Divine Service in the Latin Tongue during the time that Language was commonly used amongst the People in the West, and wherefore they should obstinately persist in doing it in the same Language, although for several Ages it hath been of no use amongst these Nations, excepting in the Schools; and wherefore they Anathematise in the Council of Trent, those which say, 
Sess. 22. cap. 9  That the Mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar Tongue: I answer, that I pretend not to answer this question of myself, but shall only say that there are several which believe she hath so done, that the people should not perceive and take notice of several passages in the Mass which do not, as they say, agree with their Faith and Belief; but as it is for the Reader to judge of these matters, and not for me, so I will conclude this consideration with the words of John Belet in his Sum of Divine Offices; 
Apud Cassan. in liturg. c. 36.  In the primitive Church, saith he, it was forbidden to speak in divers Languages, unless there was some one present that could interpret: for what would it avail to speak, if one did not understand? thence also came the good and wholesome custom observed a long while in the Church in sundry places, that after the Gospel was pronounced literally, it was expounded unto the people in the vulgar Tongue; but what must be done in our days, where 'tis very rare to find any that read, or attend, or understand it; which see, which act, or be careful? Doth it not appear now that what the Prophet said, is accomplished, The Priest shall be like one of the People? It seems then 'twere better to hold one's peace than sing, and be silent than dance.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Ceremonies, and of the manner of Consecration.  
JESUS Christ celebrated his Sacrament with so much simplicity and so few Ceremonies according to the Nature of his Gospel, which is wholly Spiritual, that there is none appears besides the action by which he took the Bread, and that by which he blessed and consecrated it; immediately after having taken Bread, he gave thanks and blessed it, to make it the Sacrament of his Body. 
Just. Mart. Apol. 2. vel. 1.  St. Justin Martyr represents unto us at large all that was practised in his time, that is, about the middle of the second Century, in the Celebration of this venerable Sacrament; but there are no other Ceremonies appear in consecrating it, but only that after the Minister had ended his Sermon and then prayed, and that the Believers when Prayer was ended saluted each other, there was presented unto him Bread and a Cup wherein was Wine mingled with Water, which he having taken, he blessed and praised God, and gave thanks that he was counted worthy to partake of those things. In the Liturgy of the pretended Denys the Areopagite, 
Den. Areop. hierarch. Eccles. c. 3.  some of the Deacons and Ministers with the Priests set the Holy Bread upon the Altar, and the Cup of Blessing; then he that officiates doth pray, Give the Blessing unto all that are present wishing them Peace; then having washed his hands, he consecrates the Mysteries by Blessings and Praises; In that which is in one of the Books of Constitutions called Apostolical, (although they be neither of the Apostles nor of St. Clement their Disciple,) the Deacons, as in that of the pretended Denys, bring the Elements (viz.) the Bread and Wine unto the Altar, where the Bishop is with two Priests, one at each side, and also two Deacons at the ends of the Altar with little Fans to drive away Flies, and other little infects, fearing lest any should fall into the Cup; after which the Bishop having blessed the people, and warned them to lift their hearts on high, the people answering, We lift them up unto the Lord; he makes a pretty long discourse, praising God, and exalting the wonders of his Works, concluding by reciting the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, and of the History of the Institution of the Sacrament; then he consecrates, and by a prayer which he addresses unto God, whereof we shall take occasion to speak when we consider the form of Consecration, or the Consecrating Liturgy. In the Liturgies attributed unto St. James, St. Mark, St. Peter, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and unto divers others, almost the same thing is to be seen; and if there be any alteration either for diversity, or the number of Ceremonies, it is so inconsiderable and of little moment, that it deserves not our pains to examine; It will be necessary to consider that in that which bears the name of St. James, although it cannot be his, the Priest makes this Prayer, at the time the Elements are set upon the Altar or the Holy Table, 
Liturg. St. Jacob.  to be blessed and consecrated; O Lord our God which hast sent the Bread from Heaven, the food of all the World, Jesus our Lord, Saviour, Redeemer and Benefactor, to bless and sanctify us; bless we beseech thee this Oblation, and receive it upon thy Heavenly Altar: remember O Lord, thou which art full of love towards mankind, those who offer, and for whom they have offered, and keep us pure and immaculate in this Holy Celebration of thy divine Mysteries, because thy great and glorious name, O Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is glorified and praised now and for ever. Amen. And in that attributed unto St. Mark, but not his, the Priest praying in the same time, but in terms something different; 
Liturg. St. Marc.  O Lord, Holy, Almighty and terrible, which dwellest in the Holy Places, sanctify us and make us worthy of this Holy Priesthood, and grant that we may minister at thy holy Altar with a good conscience cleanse our hearts from all impurity, drive out of us all reprobate sense, sanctify our Souls and Spirit, and give us grace with fear to practise the Worship of our Fathers, to give us the light of thy countenance at all times, for 'tis thou which sanctifiest, and blessest all things and we offer unto thee Praise and Thanksgiving. As for the Greeks they carried the Elements, that is to say, the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, from the Table of Proposition, as they call it, unto the Altar or unto the Communion Table, where they are to be consecrated, with so great Pomp, Solemnity and Ceremony, that the ignorant people dazzled with the Ceremonies, forbear not to give unto these Elements before they are consecrated, such an honour as doth not belong unto them. 
Cabasil. in Liturg. expos. c. 24.  Cabasilas Archbishop of Thessalonica, who wrote in the XIV. Century, complains of it in the Explication which he makes of their Liturgy, and saith, those which unadvisedly do so, do confound the Elements which are sanctified, with those which are not, and that from this confusion proceeds the honour which they give unto the Bread and Wine before Consecration, which this Archbishop doth condemn. But in fine, the Elements being so brought and laid upon the Holy Table to be consecrated, these same Liturgies inform us, that he that officiates, after having recited all the History of the Institution of the Sacrament, desires of God that he would send upon this Bread and Wine which were offered unto him, his Holy Spirit, to make them the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and because the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, which were not written until the end of the third Century, or the beginning of the fourth, doth very clearly represent the manner of this Consecration, we will begin with him, to show how this consecrating Liturgy was couched; for after having ended the recital of the History of the Eucharist by these words, 
Constitut. Apostol. l. 8. cap. 12.  Do this in remembrance of me, for as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye show the Lords death till he come: He goes on, Therefore setting before us his Passion, his Death, and Resurrection, his ascension into Heaven, and his second coming, which will be when he comes with power and glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to reward everyone after their works; We effer unto thee O our King and our God according so thy Commandment, this Bread and this Cup, in giving thee thanks by him, because thou hast made us worthy to stand in thy presence to execute this Ministry; and we beseech thee O God, who standest in need of nothing, that thou wouldst favourably behold these gifts which are presented before thee, and that thou wouldst therein do thy good pleasure for the honour of thy Christ, and that thou wouldst send thy Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice, the witness of the passion of the Lord Jesus, to make this Bread the Body of thy Christ, and this Cup his Blood; to the end that those which partake of them may be confirmed in piety, obtain remission of sins, may be delivered from the temptations of the Devil, filled with the Holy Ghost, made worthy of thy Christ, and of everlasting life when thou, O Lord most mighty, shalt be reconciled unto them. In the Liturgy of St. James it is said, O Lord send thine Holy Spirit upon us, 
Liturg Jacob.  and upon these sacred Elements which are offered, to the end that coming upon them, he may sanctify this Bread and this Cup by his Holy, good, and glorious presence, and that he would make the Bread the sacred Body of thy Christ, and the Cup his precious Blood. In that of S. Mark, We beseech thee O God, lover of mankind, 
Liturg. Marc.  to send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Loaves and these Chalices, to sanctify and to consecrate them, and to make this Bread the Body of Christ, and this Cup the Blood of the New Testament of Jesus Christ our Lord, our God, our Saviour, and our Sovereign King. And so in those of St. Basil, St. chrysostom, and generally in all, excepting the Latin Liturgy at this time used: I say in that of the present time; for I cannot deny but that it was otherwise anciently, and that in all appearance they cut off from this Liturgy, I mean from the Canon of the Mass, the Prayers which followed; as in the other Liturgies, the words of Institution, by the which Prayers, Christians were wont to consecrate the Divine Symbols, even in the West, during the space of a thousand years. And to the end this truth should be made manifest, this question must be throughly examined, to wit, whether the Ancients did consecrate by Prayers and Invocations, and by thanksgivings, or otherwise.  
Jesus Christ the absolute Master of the Christian Religion, did consecrate his Sacrament by Prayers, Blessing and Thanksgiving, as the Divine Writers do testify, making use of two expressions; the one of which signifying, giving of Thanks; and the other to Bless, as to their Etymology, but as to their sense and meaning they signify one and the same thing. The reason whereof may be, that it was the manner of the Jews to conceive their Prayers, in terms of Praise and Blessing; the first Christians which made the example of Christ, their Law and Rule, intended not to consecrate any otherwise than he himself had done: therefore Justin Martyr speaks of Prayers which the Pastor made after having received the Bread and Wine mingled with Water which was presented unto him; 
Just. Martyr. Apolog. 2.  he calls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in the Act of Communion, The Bread and Wine whereon Prayers were made, and saith expressly, That this food is consecrated by Prayer. 
Iren. l. 4. c. 34.  St. Irenaeus saith the same, for he also calls it, The Bread upon which Prayers have been made, the Bread which hath received invocation, and that by this means ceaseth to be common Bread; and saith, that we sanctify the Creature. This is also the Language of Tertullian writing against Martion, 
Tertul. advers. Marc. l. 1. c. 23.  for he observes, that if Jesus Christ had not been the Son of the Creator, as this Heretic denied, he would not have given thanks unto another God upon a Creature that had been none of his. 
Strom. l. 1. & paedag. l. 2. c. 2  It is unto Prayer and Thanksgiving that Clemens of Alexandria refers the Consecration of the Eucharist of our Lord; 
Origen. contr. Cells. l. 8. & in Matth. c. 15.  therefore Origen calls the Bread of the Sacrament, the Symbol of Prayer, and that he saith, that it is made a sacred and sanctified Body by Prayer. St. cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogical Catechisms, The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invocation of the adorable Trinity, is but common Bread and common Wine, but Prayer being ended, the Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ. 
Lib. 4.  Juvencus a Priest of Spain, in his Evangelical History which he composed in Latin verse; Having, saith he, devoutly prayed. 
Basil. de Sp. Sancto c. 27. t. 2. p. 351.  The great St. Basil in his Treatise of the Holy Ghost, Which of the Saints hath left unto us in writing, the words of Invocation, for consecrating the Bread of the Sacrament, and the Cup of blessing. Gregory of Nyssen his Brother; 
In Baptism. Christ. p. 8 22. Orat. Catech. c. 37. p. 536.  The mystical Oil, as also the Wine, are of no great moment before Consecration, but after the Sanctification of the Holy Spirit, they operate excellently both the one and the other. And elsewhere. The Bread is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer. And elsewhere, 
Ibid.  The nature of visible things is transelemented by the virtue of the benediction. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, 
L. 4. de side, c. 5. t. 4.  As often as we take the Sacraments, which by the mystery of holy Prayer are transfigured into his flesh and blood, we do show the Lords death. Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia, describing the cruelties and rage of the Donatists against Catholics, and marking particularly against what they showed it: What (saith he) is more sacrilegious than to break, tear, 
Lib. 6.  and destroy the Altars of God whereon you yourselves have sometimes offered, etc. where the Almighty God, hath been invoked, where the Holy Ghost drawn down by Prayers, hath descended. 
Paschal. 1. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 87.  Theophilus of Alexandria speaking of Origen: He doth not consider (saith he) that the Bread of our Lord and the Holy Cup, are consecrated by Prayer and by the coming of the Holy Ghost. St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress in Italy, 
In Exod. tract. 2.  When our Saviour presented unto the Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine, he said, This is my Body; in speaking after this manner, he shown that the Bread was consecrated before the pronouncing of these words, This is my Body. Ephrem of Edessa, if the Books published in his name were his; The Lord taking Bread into his hands, blessed and broke it, 
De natura Dei curiose nonscrutand●  in type of his immaculate Body, and blessed the Cup in figure of his precious Blood. St. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon St. Matthew, The Lord gave thanks, showing us how we should celebrate this Sacrament. 
Hom. 82. Graec.  And upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Hom. 24. in 1 ad Corinth. The Apostle said, the Cup of Blessing, because holding it in our hands, we offer unto God Hymns and Praises, and do praise him. S. Jerom in his Letter unto Evagrius, reproving the pride and vanity of the Deacons which rashly advanced themselves above the Priests: Who can endure, (saith he,) 
Epist. 83.  that the Ministers of Tables, and of Widows, should raise themselves, being swelled with pride, above thofe which by prayers do make the Body and blood of Jesus Christ? And elsewhere he saith, That prayer is thereunto necessary. St. Austin in his Letter unto Paulinus, 
In Sophon. ●3, Epist. 59  We mean by prayers, those which we make in celebrating the Sacraments before we begin to bless what is upon the Lord's Table, and by Benedictions those which are made when they are blessed and sanctified, and broke in pieces to be distributed. And in the Books of the Trinity, We call that only the Body and blood of Jesus Christ, 
Lib. 3. c. 4.  which being taken from the fruits of the Earth is consecrated by prayer. And elsewhere, writing against the Donatists which rejected the Sacraments consecrated and administered by Sinners; What then, saith he, 
De Baptism. l. 5. c. 20.  doth God hear an homicide praying either on the Water of Baptism, or on the Oil, or upon the Eucharist. And in fine, in another place, 
Serm. 87. de divers.  it is not all sorts of Bread that is made the Body of Christ, but that which receives the blessing of Jesus Christ. S. cyril of Alexandria doth very frequently call the Eucharist, 
Glaphir. in Genes. Exod. Levit. & in Joan.  Eulogy, that is, Blessing, because there's no doubt but that 'tis consecrated by Blessing and Prayers. And that blessing is all one, in St. Cyril's sense, with Sanctification and Consecration, he shows plainly, 
Contra Anthropomopth. c. 12.  when he saith elsewhere, We believe that the Oblations made in the Churches are sanctified, blessed, and consecrated by Jesus Christ; Theodoret who was not always of St. Cyril's mind, yet agrees with him fully in this matter, 
Dialog. 2.  What do you call the Oblation which is offered before the Invocation of the Priest? A Food made of such Seeds. And what do you call it after Consecration? The body of Jesus Christ. St. Prosper or some body else in his name, in his Treatise of Promises and Predictions; 
Part. 2. c. 2.  He affirms at his Table, that the Bread is his sacred Body. A fragment of a Liturgy attributed unto Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, speaking of the Apostles and their Successors praying over the Bread and Wine; By these Prayers, (saith he) they looked for the coming of the Holy Ghost, to make and consecrate by his Divine presence, the bread offered, and the Wine mingled with Water, into the Body itself, or to be the Body of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Victor of Antioch in his Commentary upon St. Mark according to the Greek, 
In cap. 14.  It was necessary that those which presented the Bread, should believe that after Consecration and Prayers it was his Body. The supposed Eusebius of Emessa, or rather Caesarius Bishop of A●●●s, or some other; for 'tis very uncertain whose the Sermon is, the words whereof we intent to cite: They are consecrated by the invocation of Almighty God; 
De Pasch. Hom. 5. Lib. 9 p. 405.  and in the same Sermon he attributes it unto sanctification. The Sanctification (saith he) being pronounced, he saith, Take and drink. Facundus of Hermiane, The Lord called his Body and Blood, the Bread which he had blessed, and the Cup which he gave unto his Disciples. Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome, 
Epist. l. 7.  What we say of the Lords Prayer presently after invocation, it is because the Apostles were wont to consecrate the host of the Oblation, 
Epist 63.  by that Prayer only. Which some have observed after him, that have written of Ecclesiastical Offices, as Amalarius, Lib. 4. Cap. 26. Walafridus Strabo, cap. 20: and Berno, cap. 1. Isidore of Sevill, 
De Eccles. offic. l. 1. c. 15.  St. Peter first of all instituted the order of Prayers, by the which are consecrated the Sacrifices, offered unto God. And elsewhere, it is called a Sacrifice, as a holy action, because it is consecrated by mystical Prayer, in remembrance of the passion which our Lord suffered for us. The Books of Charlemagne touching Images, The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord, etc. is consecrated by the Priest by the invocation of the name of God. 
De Instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 32.  Rabanus Maurus, The Lord first of all consecrated by Prayers, and Thanksgiving the Sacraments of his Body and Blood, and gave them unto his Disciples, which his Apostles imitating, practised afterwards, and taught their Successors to do so likewise; which the whole Church doth now practise all the World over. 
Ibid. c. 33.  And again, As the Body of Jesus Christ was embalmed with sweet Spices, was duly put into a new Sepulchre; so in like manner in his Church, his mystical Body being prepared with the perfumes of Holy Prayer, it is administered in sacred Vessels, by the Ministry of Priests, 
Serm. 11, t. 4. Bibl. Patr. part. 2.  to the end Believers might receive it. Egber● against the Cathari in the XII. Century seems also to refer the Consecration unto the Benediction, although his Doctrine is quite different from that of Rabanus.  
Had we no other testimonies but these  and which are frequently alleged, they were doubtless sufficient to prove that in the Primitive Church the Consecration of the Symbols of the Eucharist was performed by Prayers and giving of Thanks; but because the thing is of great importance, the Reader will not be displeased if I join the following testimonies unto the former: To begin with St. Fulgentius who in the Fragments of his Books against Fabian saith, 
Ex libro 8. p. 202.  You have imagined touching the Prayer by the which at the time of Sacrifice the Descent of the Holy Ghost is implored, that it would seem to imply that he is locally present; and a little after, The Holy Spirit doth sanctify the Sacrifice and Baptism, by his Divine Virtue. Macarius' Bishop of Antioch in the eighth Act of the VI general Council: We, saith he, 
Tom. 5. Concil. p. 99 E.  draw near unto the mystical Blessings, and are sanctified, being made partakers of the holy Body, and of the precious blood of Jesus Christ the Saviour of all. The XVI. Council of Toledo, assembled Anno. 693. saith, 
Can. 6. t. 5. Concil. p. 430. C.  That the Apostle taught us to take a whole loaf, and to put it upon the Table or Altar to be blessed. And again, Our assembly hath appointed by a general consent, that there should be presented at the Lords Table an entire and good loaf, to be consecrated by the Ministerial benediction. A Council of Constantinople composed of 338. Bishops assembled Anno. 754. said, That the Lord would that the Bread of the Eucharist, 
Act 6. Concil. 2. Niceni. t. 5. Concil. p. 756.  as a true figure or image of his natural Body, being sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost, did become his Divine Body: and would you know how? The Priest which makes the Oblation, say the Fathers, interposing to make it Holy, whereas it was common, to wit, by his Prayers, whereby he begs of God the presence of the Holy Ghost. George Pachimer, 
In Epist. 9 t. 1. p. 290.  Paraphraser of the pretended Denys the Areopagite, declares, That the mysteries are consecrated upon the Holy Table by Blessing the Bread and the Holy Cup. In the ancient Formularies of an uncertain Author published by the late Monsieur Bignon, 
C. 8. p. 121. ult. edit.  the Author whereof lived in the days of Lovis the Debonnair, we find that this Prince to honour the Church, ordered, that all those should be set free and at liberty that were admitted into holy Orders; and (saith he) who consecrate by the intervention of their Prayers, 
De ordine baptism. tit. 18.  the Body and Blood of our Lord. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans, by the invisible Consecration of the Holy Ghost. Pope Nicolas the first, writing unto the Emperor of Constantinople, 
Tom. 6. Concil. p. 489.  attributes the Consecration unto the benediction and Sanctification of the Holy Ghost. Which words are found cited in the iv Act of the Council assembled against Photius, 
Ibid. p 738.  which the Latins call the VIII. Ecumenical Council. The Council of Cressy assembled Anno. 858. saith, 
Tom. 3. Conc. Gall. p. 129.  That Consecratton is made by Prayer, and by the sign of the Cross. Charles the Bald, King of France, and Emperor of the West, writing unto Pope Adrian the second, complaining of some sharp and bitter words which this Pope used against him, writes unto him, amongst other things, We cannot think that such words can proceed out of your mouth, 
Supplem. Conc. Gal. p. 265.  as make the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by devout and holy Prayer. Hugh Maynard, a Benedictine Friar, alleges in his notes upon the Books of the Sacraments of Gregory the first, two Manuscripts of the Library of Corby, viz an old explication of the Canon of the Mass, and an ancient Treatise of the Mass; in both which the Consecration is attributed unto Prayers. In the former of these Manuscripts are found these words by Maynard's relation, The Sacrifices are those which are consecrated with Prayers; 
P. 12. P. 13.  and in the other, Sacrifices, that is, things made holy, because they are consecrated by mystical Prayer. Which words, as is observed by this learned Friar, were upon a matter taken out of S. Isidore, lib. 6. Orig. c. 19 Ratherius, Bishop of Verona in Italy, in the tenth Century, in his Treatise of the contempt of Canons, 
Tom. 2. Spicil. p. 183.  first Part. The Oblation, saith he, which is to be presented and distributed unto the People, is consecrated chief by the Prayer wherein we say unto God, Our Father which art in Heaven. Which in all likelihood he borrowed from Gregory the first. In fine, the whole Greek Church, which is of a vast extent, hath constantly unto this day observed and retained this practice. James Gore, of the Order of Preaching Friars, who hath left us the Euchology or Ritual of the Greeks, with Notes of a very sound judgement, takes much pains in explaining the manner of Consecration, practised by the Greek Church, endeavouring to give it a sense which may not be contrary to the Latin Church; he citys these words of the Liturgy which goes under St. Chrysostom's name, 
〈◊〉 p ●7.  We also offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody Sacrifice, and we beseech thee that thou wouldst send thy holy Spirit upon us, and upon the Gifts offered; make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ. Upon these words, and particularly upon the last, Gore makes a very long observation; 
Not. in Euchol. p. 140, 141. num. 138 139.  in the first place he observes upon these words, send thy holy Spirit, That there is a very great difference betwixt the new Editions of this Liturgy of St. Chrysostom's and the ancient Manuscripts; That some of the late Greeks have from hence drawn some kind of show of support for their ill opinion touching Consecration. Secondly, upon these words, make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ; That Chrysostom, who is the Author of the Liturgy, could not believe that Consecration was made by Prayers, as some Greeks have vainly supposed, seeing, saith he, he attributes elsewhere unto the words of Christ, the virtue of changing the Elements, that is, the Bread and Wine, into his Body and Blood; That nevertheless these Prayers, used by the Greeks, were a Stone of stumbling, and 'twas by these Prayers, not rightly understood, that Cabasilas, Simeon of Thessalonica, Mark of Ephesus, Gabriel of Philadelphia, and some others, have been deceived, and have cast the ignorant into Error; and 'tis not to be denied but the most part of the Greeks have written darkly and dubiously, and that gave way unto Error in minds that were unsteadfast; And in fine, hath commended Arcudius and Bessarion, both Greeks Latinized; the latter of which was present at the Council of Florence, under Eugenius the Fourth, and was gained by the Latins; and the other wrote a great while afterwards of the agreement betwixt the Latins and the Greeks, touching the matter of the Sacraments. Goar then having praised them as two persons who by their skill and pains removed all the difficulties which were found about the words and form of Consecration, adds, That to the end we should not labour in doing what was already done; what remains is, that if any farther light can be given unto other men's labours, we should endeavour to do it by new inventions. But that itself shows plainly, that the Greeks did consecrate otherwise than the Latins. Besides, the Reader may easily perceive, both by what we have said, and by the proceeding of Bessarion, Arcudius, and Gore, what is the manner of the Consecration of the Symbols amongst the Greeks; it is true that Arcudius used all his endeavours to conform the opinion of the Greeks unto that of the Latins, giving, for this purpose, unto the Liturgies which go in the name of St. Mark, St. Clement, St. James, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom, 
L. 3. de concord. cap. 25. ad 33.  the most favourable construction he could contrive, because they attribute all the Consecration unto Prayers, and doth blame Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus, Simeon of Thessalonica, Gabriel of Philadelphia, Samonas, Jeremy, Patriarch of Constantinople, because they taught that the Consecration of Symbols was made by Prayers. But this proceeding sufficiently doth show that the Greek Church never owned any other form of Consecration. But to return unto James Goar, 
In Euchol. p. 140, 141.  he saith one thing which ought not to be passed over in silence, which is, That the Greeks which assisted at the Council of Florence, agreed that it was unto the words of Jesus Christ that the force and virtue of Consecration ought to be attributed, and to confirm what he saith, he alleges the Answer they made unto Pope Eugenius, which stuck in suspense, because they added unto the words of Jesus Christ certain Prayers to demand the Consecration, as if it had not been otherwise complete: the Answer, I say, which was made him in the behalf of the whole Nation, by the Bishops of Russia, of Nice, of Trebizond, and of Mitylene, as we read in the eighth Tome and 25th Session of the Council of Florence, in which Answer Goar still finds some difficulty. But if the learned Gore had seen, before publishing his Euchology, the true History of the Council of Florence, by Sylvester Sguropulus, great Ecclesiastic of the Church of Constantinople, and one of the five Counsellors of the Patriarch, and by consequence of the chiefest of the Assembly of the Greeks, he would not have said that the four Bishop's  had answered Pope Eugenius in behalf of the whole Nation; 
Hist. Conc. Florent. sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278.  for the truth is, the Greek Emperor having at last agreed with the Latins upon four Articles, without the knowledge and consent of those of his Nation, except it were some few that had been gained by the Court of Rome, the Latins demanded of the Greeks, they should expunge out of their Rituals, and Books of Divine Service, this third Benediction in celebrating of the unbloody Sacrifice, or in the invocating of the Holy Ghost, which the Priest is wont to pronounce, saying, That these words, Take, eat, this is my Body, and drink you all, did consecrate the Bread and the Cup; and that the Greeks erred very much in using of Prayers, and invoking the Holy Ghost, after pronouncing the words of our Lord. Whereupon there were several contests between the Emperor of Constantinople and the Latins, 
Ibid. p. 278, 279.  who said unto them, If you would believe, as the great St. Basil and the great St. Chrysostom taught, thus to consecrate and sanctify the Divine Oblations, you would find in all the Eastern Churches, above two thousand Liturgies which thus decide the matter. After which the Historian observes, That soon after, by order of the Pope and the Emperor, all the Greeks met at the Pope's Palace, excepting Mark of Ephesus, the most zealous of the whole Nation, and that the Question being again reassumed, there were several debates upon it, the Latins using all their endeavours to make the Greeks embrace their Opinions; and that the Bishops of Russia and of Nice, in behalf of the latter, proposed a middle opinion, which pleased neither Party; which obliged the Emperor to command Mark of Ephesus to set down something in writing touching this Question, which he did; and he therein shown that the Holy Fathers taught to consecrate the Divine Oblations; 
Ibid.  as (saith he) all our Priests do consecrate. In the Eighth Chapter of the same Section, the same Historian, who was always present, writeth, That after the signing of the Decree of the union, the Emperor sent several Greeks unto the Pope, to see after what manner he was to sign it, and that he commanded them to hear the discourse which the Bishop of Nice would make; and that he no sooner began to speak, but Cardinal Julian bid the Protonotary write: and as this Bishop spoke by order of the Emperor, and drew near the end of his discourse, he bid him speak touching the mystical Sacrifice, saying, 
Id. ibid. c. 8. p. 293.  What the Roman Church believeth touching the Consecration of Divine Gifts, or Oblations, we believe also, viz. That the Divine words of our Saviour, Take, eat, This is my Body, drink ye all of this, This is my Blood, are those which sanctify and consecrate them: herein we agree with you, yet we say also that the Priest doth contribute thereunto, as the Husbandman by his Labour contributes unto the production of the Fruits of the Earth; but we refer the whole unto these words of our Saviour, and are therein of the same opinion with you. Let us now hear what the Historian saith unto this discourse of the Bishop of Nice, who spoke so well that he obtained a Cardinal's Cap, and was afterwards sufficiently known by the name of Cardinal Bessarion; 
Ibid. p. 293, 294.  It was (saith the Historian) the design and scope of the Cardinal of Nice to deliver himself in the Eloquence of a great Orator, as if he had spoke in the name of all, although we knew nothing of it, and that we had not given our consent unto what he had spoke; for it was all made up of Artifice and cunning; and the Latins demanded this speech might be inserted in the Decree of the union, which the Emperor refused absolutely to yield unto: he feared that being returned unto Constantinople, he should give occasion unto those that had a mind to talk, that he had overthrown the Divine Liturgy, which the great St. Basil and the Divine Chrysostom had left, having received it of James the Brother of the Lord. But the Latins being earnest, and desiring to have our consent in writing, touching this Article, the Emperor so ordered the matter, that the Bishop of Nice should repeat these matters before the Pope; some of our men being also present, as if they had been come from the whole Assembly of the Greeks, which being written by the Latins, were published in all their Provinces, which was done by force and surprise, and contrary unto our knowledge: see here with what sincerity, what advice, liberty and concord things were carried. It was then after this manner things passed at Florence, upon the Article of the manner of consecrating of the Eucharist, which makes good what we have said, That the Greek Church hath retained unto this day, the custom of consecrating by Prayers and Supplications. Let us now, to reassume our discourse, say, That if some of the ancient Doctors of the Church made the Consecration of the Symbols depend on the pronouncing of these words, This is my Body, it is of the number of those which have declared in favour of the Consecration by Prayer, as for Instance, St. chrysostom, and some others with him; and in this case, that they should not jar amongst themselves, it may be said they have not attributed the Consecration unto these words, This is my Body, but as unto words declaring what was before befallen: unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist: for it is often said that a thing is done, when it is declared that it hath been done; or it may also be said, That they considered these words as containing a promise of God, whereby he tacitly accompanies with his Blessing and his Grace the Prayers which are addressed unto him for the Consecration of the Sacrament. But if the Fathers who attributed the Consecration unto these words, This is my Body, are not of the number of those who have already declared in favour of a Consecration by the virtue of Prayer, of necessity their thoughts must be interpreted after the manner as hath been said, or freely confess that they have digressed from the common Road, and that so their testimonies are not to be received nor allowed against so constant and so universal a tradition. For in these rencounters we ought to follow the advice given unto us by Vincentius Lerinensis, 
Common.  If sometimes the different opinion of one, or a few more, that are deceived, rise up, and thwart the received opinion of all, or of a greater number of Catholics, the rashness of one, or of a few, aught to be opposed, in the first place, by the general Decrees of an universal Council, if there be any: in the second place, if there be none, That the Opinion of several great Doctors be followed, who agree together: For, as he saith a little after, 
Ibid.  Whatsoever a private person believes more than others, or against others, were he Doctor, Bishop, Confessor, Martyr, let them be accounted as low opinions, proper to himself, hidden and private, and let it not be owned to have the authority of an opinion, commonly, publicly, and generally received. Arcudius, a Greek Latinized, doth not differ much from the thoughts of Vincentius, when speaking of the manner and form of Consecration, 
L. 3. de concord. c. 31.  he saith, It seems indeed there is some discord amongst the holy Fathers, but those which seem obscure must be explained by those which are clear; join the lesser number unto the greater, and follow the judgement of the most considerable, the most learned, and of those which are much of the greatest number: which words Gore finds much to his liking, 
In Euchol. p. 140.  saying, That Arcudius gave an advice, which indeed was short, but very discreet and convenient.  
But that nothing might be wanting unto this Observation, and that we may the better understand the nature of this Consecration, and the great consequence of it, let us compare the Consecration of Pagans, unto that of Christians, for many times these sorts of Comparisons do tend very much to the clearing of matters in question. The Pagans called Consecration a certain Formulary, whereby their Priests caused the Divinity which they adored, to be present in his Image; and this Formulary was nothing but certain precise and formal words, whereby they thought to operate this presence in the Images which were made for that purpose. Wherefore Tertullian told them in his Apology, These Images are of the same matter with our Pans and Kettles, 
Apol. c. 12. Minut. in Oct.  but they change their fate by Consecration: And Minutius Felix, See it is melted, forged, wrought, and is not yet a God; see it is polished, built, erected, and is no God; see here, it is beautified, consecrated, invoked, and then 'tis God, when Men would have it so, and do dedicate it. Origen in his Books against Celsus, upon these words of the 95th Psalm, and according to the Hebrew the 96th. 
L. 7. p. 378 ult. Edit.  All the Gods of the Nations are but Devils: That appears, saith he, by the Churches, the which, as the more sacred, are said to be inhabited by the presence of some Divinity, having received into the Temples, at their first Dedication or Consecration, such Devils, by curious invocations and Witchcrafts. Arnobius brings in the Pagan answering the Christian after this manner, You err, and are deceived, 
L. 6. advers. Gent.  for we do not believe that the Brass, nor the Mass of Gold or Silver, nor the other matter whereof Images are made, are of themselves Gods and religious Deities, but we serve and worship these Gods in them, which holy Consecration doth introduce, 
De vanitat. Idolor.  and which it makes to inhabit in the Images which we caused to be made. And did not St. Cyprian, say in his time, That these sorts of Spirits do lie hid under the Statues and consecrated Images? In fine Lactantius, speaking of this kind of Gods of the Gentiles, 
Instit. l. 2. c. 4.  saith, That when they were made, they felt it not, nor when they are worshipped they know it not, for they became not sensible by Consecration. But as for the Sanctification and Consecration of Christians, it consisted only in retrieving things from a profane and common use, and by applying them unto a holy use, by desiring of God by their Prayers, That he would sanctify their use and Employment for his Glory and the Salvation of those who used them lawfully: so that there being any Question, for instance, of the Water of Baptism, or of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, their Consecration tended only to give them a quality which they had not before, to employ them unto a Divine and Religious use, and by praying God to make them Sacraments of his Religion, and that he would render them efficacious by his holy Spirit in the lawful using of them, out of which use they were no more but common Bread, Wine, and Water, as they were before; all the virtue they have, in quality of Signs and Sacraments, either to sanctify our Souls, or to nourish them, depending upon the Holy and Religious use unto which they are applied, and on the efficacy of the Spirit acting at the same time; to the end that they should not only signify, but also that they should seal in our Souls, and that they should exhibit and communicate, when they are administered, the things which they signify and represent. Now let us see if this were the belief of the Holy Fathers of the Church. 
In Levit. Hom. 11. p. 100  Origen upon Levitiecus: There is, born in my house (saith he) the Firstling of a Cow, I am not permitted to put it unto any common use, for it is holy unto the Lord, and therefore it is called Holy. We know then by this dumb Beast, 
Ibid.  how the Law appoints, that what it will have to be Holy, must be set apart for God only. And in the same place, to sanctify any thing is to devote it unto God. The great St. 
Regul. brevior. q 53. p. 642. D. t. 2.  Basil, Sanctification consists in adhering locally and inseparably unto God at all times, in studying and following what is well pleasing in his fight; for also in the things offered and consecrated unto God, deficient things are not accepted; and without impiety and sin, what hath been once consecrated unto God, cannot be converted unto common and human use. St. Austin in his questions upon Leviticus testifies, that he was of the same Opinion, when he saith thus; When he saith the things which the Children of Israel sanctified, 
L. 3. q. 85. t. 4. p. 98.  it must be understood, in offering them unto the Priests, and by them unto the Lord; and this kind of sanctification must be observed, which is made by vow, and by the Devotion of him who offers. S. cyril of Alexandria in his Commentaries upon Esay, 
L. 1. Orat. 6. p. 178.  What is said to be sanctified shall not always partake of sanctification, but rather it signifies to be consecrated unto the glory of God, as what he saith unto Moses, Sanctify unto me all the firstborn which open the Matrix, all the Males unto the Lord, 
L. 7. & 8. in c. 10.34. & Dial. 6. t. 5. part. 1. p. 595.  and in those places, [sanctify] imports to consecrate. And upon St. John, What is consecrated unto God is said to be sanctified. And in his Dialogues of the Trinity, What then, Friend, will not reason constrain us to confess, that what is said to be sanctified, was not before Holy? for I judge, that is called unto sanctification which is altered from what it was not, 
Hom. 14. t. 5. part. 2. p. 187. In Levit. l. 7. c. 27.  when it is sanctified. And in his Paschal Homilies, To sanctify, is to consecrate and offer some excellent Oblation unto the God of the whole Universe. Hesychius of Jerusalem, That which is sanctified and offered, gins to be sanctified, even by being offered; it was not then Holy before. The Friar Jovius in the Library of the Patriarch Photius, 
Codic. 222. ex lib. 24, 25.  We say that the place, or the Bread, or the Wine are sanctified, when they are set apart for God, and that they are not employed about any common use. Even Thomas Aquinas himself, who although he lived in an Age wherein the Doctrine of the Eucharist received an alteration and change, yet acknowledged this kind of Consecration, who nevertheless happily would not have that of the Eucharist to depend on it. 
T. 2. q. 81. art. 8. num. 70.  Not only Men, but also the Churches, Vessels, and all other things of this kind, are said to be sanctified from the very time that they be applied unto the service of God.  
I should here end the examination of the question of Consecration, were I not obliged to say something of the manner of pronouncing the words of Consecration. It cannot be doubted, but Jesus Christ pronounced with an audible voice the words whereby the Latins pretend that he did consecrate, seeing the Evangelists nor S. Paul do neither of them remark that there was any difference betwixt the pronouncing of these words, This is my Body, This is my Blood, and that of all the rest. The Amen which the People answered in the following Ages, after the Consecration was made, as it appears by Justin Martyr, by Denys of Alexandria in Eusebius, by Tentullian, by St. Ambrose, by St. Leo, and by others: This Amen I say doth clearly show, that they consecrated with a loud voice; this also is justified by most of the Liturgies which remain unto us, where it is expressly observed, that the pronouncing of these words was done with a loud voice, as in those attributed unto St. Peter, St. Mark, 
De Observe. can. t. 10. Bibl. Patr. Not. in Gregor Sar. page 389. Not. 131. in Miss. Chrysost. Euchol.  St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom. Raoul de Tongres writes that it was so practised even in the Church of Milan, conformable unto the Liturgy of St. Ambrose, which this Church retained very punctually almost unto these last times. Hugh Maynard and James Gore do make almost the same observation by reason of a passage of the Book of them which are initiated, which is in S. Ambrose: We have upon this Subject a constitution of the Emperor Justinian who reigned in the V Century, viz. the 123, wherein he ordains to make the Divine Oblation; that is to say, as Photius explains it in his Nomocanon, Tit. 3. Can. 1. The Prayers of the holy Communion, not with a low voice, but after such a manner that the faithful People might understand what is said; a custom which was still observed in the Latin Church in the IX. Century; for Paschas Radbert in his Letter unto Frudegard, and Ratran in his Treatise of the Body and blood of Christ, do observe that the People answered Amen unto the Prayers of the Canon. Moreover those which in that Age wrote of Divine and Ecclesiastical offices, as Amalarius, Rabanus, Walafridus, have very exactly observed all that was practised in their times in the Celebration of the Eucharist; But they say not a word of the manner of pronouncing the Sacramental words which the Latins follow at this time; an evident proof that it was not then received, 
Miss. Rom. tit. Rit. Celeb. Miss. c. 8. §. 5.  as it hath been some Ages past: For the Missal commands to pronounce the consecrating words with a low voice, that is to say, in such a manner that no body may hear them. The original of so considerable a change had not, as many conceive, a sufficient foundation; for the Author of Divine Offices (who cloaked himself under the name of Alcuin who was dead about two hundred years before this Treatise was composed, 
Alcuin. de Diu. off. tlt. de Celebr. Miss. t. 10. Bibl. patr.  seeing the learned do not judge it was written before the XI. Century, or at least until the end of the X. Century; this Author I say) writes, that this custom of pronouncing with a low voice the words of Consecration proceeded from a report, That God had punished with sudden death, certain Shepherds that sang them in the fields; those that have spoke since, followed the same steps, as Hugh of St. Victor a writer of the XII. Age, John Belet who lived as 'tis said, in the same time; Innocent the third, Honorius of Autun, and Durandus de Mende, who wrote in the XII. and XIII. and Gabriel Biel who composed the Lessons in the XV. with this difference that some amongst them have added that the Bread upon which the Shepherds pronounced the Sacramental words, was converted into flesh, and as for them they were destroyed by fire from Heaven. Nevertheless they own, as well as Cassander in his Treatise of Liturgies, that before that time these words were pronounced with a loud voice: Now let the Reader judge if the Latins had reason for a motive of this Nature to abolish the ancient custom contrary to what is even unto this day practised amongst the Greeks, the Syrians, the Ethiopians, the Armenians, the Muscovites or Russians, which do all consecrate with a loud voice. I know there have been some Doctors of the Latin Church, who to render more ancient the custom of consecrating with a low voice, have had recourse unto the spiritual Meadow of John Moschus who lived in the VII. Century; It's true he relates two different Histories (at least if they may be called Histories) which being joined together contain some circumstances which have a resemblance with what the forged Alcuin hath written, and after him several others: But in the main there is such notable differences betwixt what the pretended Alcuin has written, and what Moschus doth relate, that it is easy to perceive that the Latins have grounded their Decree upon the relation of the former, rather than upon that of the latter, although neither the one nor the other appears unto judicious persons to be worthy of much credit.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Of the Oblation, or of the manner of the Sacrifice.  
IF Christians had done no more in the Celebration of their Sacrament, than Jesus Christ had done in his, the Consecration of Symbols had immediately been followed with the breaking of Bread, and so we should have been obliged to have treated of the breaking of Bread after having examined the form of Consecration: but because betwixt the Consecration and the breaking Bread which immediately followed, they have in process of time brought in the Oblation and Elevation, before we treat of the Fraction, we must consider these two other things, the former in this Chapter, and the other in that which next follows. As our Saviour after Prayer and giving Thanks whereby he consecrated the Sacrament, proceeded unto the breaking of Bread, and distribution, there appearing nothing in the History of the Institution of any Oblation or Elevation, betwixt the Consecration and the breaking of the Bread: so the Apostles who exactly followed his Example and Precepts, certainly failed not to do what he had done, I mean to proceed unto the breaking the Bread, and the distribution of it immediately after having blessed and sanctified it; which simplicity was very pleasing unto those who lived in the following Age. For Justin Martyr doth testify that the Consecration of the Symbols was followed by the Communion of Believers, which necessarily presupposed the breaking the Bread, therefore he forbore expressing it at large. But their Successors, thinking they ought to raise and advance the dignity of this Mystery, and to elevate the simplicity of it, with divers Ceremonies, to render it the more pleasing unto the Jews and Pagans, which they earnestly desired to draw unto the Communion of the Gospel, and of the knowledge of Jesus Christ; joined unto the Consecration of Symbols the Oblation which they made unto God after they had been blessed and sanctified. Oblation, which was a kind of Sacrifice, taking the word in a large sense, and by consequence an improper sense, they judged of very great importance to work upon the Jews and Gentiles; because both the one and the other being accustomed unto outward Sacrifices, were exceedingly scandalised that the Christians made use of none in their Religion: This appears by the calumnies which they cast upon those who first undertook to defend the innocency of Christianity against their reproaches. But the better to understand the nature of this Oblation, it is to be observed there are three several sorts to be seen in the Liturgies of Christians: the first, the most ancient, and that which was only in use in Justin Martyr's time, and afterwards, is the Oblation of Bread and Wine which the faithful made in the Celebration of the Eucharist, and which the Minister offered unto God by Prayers, as may be seen in all the Liturgies. That attributed unto St. James shall serve at this time, because the same in substance is to be found in all the rest; there the Pastor makes this Prayer unto God: 
Liturg. S. Jacob.  Cast thine Eyes, O God, upon us, and upon this reasonable service, which we offer unto thee, and receive them as thou didst the Oblations of Abel, the Sacrifices of Noah, the Priesthoods of Moses and Aaron, the peaceable offerings of Samuel, the repentance of David, the Incense of Zacharias: to the end that as thou receivedst from the hand of thine Apostles this true worship, thou also of thy goodness wouldst receive of us who are sinners, these gifts which we offer unto thee: Grant that our Oblation may be agreeable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, for the propitiation of our Sins, and of those which the People have committed through ignorance. This action of the faithful people offering the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist for the Divine Service, is called not only Oblation, but also Sacrifice, as we have shown in examining whence the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were taken. 
Cypr. de oper. & Eleemos.  And in fine, St. Cyprian doth positively call this Action a Sacrifice in that place of his formerly alleged. When the Oblations are set upon the Altar, or upon the Holy Table to be blessed, they are again offered unto God by Prayer, as hath been showed in the foregoing Chapter: but because that in some sort relates unto this first Oblation whereof we speak, I would seek for the second in the Oblation made unto God of these same Oblations at the very instant of time that they are consecrated: for we have seen that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, 
Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 12.  at that instant addresses this Prayer unto God: We offer unto thee, O our God and our King, this Bread and this Cup, giving thee thanks by Jesus Christ, because thou hast counted us worthy to appear in thy sight, and to execute the Priesthood, and we beseech thee, O God, who hast need of nothing, to behold these Oblations with a favourable eye which are set before thee, that thou wouldst accept them for the honour of thy Son, and that thou wouldst send the Holy Ghost upon this Sacrifice, etc. It is very likely they did after this manner, thinking that Jesus Christ who began the Celebration of his Eucharist with Prayer, made a kind of Oblation unto God of the Bread and Wine, and shown at the same time his willingness of sacrificing himself soon after, for the expiation of the Sins of the World; therefore it is, as I conceive, that they grounded the Oblation, whereof we treat, wherein they desired of God that he would sanctify unto them the use of these two things, and that he would by his blessing make them the efficacious and Divine Sacraments of the Body broken, and the Blood shed, of his Christ, for the Salvation and consolation of their Souls. From hence it is that St. Cyprian in one of his Epistles saith in sundry places, that Jesus Christ offered Bread and Wine in the Sacrament; that we offer Wine, and that Wine ought to be offered in the Cup of the Lord, and not only so, but that the Lord therein offered himself, having in all likelihood regard unto the disposition wherein he shown himself to be, of exposing himself unto death for us, when he instituted the Sacrament and memorial of it. 
Cyprian. Ep. 63.  Our Lord (saith he) offered himself first unto his Father, and commanded it should be so done in remembrance of him; so that the Sacrificer which imitates what Jesus Christ hath done, doth truly supply the place of Jesus Christ. As for the third and last of the Oblations which I mentioned to be practised by Christians, it was done after the Consecration of the Symbols, after which they offered them unto God; whereunto relates the warning made unto the People in the Apostolical Constitutions; 
Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 13.  To pray unto God by Jesus Christ for the gift offered unto our Lord, to the end that he would receive it as an odour of a sweet savour, upon his Heavenly Altar, through the intercession of Jesus Christ. In the Liturgy of St. James also, 
Liturg. S. Jacob.  They pray for the gifts which have been offered and sanctified, to the end God would accept them, and receiving them upon his Heavenly Altar, as a sweet and spiritual savour, he would in their stead send his Heavenly grace and the gift of his Holy Spirit; and a little after they also pray, That because he hath received as an odour of sweet savour, 
Ibid.  the Oblations and Presents which have been offered, and hath been pleased to sanctify and consecrate them by the grace of his Christ, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, he would also sanctify their Souls, their Spirits, and Bodies, etc. in that of St. Chrysostom, We offer unto thee of thy goods; 
Liturg. Chrys. Germ. Theor. p 403.  or as  Patriarch of Constantinople explains it, We offer unto thee the Antitypes? It is true, that considering the manner of the Greeks consecrating, this Oblation should immediately precede the Prayer whereby they pretend to consecrate; but if the Latins are considered, this Oblation is not made unto God, until after the Consecration be ended. But there is seen in this Liturgy, for the Oblation whereof we treat, the same as in that of St. James. In fine, in all the Liturgies which we have, although they be not all made by the Authors in whose names they pass, the Oblation which is made unto God after the consecrating Liturgy of the Latins, is an Oblation (as is expressly said) of Bread and Wine, of Gifts and Fruits of the Earth. But of all the Liturgies there is none that better informs us of the nature of this Oblation than that which is used by the Latin Church, which thus speaks unto God; 
Missa Can.  We offer unto thy glorious Majesty, of thy Gifts, and of thy Presents, a holy and immaculate Host, the Holy Bread of Life, and the Cup of Eternal health; upon which things we beseech thee to look with a favourable and propitious Eye, and to accept them, as thou wert pleased to accept the Presents of thy righteous Son Abel, and the Sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and the Holy Sacrifice, the immaculate Host, which thy Sovereign high Priest Melchisedeck offered unto thee; we humbly beseech thee, O Almighty Lord God, to command that these things might be carried by thy Holy Angel, upon thy high Altar, into the presence of thy Divine Majesty. And a little after, continuing the like discourse, they say unto God, By the which Jesus Christ, O Lord, thou hast made all these things for us, thou sanctifiest, blessest, and bestowest them upon us. From whence it is that the Holy Fathers meditating upon this latter Oblation, and considering that the Bread and Wine was the matter of it, they spoke, as near as I can guests, of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church, as of a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, and although they have not all expressed themselves after one manner, yet nevertheless their expressions however they seem to differ in words, yet tend to the same sense, and contain one and the same Doctrine: some instead of saying that there is offered Bread and Wine unto God, have said, that there were offered unto him the first-fruits of his Creatures, (that is to say) things which he gives us for our nourishment; 
Iren. l. 4. c. 32.  so it is that St. Irenaeus expressed himself when he said, That the new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church offers unto God throughout all the World, is an Oblation of the first-fruit of his gifts, that is, of the Food which he hath given us; 
Ibid.  or as he saith afterwards, of the first-fruits of his Creatures, which he explains afterwards, by Bread and by Wine, which are Creatures of this World. Others have spoken positively of Bread and Wine, 
Just. Martyr. dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. Macar. Hom. 27.  as St. Justin Martyr, who makes the Sacrifices of Christians offered in all places in the Sacrament, to consist of Bread and Wine. St. Macarius an ancient Anchorite was of the same mind, when he observed that the primitive Believers, knew not that Bread and Wine was offered in the Church to be the Antitype or the Figure of the flesh and Blood of our Lord. 
l. 1. ep 401.  Thence it is that St. Isidore of Damietta confesseth unto Rabbi Benjamin, That the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread: 
Fulgent. ad Pet. de side c. 19  That St. Fulgentius saith, That the Catholic Church doth not cease to offer unto God throughout the world a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. That venerable Bede one of the greatest lights of the Church of England, in the VIII. 
Bed. in Psal. 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern. l. 2. c. 2. t. 4.  Century, taught, That our Lord had changed the Sacrifices of the Law, into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine: and that whereas the Ancients celebrated the Sacrament of the passion of our Lord in the flesh and blood of Sacrifices, we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine. That the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews attributed unto Primasius, but which is of Haimon of Halberstad, or of Remy of Auxerre, and by consequence at least of the IX. Century, declares, 
In c. 5. ad Hebr.  That the Lord left unto his Church these two gifts, Bread and Wine, to offer them in remembrance of him: 
Amalar. praesat. 2. l. de offic. & l. 3. cap. 25.  And that Amalarius Fortunatus seeks a Sacrament of Jesus Christ in the person of the Priest, offering Bread, Wine, and Water; and that he saith, that the Sacrificer recommends unto God the Father, that which was offered in stead of Jesus Christ. That others not contented to speak of an Oblation of Bread and Wine, have added the quality of this Bread and Wine, saying that they were Sacraments of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Author of the Commentary upon Genesis attributed unto Eucherius Bishop of Lions, thus expresses his thoughts; 
Eucher. in Genes. l. 2. c. 18.  It hath been commanded (saith he) that Christians should offer in Sacrifice, not the bodies of Beasts, as Aaron did, but the Oblation of Bread and Wine, that is to say, the Sacrament of his body and blood. Words which are yet seen in St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevill, 
Isidor. Hisp. in Gen. c. 12.  and which show that where any of the Fathers instead of these words, that is to say, the Sacrament of his body and blood; have said, that is to say, his Body and Blood; as St. Cyprian, and the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Primasius, it must of necessity be taken in the sense of St. Eucherius and St. Isidore; otherwise they would be made to clash amongst themselves, and those would be made to seem Enemies, whose Doctrine differed not from one another: as will evidently appear if the passages of the one are compared with the others; and if the terms and expressions of the latter are carefully heeded, with what went before and follows after. It is also by the same Principle that the same St. Isidore saith elsewhere, 
Idem de Allegor Idem de voc. c. 26.  That the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ, that is to say, the Oblation of Bread and Wine, is offered all the world over, and that Christians do not now offer Jewish Sacrifices, such as the Sacrificer Aaron offered, but such as were offered by Melchizedeck King of Salem, that is to say, Bread and Wine; which is the most venerable Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ. 
Theodor. in Psal. 109, Heb. 10.  As for the famous Theodoret, it is true that he speaks not of the Oblation of Bread and Wine, but yet he sufficiently explains himself, when he saith, That the Church offers the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, sanctifying the whole lump by the first-fruits. Others in fine, have showed their belief on this point, in saying, that Jesus Christ offered, and that we offer in the Eucharist, the same things Melchisedeck offered. It is what Clement of Alexandria meant by these words, That Melchisedeck presented Bread and Wine; 
Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 4 p. 539. Cyprian. Ep. 63.  a Food sanctified in Type of the Sacrament. And S. Cyprian, when he said, That our Lord offered unto God the Father, the same Sacrifice which Melchisedeck had done, that is, Bread and Wine, to wit, his Body and Blood. For as he saith again, not to leave the least doubt in the mind of the Reader; 
Ibid.  We see prefigured in the High Priest Melchisedeck, the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of our Lord; as the Divine Scripture testifies, when it saith, and Melchisedeck King of Salem brought Bread and Wine. Thence it is, that he observes in the same little Treatise, some lines after the words before mentioned; 
Ibid.  That the Lord accomplishing and perfecting the Image of his Sacrifice, offered Bread, and the Cup mixed with Water. And Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, doth not he say, 
Euseb. demonst. l. 5. c. 3.  That Jesus Christ doth at present accomplish by his Servants, as Melchisedeck did, all the Sacrifice that there is to be performed amongst men; that Jesus Christ first of all, and then all his Ministers, do by Bread and Wine declare and show the Mysteries of his precious Body and Blood; and that Melchisedeck having foreseen these things by the Spirit of God, made use before of the types of future things, the Scripture witnessing that he brought out Bread and Wine? It was also, if I mistake not, the meaning of S. Ambrose, when going to prove that the Sacraments of the Church, were ancienter than those of the Synagogue, 
Ambros. l. de init. c. 8. t. 4. p. 349. Chrysost. in Psal. 109.  he saith, That Abraham which was before Moses, received the Sacraments of Melchisedeck. Wherefore (saith S. Chrysostom) said he, After the Order of Melchisedeck? because of the Sacraments; for he offered unto Abraham Bread and Wine. And therefore it is, that the Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew, 
Hom. 19  amongst his works, defines the Christian man, by him which offers the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. 
Hieron. Ep. 126.  S. Jerome in one of his Letters touching Melchisedeck, follows the Opinion of several ancient Doctors who preceded him, and who had said, That Melchisedeck did not offer Sacrifices of flesh and blood, but that he consecrated the Sacrament of Jesus Christ with Bread and Wine, 
Id. advers. Jovin. l. 2.  which is a pure and spotless Sacrifice. And elsewhere he saith, That our Saviour offered in type of his Blood, not Water, but Wine. S. Austin was of no other mind, when he taught in divers parts of his Writings; 
August. Ep. 95. Id. l. de 83. q. q. 61. t. 4. Id de Civit. Dei. l. 16. c 22.  for example, when he said, That Melchisedeck foreshowed the Sacrament of our Lord, to represent his eternal Priesthood; that we now see offered throughout the whole World in the Church of Jesus Christ, that which Mechisedeck offered unto God. That when Abraham was blessed by Melchisedeck, the Sacrifice now offered unto God by Christians throughout the whole World, was first of all shown; that to eat Bread in the New Testament, is the Sacrifice of Christians; and that in all places is offered the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, which Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham; let those who read, 
Ib. l. 17 c. 5. Ib. c. 17. Id contr. advers. leg. l. 1. c. 20. Isid. Pelus l. 1. Ep. 431. Arnob. in Psal. 109.  know what Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham, and that if they be already partakers of it, they may see that such a Sacrifice is now offered unto God throughout the World. It is in substance what is said by S. Isidore of Damietta, That Melchisedeck executing the Priesthood with Bread and Wine, by them signified the type of Divine Mysteries. And Arnobius the younger, That our Saviour by the Mystery of Bread and Wine, was made a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedeck, who alone amongst the Priests, offered Bread and Wine. 
Hesyc. in Levit. l. 6. c. 23. Cassiod. in Psal. 109.  And Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem, That the oblation of the Mystical Melchisedeck, is accomplished in Bread and Wine. And Cassiodorus, That the Institution of Melchisedeck who offered Bread and Wine, is celebrated throughout the World, in the distribution of the Sacraments. And the supposed Eusebius of Emissa, in one of his Easter Sermons, That Melchisedeck, did foreshow by the oblation of Bread and Wine, the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is also the opinion of the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of S. Ambrose, 
In cap. 5. ad Hebr.  and which some have imagined to be of Remy of Auxerr, but which indeed are of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, who lived at the end of the Eleventh, and beginning of the Twelfth Century; of Theophylact in the Eleventh Century; of Oecumenius about the same time, both of them upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and in fine, of Nicetas, who said in the Twelfth Century, in the Confession of Faith made for those which were converted from Mahometism, unto the Religion of Jesus Christ, 
T. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 532.  That it is Bread and Wine, which is spiritually sacrified by Christians, and which they do receive in the Divine Sacraments. See then three several Oblations practised by several of the ancient Christians in the Celebration of their Sacrament; and which have all three given unto this Sacrament the name of Sacrifice, and which the Holy Fathers have called a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, considering particularly that Oblation which is made unto God of the Symbols after their Consecration, and after the change which may thereunto happen after the sanctification: and this Tradition hath been so constant, so uniform, and so universal, that it may be said, That it hath been believed by all, at all times, and in all places; which be the three signs that Vincentius Lerinensis desired may be admitted, in receiving all Catholic and Orthodox Doctrine.  
But besides the reasons which moved the holy Fathers to call the Sacrament a Sacrifice, there be several others, which it is necessary to examine, that it might evidently appear what was the nature and form of this Sacrifice amongst them. And first, I find that they considered the Eucharist as a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross; and because for the most part, memorials do take their name from the thing whereof they be memorial, they have made no difficulty to call it a Sacrifice, as indeed this name may very fitly be given unto it; and not only the name of a Sacrifice; but even of a true Propitiatory Sacrifice, because it is the memorial of one that is truly such: It is in this prospect they have called it the Passion; 
Cyprian Ep. 63.  the Sacrifice which we offer, saith S. Cyprian, is the passion of our Lord: But this is to be observed, that we make mention of the Passion of our Lord in all the Sacrifices. Thereby in a manner confounding the death of our Lord, with the commemoration which we make of it in the Sacrament, by reason of the near relation which there is betwixt the Memorial, and the thing whereof the remembrance is renewed. Accordingly Eusebius said, speaking of the Institution of the Sacrament; 
Euseb. l. 1. Dem. c. 10.  That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer unto God, instead of the Sacrifice; the memorial of his Sacrifice. And S. chrysostom having said, in speaking of the Oblation of the Sacrament, 
Chrys. Hom. 17. ad Heb.  We always make the same Sacrifice, adds presently by way of correction, But rather we make the commemoration of the Sacrifice: 
August. l. 83. quaest. q. 61.  which S. Austin saith, is, to celebrate the type of his Sacrifice in remembrance of his passion. 
* Id. contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 21.  To celebrate the Sacrifice of our Lord by a Sacrament of commemoration: 
† L. 3. de Trin. c. 4.  And to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us. Therefore he observes elsewhere, that although Jesus Christ was but once offered up, yet nevertheless it may be said, that he is every day offered, when in the Sacrament, there is made a commemoration of this Sacrifice. 
Id. Ep. 23.  Jesus Christ (saith he) was once offered in his body, and yet he is offered unto the people in the Sacrament, not only in the solemnities of Easter, but also on other days; and he lied not, who being asked, answers, that he is sacrificed. Theodoret was of the same mind as the others; 
Theodor. in Ep ad Heb. c. 8.4.  for making himself this Objection, Wherefore was it that the Priests of the New Testament make the Mystical Liturgy, (that is to say, the Eucharist) if it be true that the Priesthood according to the Law was abrogated? and that the High Priest after the order of Melchisedeck, offered a Sacrifice; and that for this reason he did it, that we may have no more need of another Sacrifice? see here how he resolves this difficulty, It is manifest unto those that are instructed in Divine matters, that we do not offer another Sacrifice, but that we do or celebrate, the remembrance of that only saving Sacrifice (he means that of the Cross) for the Lord himself hath commanded us, Do this in remembrance of me; to the end that by contemplating the Figure, we may bring to our minds what he suffered for us, thereby to inflame our love unto our Benefactor, and to expect the enjoyment of good things to come. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, contemporary and friend unto Gregory the First, followed the others steps, when he said, 
Eulog. apud Phot. Cod. ult.  That the Sacrament which we celebrate, is not an oblation of divers Sacrifices, but the commemoration of the Sacrifice which was once offered. The same language was used in the Ninth Century, seeing that Bertram or Ratramn said; That the Oblation which Jesus Christ once offered, 
Bertram. de corp. & Sang. Domini.  is every day celebrated by the faithful, but mystically and in remembrance of his Passion; and that nevertheless it is not falsely said, that the Lord is sacrificed, or that he suffers in these Mysteries, because they have a resemblance of this death and passion, whereof they are the representations, 
Id. Ibid.  etc. That the Bread and the Cup do represent the memorial of the death of our Lord, and that they are set upon the Altar in type and memory of his death, to represent unto our memory, what was formerly done; and that to the end we thinking of this death, he who hath delivered us from death, might make us to partake of the Divine Oblation. And the Deacon Florus, said he not at the same time, 
Flor. in Exposit. Miss.  That the Oblation of this Bread and this Cup, is the commemoration and annunciation of the death of Jesus Christ, and that the commemoration of the death of Christ is the showing forth of his love, because he so loved us as to die for us? If we descend lower, Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences, will tell us in the Twelfth Century, 
Lombard. l. 4. sentent. dist. 12. litt. g.  That is called a Sacrifice and Oblation which is offered and consecrated by the Priest, because it is the memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice; and of the holy immolation which was made upon the Altar of the Cross. And Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century; That the Celebration of the Eucharist, 
Thom. sun's part. 3. q. 83. part. 1.  is called the immolation of Jesus Christ; because, as S. Austin saith unto Simplicius, the Images are wont to take their name from those things whereof they be Images; and that the Celebration of this Sacrament, is a certain representative type of the death of Jesus Christ, which is his true immolation; therefore the Celebration of this Sacrament is called Immolation.  
Secondly, the Eucharist being an act of our duty towards God, and towards his Son, for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death, the ancient Doctors might also in this regard, call it by the name of Eucharistical Sacrifice, of Thanksgiving, of Prayer, and of Acknowledgement. This in appearance was the meaning of St. Chrysostom, when he said, 
Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 26.  That the venerable Mysteries are called Eucharist, because they are a commemoration of sundry benefits, and because they dispose us always to render thanks unto God. And because God is honoured with two very different qualities, one of Creator, the other of Redeemer; we give him thanks, that as Creator, he gives unto us the Fruits of the Earth, and we then consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine as the First-fruits of his Creatures: and that in quality of Redeemer, he hath given unto us the Body and Blood of his Son, and in this regard we consecrate unto him the Bread and Wine, as Memorials of the bloody death of our Saviour. St. Ireneus observes this use as to the first regard; 
Iren. l. 4. cap. 34.  We are obliged (saith he) to make our offerings unto God, and that in all things we should be thankful unto the Creator, but that must be done with pure affections, and with a sincere Faith, a firm hope, and ardent Charity; in offering unto him the First fruits of his Creatures, which are his; but it is only the Church which offers unto God this pure Oblation, presenting unto him, with Prayers, of the Creatures which he hath made. St. Austin (if I be not deceived) intended to touch the latter regard, when speaking of the Sacrifice of the Cross, 
August. l. 20. contr. Faust. cap. 21.  he said, That the flesh and blood of this Sacrifice had been promised before the coming of Christ by typical Sacrifices of resemblance, that in the passion of Jesus Christ they were accomplished by the truth itself, and that after his Ascension they are celebrated by a Sacrament of Commemoration. But Justin Martyr hath joined both together in his Excellent Dialogue against Tryphon; Jesus Christ (saith he) hath commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in Commemoration of the Death which he suffered for those whose Souls have been purified from all malice, 
Just. Mart. dialog. contr. Tryph. p. 259, 260.  to the end we should neturm thanks unto God for the Creation of the World, and the things which are therein for the use of Man: And for that he hath delivered us from the wickedness wherein we lay, having triumphed over Principalities and Powers by him, who in executing the good pleasure of his will, was pleased to take upon him a frail Nature. In the third place, the Holy Fathers considering that the Eucharist serves us now, in the room of Mosaical Sacrifices, being our outward worship under the dispensation of the Gospel, as the Sacrifices were the Jewish Service under the Oeconomy of the Law, they have freely called it Sacrifice; and rightly to understand in what sense they have given it this Title, in the consideration that 'tis our Worship and exterior Service, we must consider, that they often take this word Sacrifice in a very large extended and improper sense; therefore 'tis, that they apply it unto all the acts of Piety and Devotion, and generally unto all things that pertain unto the worship of our Saviour; in which they have followed the stile of the Holy Scriptures, that so speak in many places; David calls the contrite heart, 
Psal. 51.  a Sacrifice well pleasing unto Almighty God. The Prophet calls it, 
Hosea. c. 14. Heb. 13. Philip. 4.  rendering Calves of our lips, which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains, The fruit of the Lips, which confessed the name of God. The Apostle gives the name of Sacrifices, unto the blessing, communication, 
1 Peter 2.  and praises of God. St. Peter considers good works, as spiritual sacrifices agreeable unto God through Jesus Christ; 
Rom. 12. Rom. 15. Philip. 2.  and St. Paul, the sanctification of a faithful Christian, as a sacrifice of his Body; The preaching of the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the sacrifice of the Gospel, to offer the Gentiles; And elsewhere he fears not to say, that our Faith is a Sacrifice. 
2 Timoth. 4.  And the blood which he was to shed for his blessed Master, a sprinkling which was to be made upon this Sacrifice; Therefore 'tis that St. Peter and S. 
1 Peter 2. Rev. 1. &. 5.  John call all Believers in general, Sacrificers, according to what had been prophesied under the Old Testament. The Holy Fathers being accustomed unto the stile of the Scriptures, have also termed Sacrifices, all the works of Piety, Devotion, Charity, Alms-deeds, Prayer, giving Thanks, and in a word all things which any way related unto the Worship and Service of Religion; so far as St. Cyprian saith, to sacrifice a Child, 
Cypr. Ep. 59  in making it to communicate after Baptism. And in another place, He giveth the name of Sacrifice unto a Present that was sent unto him in his banishment, because it proceeded from a motive of Charity, and that it was a kind of contributing towards his maintenance: so Justin Martyr saith, 
Just. Mart. contr. Tryph. p. 345. Strom. l. 7. p. 717.  That Prayers and Thanksgivings are the only perfect and agreeable sacrifices wellpleasing unto God. Clement of Alexandria speaketh of Prayer, as of a very good and holy Sacrifice, and saith, That the Sacrifice of the Church, is the words which proceed from devout Souls as by exaltation. And Tertullian doth not he assure, 
Ad Scap. c. 2.  That the Christians sacrifice unto God for the safety of the Emperor, by pure prayer only? and that prayer-made by chaste flesh of an innocent Soul, and of a holy mind, is the fattest and most excellent Sacrifice that God hath required? Doth not he also explain the pure Oblation of Malachy, 
Apol. c. 30.  of Glorification, of Benediction, Praise, Hymns, 
Contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 22. & 4. c. 1. De pat. c. 13. de jejun. c. 26. de usur. c. 8. Minut. in Oct.  and of Prayer proceeding from a pure heart; and in fine, doth he not reckon amongst the propitiatory Sacrifices and Oblations, Mortifications, Humiliations, Contritions, Fast, and strictness of life. Minutius Felix makes the Sacrifices of the Christian Church to consist in good works, and in the works of sanctification and holiness, in an upright heart, in a pure conscience, and in faith unfeigned. It is whereof Origen gives us several instances in one of his Homilies upon Levitious; and I do not see what other interpretation can be given unto what is said by the Divine of the ancient Church, 
Greg. Naz. orat. 20.  I mean Gregory of Naziunzen when he saith, That S. Basil is in Heaven offering Sacrifices and Praying; explaining the Sacrifices to be Prayers which the Saints offer unto God in Heaven, and that he saith of himself, 
Id. orat. 42.  That he sacrificeth his discourse of Easter, and that when he is in Heaven, he will there sacrifice unto God upon his Altar, 
Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 9  Sacrifices well pleasing in his sight. It was also the Language of Chrysostom, who looks upon Prayer as a very great Sacrifice, and a perfect Oblation; 
Id. in Mart. hom. 16.  And in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew, he saith, that those who are not yet initiated, do offer an Oblation and Sacrifice, which is prayer and Alms-deeds. And St. Ambrose, 
Ambros. de fug saec. c. 8. t. 1.  That wisdom is a very good Sacrifice; and Faith and Virtue, a good Oblation; that Prayer itself is a Sacrifice. 
Id. Ep. 59 Aurel. c. 29. etc. 3. collect. Mart. Bracar. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 29. in cod 41. Aug. de civet l. 10. c. 4. Ep. 95. Id. Hom. 50. de poenit. t. 10.  Also we find in some Canons of Councils, that the Prayers and Service of Morning and Evening, are called, Morning and Evening Sacrifices; and that 'tis commanded, That if a dead Person is to be recommended in the afternoon, it is to be by Prayers only, if it be found that those who do it have dined. According to which St. Austin speaks of Sacrificing unto God a Sacrifice of Praise and Humility, and saith, That we offer unto him Bloody Sacrifices, when we suffer unto Blood for his Truth. And in one of his Letters he opposeth the Sacrifice of Prayer, offered by Christians, unto the Sacrifices of the Law, which were offered for the sins of Men. And elsewhere he requires, That every one, as he is able, do not cease to offer, for the Sins which he commits every day, the Sacrifice of Alms-deeds, Fasting, Prayers, and Supplications: wherefore he gives us this definition of the true Sacrifice, having regard, not to its Essence, but to its end and effect, which is to direct us unto the enjoyment of Blessedness and Felicity: The true Sacrifice (saith he) is every work which we do, 
Id. de Civit. l. 10. c. 6.  to be nearer united unto God by a holy Fellowship, viz. by referring him unto the end of that good which may render us truly happy. It cannot then be thought strange, that the ancient Doctors of the Church, having given the name of Sacrifice unto all the Acts of Piety, unto all the Works of Sanctification, and unto all that we do for the Glory of God, and for his Service, should also qualify the holy Eucharist with the same Title, seeing that it makes one of the essential parts of the Worship of Christian Religion, and that it even comprehends in substance the greatest part of the things relating thereunto, and whereof it is composed, as Prayers, giving of Thanks, the offering up of our Goods and our Persons, Repentance, Compunction, Faith, Hope, and Charity; and to speak in a word, all the Holy and Divine Dispositions which we should bring unto the holy Table, and without which one cannot worthily partake of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation.  
But because these things which we have touched, and which the Holy Fathers frequently call Sacrifices, are not nevertheless Sacrifices, properly so called, to take Sacrifice in its proper and true signification; I observe that these same Fathers, in answering the Jews and Pagans, who found fault that there were not in the Christian Religion any true external Sacrifices, as there were in theirs, agreed with them, That in very truth they had none; but that instead of those outward and external Sacrifices, which were as it were the Soul and Essence of the Jews Religion, and of all the Pagans, they had a worship wholly spiritual, a service Heavenly and wholly Divine; without touching in this place the silence of all those who in the first Ages of Christianity undertook the defence of this holy Religion of the Son of God: for in all their Apologies they spoke not one word of the external Sacrifices of Christians, though they were not ignorant that it had been the fittest and most effectual way to have invited the Pagans and Jews unto the Profession of the Gospel: on the contrary they explain themselves so clearly on this matter, that it is not to be wondered at, that their Enemies should shun a Religion wherein, by the confession and owning of those very persons who defended it by the purity and innocency of their writings, there were no such Sacrifices as those, whom they desired to convert, did look for and expect: for instance, St Justin Martry, retorting the calumny of Atheism and Impiety, wherewith the Jews and Pagans endeavoured to slander our holy Religion by reason thereof, is content to say, 
Just. Marr. Apol. 2. vel 1. p. 58, 60.  That there are no other Sacrifices to be made but Prayers and giving Thanks, which sweeten all the other Oblations which we make unto God, to honour him as we are bound, and according to his Merit. 
Id. Ep. ad Diogn. p. 495, 496.  And in another part of his Works he rejects the Sacrifices of Jews and Pagans, but without assigning unto Christians any, which, to speak properly, may be so called: He also doth almost the very same in disputing against Tryphon the Jew, 
Id. contr. Tryph. p. 238, 239, 240.  wherein he showeth that the Service of God doth not consist in their Sacrifices, and that therefore is the reason Christians do not offer any, without saying they have others different from theirs; he indeed confesseth in the same Dialogue, That the Christians offer unto God an Oblation well pleasing in his sight, according to the Prophecy of Malachy, when they do celebrate their Eucharist of Bread and Wine: And when his Adversary explains these Oblations and Sacrifices of Malachy, of Prayers and Invocations, which those of the Jewish Nation who were in Captivity addressed unto our Lord for removing their Calamity and Misery, St. Justin makes this Answer, 
Ibid. p. 344, 345.  I fay also, That the Prayers and Thanksgivings of Saints and Believers are the only Sacrifices perfect and well pleasing unto God, and that they be the only Sacrifices which Christians have learned to make, even then itself when they celebrate the Sacrament. It is what he designs by the wet and dry Food, and it is therein he saith that they show forth a commemoration of the Death of the Lord. Afterwards this holy Doctor observes, That in the days of Malachy there were no Jews scattered abroad over the World; whereas amongst all Nations, and all Countries of the World, at the time our glorious Martyr wrote; there were offered unto God the Creator of all things, Prayers and Thanksgivings in the Name of Christ Jesus; whence it is that he saith of Christians in general, 
Ibid. p. 314. C.  That they are a Royal Priesthood, offering unto God holy and agreeable Sacrifices, God not accepting any but of his own Priests. Athenagoras in his Apology for the Christians, making himself the same objection that Justin Martyr did, on the behalf of the Enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, answereth not otherwise than he had done; he represents, That God, who made all things, hath no need of Blood, of Odours, Flowers, nor Perfumes; That the great Sacrifice which he desires, is, That we should know him, That we should be instructed in the greatness of his power, whereby he hath stretched out the Heavens, gathered the Waters together in the Sea, divided betwixt Light and Darkness, beautified the Sky with Stars, caused the Earth to increase, created Beasts, and made Man; That it sufficeth to lift up pure hands to him, who standeth not in need of any other Oblation, or more splendid Sacrifice: 
Athenag. pro Christ. p. 13. Minut. in Octau.  Whereunto he adds, But what need have I to be troubled for Offerings and Sacrifices, seeing God careth not for them; he requires an unbloody Sacrifice, a reasonable Service: and when the Pagan asks this Question of the Christian in Minutius Felix, Wherefore the Christians have no Temples nor Altars, the Christian answers, Do you think that we do conceal what we worship under a show that we have no Temples nor Altars; and thereupon he makes this excellent reflection, worthy of the School of Jesus Christ, That the Sacrifice which ought to be offered unto God, is a good Soul, a pure Conscience, and Faith unfeigned; That to live uprightly, do Justice, abstain from Evil, and hinder his Neighbour from hurt, is to offer a fat Sacrifice. These are our Sacrifices, 
Orig. contr. Cells. l. 8. p. 389. ult. Edit.  (saith he) this is our Service. The Philosopher Celsus in Origen, reproaching Christians, that they have no Altars; this learned Man agrees with the Pagan, and confesseth that by consequence they also had no Sacrifice, because there is a strict relation betwixt a a true Altar and a Sacrifice properly so called: And in the same Book, 
Ibid. p. 487.  he opposeth unto the Sacrifices offered by the Pagans for the Emperors, the Prayers which Christians made for the conservation of their persons, the prosperity of their souls, and the establishing of their Empire; and saith, That by them, they fought like Priests of God; which made Tertullian say, as was before mentioned, 
Tertul. Apol. C. 30.  That the fairest and fattest Sacrifice which God requires, is prayer from a pure heart, an innocent soul, and a holy mind; and that 'tis that also which they offer for the preservation of the Emperors. It is of prayer also, that he explains in the same work, 
Ibid. c. 39  this excellent Oblation; and that he saith elsewhere, That that is done by prayer only which God hath commanded, 
Ibid. ad Scap. c. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 707.  because the Creator of the Universe hath no need of Blood and of Incense. And Clement of Alexandria, doth not he make this Declaration? That we do not sacrifice unto God, who standeth in need of nothing; but that we do glorify him that was sacrificed for us, in sacrificing of our own selves; that we honour him by prayers; 
Ibid. p. 717.  that we do justly offer unto him this most excellent and most holy Sacrifice; 
Ibid.  that the Altar which we have upon Earth, is the Assembly of those which are dedicated unto prayer, as if they had but one heart and one mind. 
Ibid. p. 719.  That the Sacrifice of the Church is the Word, which like sweet Incense proceeds from devout souls; That the truly sound Altar is the just upright soul; That not sumptuous Sacrifices should be offered unto God, but such as may be acceptable unto him; That the Sacrifices of Christians are prayers, praises, 
Ibid. p. 728.  the reading the holy Scriptures, Hymns and Psalms, the instructing the ignorant, and liberality to the Poor. But nothing can be seen clearer and more positive, than what is said by Arnobius in the beginning of the Fourth Century: this Christian Orator, having related at the end of his Sixth Book, that the Pagans were wont to make grievous reproaches against the Christians, and to call them Atheists, because they did not sacrifice; He thus gins his Seventh Book, What then, will some say, 
Arnob. contr. gent. lib. 7. init.  think you that no Sacrifice at all aught to be made? There ought indeed none to be made (saith he) to the end to give you the opinion of your Varro, and not ours only. Lactantius his Contemporary, and of the same profession, 
Lactant. instit, l. 6. c. 25.  having undertaken to treat of a Sacrifice, therein considers two things, The Gift, and the Sacrifice itself; And he saith, That the one and the other aught to be incorporeal, that is, Spiritual, to be offered unto God, that the integrity of the soul is the Oblation, that the Praise and Hymn is the Sacrifice; That if God is invisible, he must then be served with invisible things. He approves the Maxim of Trismegistus, That the Benediction only is the Sacrifice of the true God: And thence he concludes, That the highest manner of serving God, is the praise offered unto him by the mouth of a just man. And elsewhere he saith, That he will show what is the orue Sacrifice of God, and the truest manner of serving him; And see here how he doth it; He saith first, That God doth not require of us either Sacrifices or perfumes, or other the like presents, that for incorporeal (that is, Spiritual Natures) there must be an incorporeal Sacrifice, (that is to say, Spiritual). And afterwards, What is it then, 
Id. Epitem● c. 2.  saith he, that God requires of man, but the service of the understanding, which is pure and holy? for as for the things done with the Fingers, or that are without the man, they are not a true Sacrifice; the true Sacrifice is, what proceeds out of the heart, and not what is taken out of the Coffer ● it is, what's offered not with the hand, but with the heart; it is the agreeable Sacrifice which the soul offers of itself. In fine, he concludes, that righteousness is the only thing which God requires of us, and that it is therein the service and Sacrifice consists which God desires. 
Cyril. Alex. l. 10. contr. Julian. t. 6, p. 343.  It will not be unnecessary to join unto these Witnesses, S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who refutes the Writing published against the Christians by Julian the Apostate about seventy years before; in which Writing this foul Deserter of the Truth, taxed them amongst other things, that they approached not unto the Sacrifices and Oblations of the Altars, and that they did not sacrifice; yet this wicked wretch was not ignorant of what was practised in the Worship and Service of the Church, and therefore this reproach must needs have some show of truth, otherwise he had exposed himself unto the scorn and contempt of all the World. And S. Cyril answering in order, unto all that this Apostate had spewed out against the Religion of Jesus Christ, would not have failed to have cried, O the Impostor, if the Christians of his time, that is, of the Fifth Century, had truly sacrificed, and if they had amongst them real Sacrifices. Let us then see, and without prejudice exactly examine what S. Cyril replied unto this Wretch's reproach: 
Ibid. p. 344. B.  He freely confesseth that Christians do not sacrifice any more; Because the types and figures having given place unto the truth, we are commanded to consecrate unto God Almighty a pure and spiritual service: 
Ibid. p. 345. B.  Unto fire which formerly came down from Heaven upon the Sacrifices, and which we have not now, he opposeth the Holy Ghost, 
Ibid. C.  which proceeding from the Father by the Son, comes and illuminates the Church. Unto Oxen, Sheep, Pigeons, Doves, unto the Fruits, Meal and Oil of the Israelites, be opposeth our spiritual and reasonable Oblations: And explaining unto us wherein they consist, and their nature and quality; We offer unto God (saith he) an Odour of a sweet savour, all manner of virtue or truth, Faith, Hope, Charity, Justice, Temperance, Obedience, Humility, a continual Praise, and Thanksgiving (of the Lord and his works) and all the other virtues; for this Sacrifice purely Spiritual, agrees well with God, whose Nature is purely simple and immaterial; the life and actions of a truly good man, are the perfumes of a reasonable service. And having alleged some passages of the holy Scriptures to confirm this Doctrine, He concludes as he began, 
Ibid. p. 346. C.  We sacrifice unto God (saith he) Spiritual things, and instead of material fire, we are filled with the Holy Ghost.  
From this same Fountain, proceeds another Doctrine of these first Conductors of the Christian Churches, which consists in instructing Believers, and teaching them what had succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law. I do not find after an exact scrutiny, that they allege or insist upon the Sacrament, but they are contented to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices, either the Spiritutal Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel, or the truly propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, or both of them together. In regard of the former, the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, 
Const. Apost. l. 2. c. 25.  said, That unto the Sacrifices of the Law, succeeded prayers, vows, and giving of thanks; and that the First fruits, Tithes, and portions, and gifts of those times, are now changed into the Oblations which the Bishops offer unto God through Jesus Christ, who died for all. He means, the Oblations of Bread and Wine which Believers made, and generally all things presented by them unto God, in behalf of the Christian people. Thence it is, that he saith also elsewhere; 
Id. l. 6. c. 23.  That instead of Sacrifices which were made by shedding of blood, Jesus Christ hath given to us a reasonable Sacrifice, Mystical and unbloody, which is celebrated in remembrance of his death, by the Symbols of his Body and Blood: In which words indeed he makes mention of the Eucharist, but as of a Mystical and Spiritual Sacrifice, and in the same sense which he said, That our Sacrifices at present are prayers, and giving of thanks. Origen in all his Homilies upon Leviticus, doth very exactly after his manner, seek for all the mystical significations of the ancient Sacrifices; but I do not find that he doth once speak of a propitiatory Sacrifice offered every day unto God by Christians. 
Origen. Hom. 2. in Levit.  In the second Homily he mentions at large the means which we have under the Gospel, besides that of holy Baptism, to obtain the remission of our sins; 
Ib. Hom. 5.  but amongst all those means, I do not find the Sacrifice of the Eucharist: In the fifth he shows how the Ministers of the Gospel do make propitiation for the sins of the people, but he only alleges for that, the instructions and remonstrances, by the which in converting sinners, God is pleased to become favourable and propitious unto them; and in the Ninth, 
Ib. Hem. 9  he doth not apply the duty and functions of the legal Sacrifices, for offering Sacrifices, but unto Believers, who offer spiritual Sacrifices unto God. 
Id. Hom. 17. in Jos.  And in another place, making an antithesis and, comparison of the Jewish Worship with the Christian, he places the Altar and Sacrificer of the Christians in the Heavens, without making mention of any other Altar. Zeno of Verona having asserted, 
Zeno Veron. Hom. in Psal. 49.  there were three kinds of Sacrifices, that of the Jews, of the Gentiles, and of Christians, he understands the Sacrifice of the latter, of that of Malachi, and expounds it to be a Sacrifice of praise, and of a spiritual Sacrifice of our own selves. 
Greg. Nazian. orat. 1.  Sacrifice (saith he) unto God a Sacrifice of thanksgiving, and present your bodies a living Sacrifice well pleasing unto God. Gregory Nazianzen could have no other meaning, when he affirmed as an undoubted truth that the Sacrifice of praise, and a contrite heart, is the only Sacrifice which God requires of us. And S. Ambrose doth he not say; That under the Law there were Sacrifices for sins; but that at present they be Sacrifices of Repentance? 
Ambros. Ep. 59  Therefore it is, that the Author of the Commentaries upon the Psalms inserted in S. Jerome's Works, placeth no other Sacrifices, 
Hieron. in Ps. 49. 50.9●.  instead of those of the Law, but spiritual Sacrifices, and the Oblation of our own selves: but there is nothing to be found in the Writings of the Ancients, neither more excellent, nor richer upon this Subject, than these excellent words of the admirable S. chrysostom We have (saith he) our Sacrifice in Heaven, 
Chrysost. Hom. 11. in cap. 6. ad Hebr.  our Priest and our Sacrifice; let us offer such Sacrifices as may be offered in that Sanctuary, not Sheep, and Oxen, not Blood and Fat, as heretofore; all these things are abolished, and a reasonable service is brought in in their place; and what is a reasonable service? the things which proceed from the soul, the things which come from the Mind. God (saith he) is a Spirit, and those who worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth; things which have no need of a Body, of Organs, and of place; as modesty, 
Id. ibid.  temperancee, alms-deeds, long-suffering, patience, and humility. And a little after he adds, That there be also other Oblations, which are true Sacrifices, to wit, the bodies of holy Martyrs.  
As to the second regard, Origen considering the Sacrifice of the Cross, and looking upon it as the Body, the fullness and substance of all the typical and figurative Sacrifices of the Law; he opposes it unto them, as that only which they did represent, and which was to be the only true Sacrifice of the Christian Religion: for having observed, 
Origen in Num. Hom. 17.  That the venom of the Devil is expelled by the Sacrifices offered unto God, he adds, that whilst the time admitted of it, Sacrifice was opposed against Sacrifice; but when the true Sacrifice and Lamb without spot, came to take away the sins of the World, those Sacrifices which were successively offered unto God, then seemed needless, seeing that by one only Sacrifice, 
Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. 17.  the whole Worship of Devils was destroyed. And S. chrysostom having said, That Jesus Christ taketh away the sins of the World, without being often crucified, gives this reason; for (saith he) he offered one sole Sacrifice for sins, but he always cleanseth us by this sole Sacrifice. 
Id. Hom. 13, in c. ● ad Hebr.  And elsewhere, When you are told that Jesus Christ is a Priest, do not imagine that he always doth the Function; for he did it once, and then sat down and rested. And thereupon having observed, That standing related unto the humiliation of our Lord, and that as he continued not a Servant, so also he continued not a Sacrificer; He thus continues his Discourse, That shows the greatness of the Sacrifice, because it sufficed, being but One, and having been offered but once: and a little after, There is no other Sacrifice, one alone hath cleansed us, and without this Sacrifice, saith he, Hell fire could not be avoided. Therefore the Apostle turns these words every way, One Priest, one Sacrifice; fearing lest some, thinking there were several, should sin boldly, and without fear. S. Austin was of the same Judgement, 
Aug. de Trinit. l. 4. c. 13.  seeing he taught, That the Lord washed, abolished, and extinguished by his Death, which is the sole, only and true Sacrifice offered for us, 
Id. contr. advers. leg. l. 1. c. 18.  all manner of sins and offences, for the which we were justly held under the Empire of Principalities and Powers, to be tormented for them; that the Sacrifice of the Cross is the only Sacrifice whereof all the ancient Sacrifices were but shadows; 
Idem contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 18.  the sole, only and true Sacrifice by which Jesus Christ shed his blood for us; that the Sacrifice which David offered, to the end God should forgive the sins of his people, was but a shadow of that which was for to come, to signify, that by one only Sacrifice, which had been represented by the types of the Law, God should spiritually provide for the salvation of his people; for it is Jesus Christ himself who was given up, saith the Apostle, for our sins, and which risen again for our Justification; hence it is also, that he saith, that Christ our Passover is slain. S. Prosper doth not come short of S. Austin, when he makes this question; 
Prosp. in Ps. 129.  What else is the Propitiation but the Sacrifice; and what the Sacrifice, but the death of the Lamb which taketh away the sins of the World? The Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, attributed to Primasius, but which we have already noted to be of Haymon of Alberstad, or Remy of Auxerr, doth frequently press the unity of the Sacrifice of the Cross, without telling us that there is any other, 
Primas. in c. 5. Hebr. t. 1. Bibl. Pat. Id. inc. 7. extr.  as upon the Fifth Chapter, he seeks in Jesus Christ the accomplishment, inasmuch as there is but once in all the Scriptures, mention made of the Sacrifice of Melchisedeck; and he finds it, in that the Lord gave himself once to be sacrificed for us. And in the same Treatise, speaking of the Sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered for our sins, he saith, That he did it once and no more; because he died once for our sins, 
Id. in c. 10.  and now dieth no more. That the Apostle showeth the great value of the Death of Christ, in that it was but once, and that it sufficeth to take away the sins of Believers for ever; That Christ who is our Sacrifice, was not offered a second time, that it was done once, and is not needful to be done again any more. In one of the Homilies of Easter, which many attribute unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles, the Author be he who it will, there maketh this reflection, 
Caesar. Hom. 5. de Pasch.  speaking of Jesus Christ; Because he intended to remove from our sight the Body which he had taken, and so place it in Heaven; It was necessary that in that day, he should consecrate for us, the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, to the end, that we should honour by the type, that which had been once offered for the price of our Salvation. But S. Basil, or at least the Author of the Commentaries upon Isaiah, in his Works, hath joined both these regards together, in Interpreting these words of the first Chapter. What have I to do with the multitude of your Sacrifices? God (saith he) rejected the multitude of Sacrifices, 
Basil. in c. 1. Es.  and desires but one, which is, That every one should present himself to God, a living Sacrifice, which may be well pleasing unto him; offering by a reasonable Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Praise: for when the multitude of Legal Sacrifices were rejected as useless, he accepted in the last times, one only Sacrifice, which was offered for the expiation of sin, because the Lamb of God took away the sins of the World, offering himself an Oblation and Sacrifice of a sweet savour. And a little after, Having declared, that the Sacrifices of the Law are no longer in force; 
Id. ibid.  he adds, There is one only Sacrifice, which is Christ, and the mortification of Saints for love of him; one only sprinkling, (that is to say) the washing of Regeneration; one Expiation of sin, to wit, the Blood which was shed for the Redemption of the World. It was also in the same sense, that S. Austin, (expounding what is said in the Fiftieth Psalm, and according to the Hebrews the Fifty first, 
August. in Ps. 50.  Hadst thou desired Sacrifices, I would have given them;) said, That David lived in the time when Sacrifices, and Beasts, and burnt Offerings were presented unto God; and he beheld the times which were for to come. Do not we behold ourselves in those words, those Sacrifices were Figures, which foreshowed the only saving Sacrifice, neither have we been left destitute of a Sacrifice which we may offer unto God; which he expounds to be of praises and a contrite heart. Now of this constant Doctrine of the Fathers, proceeded certain uses which were Religiously observed in the ancient Church; as to have but one Only Altar or Eucharistical Table in each Temple, of celebrating the Sacrament but once a day, unless extraordinary necessity required it, as hath been showed; of obliging Believers to Communicate as often as the Sacrament was celebrated, as shall be hereafter declared; of never celebrating the Sacrament without Communicants, as all Liturgies do testify, he that celebrates, speaking almost ever in the Plural number; And that Oblations were received only of those that were admitted unto the holy Sacrament, so that the liberty of presenting his gift, was always followed by Communicating, 
Concil. Eliberit. c. 28. & Carthag. 4. c. 93, 94. Constit. Apostol. l. 4. c. 5. & l. 3. c. 8. Epiphan. in Panar. extr. Ambros. Ep. 59, & alibi.  as appears by a great many Canons, which are not necessary to be alleged upon a matter which is not contested, and which is known unto all that have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity; which proceeding, makes me think those holy Doctors looked upon the Eucharist, as a Sacrament of Communion only. But 'tis time to proceed to the Consideration and Examination of the other parts of the outward Celebration of the Sacrament.   

CHAP. IX.  
Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread.  
WE have Observed in the beginning of the foregoing Chapter, that although Jesus Christ had broke the Bread presently after having Blessed and Consecrated it, without any other Ceremony intervening betwixt the Consecration and Fraction; nevertheless the ancient Christians in process of time, introduced some other Ceremonies betwixt these two actions, which were not used at the beginning. I mean the Oblation of the Symbols and the Elevation. Having then treated of the former, which is of the Oblation, and discovered by that means, all the Motives and Reasons which obliged the holy Fathers to give unto the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice, and how they explained themselves upon the quality and nature of this Sacrifice: Now we must consider the Elevation, which followed the Oblation, but not very suddenly. It is most certain, that our Saviour made no Elevation, when he Instituted and Celebrated his first Sacrament; for none of the Evangelists have made any mention of it; the Christians which followed in the next immediate Age, practised no such thing, as appears by the relation made unto us by S. Justin Martyr, of all that was practised in that time, in celebrating this August Sacrament; the Liturgies of this Divine Mystery, which may be seen in the Constitutions which pass in the Apostles name, in the Writings of the pretended Denys the Areopagite, and in S. Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogicks, do make no mention of this Elevation: So that for four or five Ages of Christianity, we do not find that this Ceremony was practised. But if we do not find the Elevation of the Eucharist mentioned in the Liturgies of the four or five first Ages of the Church, we do therein find another practice very conformable unto the state of the Gospel, and unto the nature of the Sacrament, I mean the lifting up the mind and heart, as S. Cyprian doth expressly teach us; The Priest, saith he, before reciting the Lords Prayer, by a Preface, doth prepare the Spirits of the Faithful, saying, Lift up your hearts, 
Cyprian. de. Orat Dom.  that the people being warned, in answering, Unto thee O Lord! should think only of Jesus Christ. An Advertisement found in all the Liturgies which have been since made, and also even in that of the Latin Church. As for the Elevation of the Sacrament, there is some mention made of it in the Liturgy, which goes in the name of S. chrysostom, 
Tab. Chronolog. p. 536, 537.  but cannot be his, as the Learned of both Communions acknowledge; Therefore those who composed the Office of the holy Sacrament, attribute it unto John the Second, who was also Bishop of Constantinople, but near 200. years after Saint chrysostom, that is, towards the end of the VI Century. And I do not conceive that this Elevation appeared before that time; so that if it be to be found in any Liturgy which bears the name of any ancienter Author, for instance, in that attributed unto S. James, I scarce make any doubt but it was forged, or at least altered or corrupted. But it is nothing to know that after the four or five first Ages of Christianity, they begun in some Churches to use the Elevation of the Sacrament, if we do not also consider for what end they did elevate it; that is, either to oblige the people to adore it; or for some other reason. The first that I can find who explained the cause and reason of this Elevation, was German Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Theory of Ecclesiastical things, where he very curiously inquires the mystical reasons of what was practised in the Church, and particularly, in the celebration of Divine Mysteries; a Treatise which most Authors attribute unto Germane who lived in the VIII. Century, and some unto another of the same name, who was Patriarch in the XII. After all, the Author of this Theory, being come unto the Inquiry of this Elevation, crept into the Church about the VI Century, doth sufficiently give to understand, that it intended not the adoration of the Sacrament, but only to represent the Elevation of our Saviour upon the Cross, 
Germ. Constantinop. in Theor. t. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 407.  and that was its lawful and genuine use and end. The Elevation of the precious body (saith he) represents unto us the Elevation on the Cross, the Death of our Lord upon the Cross, and his Resurrection also. As for the Latins, the first that I remember, who bethought himself of finding out a Mystery in the same Elevation, was Ives of Chartres, at the end of the XI. Century; but all the Mystery that he therein found, was no more than had been found by this Patriarch of Constantinople, near 300. years before him; When the Bread and the Cup (saith he) are lifted up by the Ministry of the Deacon, 
Ivo Carnens. Ep. de Sacrif. Miss. t. 2. Bibl. Patr. p. 602.  there is Commemoration made of the lifting up of the Body of Christ upon the Cross: And as this is the first among the Latins, who in the Elevation of the Sacrament, hath discovered the Mystery of the Elevation of our Lord upon the Cross, so also is he the first of the Latin Church (if I mistake not) who hath writ of this Elevation; for there is no mention of it, neither in S. Gregory, nor in S. Isidore of Sevil, who both flourished in the beginning of the VII. Century; nor in Amalarius Fortunatus, nor in Rabunus, Archbishop of Mayence, nor in Walafridus Strabo, nor in the pretended Alcuin, Authors partly of the IX. and partly of the X. Century, although they all of them wrote of Divine Offices, and endeavoured to discover the Mystical significations of all things practised in Religion in their times, and especially in the Sacrament; unless it were Gregrory the first, who only left a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Sacrament. It's true that at the end of Rabanus his first Book of the Institution of Clerks, there is seen a Fragment by way of supplement, wherein mention is made of the Elevation whereof we treat, but against the truth of the Manuscripts, wherein this Fragment is not to be found, besides what the thing itself evidently declares, that this Famous Prelate was not the Author of it. Moreover, the Author, whosoever he was, with Germane and Ives of Chartres, refers the Elevation he mentions, unto the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross; The Elevation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Priest, 
Adject. ad Raban. l. 1. de offic. Bibl. patr. t. 10. p. 586. Hug. de St. Victor. l. 2. c. 28. de Miss. observat. Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 1408.  and by the Deacon, imports (saith he) his Elevation on the Cross for the salvation of the World. Hugh of St. Victor an Author of the XII. Century, discourseth no other wise of this Mystery. The Priest (saith he) after the sign of the Cross, lifts with both hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and a little after lays it down; which signifies the Elevation of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and his laying down into the Grave; The Learned of the Communion of Rome agree in all this with the Protestants; and James Gore of the Order of preaching Friars, in his Notes upon the Ritual of the Greek Church observes, 
Gore in Eucholog. p. 146. n. 158.  That it is not certainly known when the lifting up the Host was joined unto the Consecration in the Latin Church; and rejects the Opinion of Durandus, who maintained it had never been separated from it; and he proves his by the silence of the Writers above mentioned, unto whom he joins the Author of the Micrologue, who lived by every body's confession, in the XI. Century, and the Roman Order, which some suppose was writ at the same time: And he saith, that both these speak of the Elevation of the Oblation, 
Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. patr. p. 15.  which is true as to the Micrologue; but as for the Roman Order, it indeed makes mention of the Elevation of the Cup by the Deacon; for as for the Elevation of the Host (that is to say) the consecrated Bread, by the Bishop, 
Goar ubi supra.  I find no mention thereof in the whole Book: howsoever Goar gives to be understood, that the Elevation spoken of by these two Authors, tended not unto Adoration, when he observes, that it was not joined unto Consecration, but that it was made at the end of the Canon very near the Lords Prayer. Hugh Maynard, 
Hug. Menard. in Sacram. Greg. p. 373, 374, 375.  a Benedictine Friar explains himself so fully in his Notes upon Gregory the first, in his Book of Sacraments, that nothing more can be said than what he hath written. Now (saith he) in the Latin Church, as soon as the Bread and Wine is consecrated, they are lifted up, that the people there present, might adore them; which practice I do not judge to be ancient, seeing there is no mention thereof to be found in our Books of the Sacraments, Printed, nor Written, nor in Pamelius, nor in the Roman Order, nor in Alcuin, Amalarius, Walafridus, Rabanus, who have fully explained the Order of the Mass; nor in the Micrologue, who hath also very exactly laboured in the same Subject. Afterwards this learned Friar observes, that it is clearer than the Sun at Noon day, if the XV. Chapter of the Author of the Micrologue be considered, who would not have failed to have writ of this Ceremony had it been used in his time, (that is in the XI. Century) because he makes mention of lifting up the Bread and the Cup together before the Lords Prayer, which also appears more at large in the twenty third Chapter of the same Treatise; Nevertheless he excepts the Mozarabick Office, wherein mention is made of two Elevations of the Host, one of which is made presently after Consecration, and the other after these words, Let us declare with the Mouth what we believe with the Heart, but at the same time he saith by Parenthesis (if nothing hath been added) and to say the truth, there is great likelihood that it is an addition made since the introducing into the Latin Church, the custom of lifting up the Host immediately after Consecration, that it might be adored by the people, seeing there is no mention of lifting up the Sacrament in the Western Church, before the XI. Century; as for the Eastern Church he confesseth, that they elevated the Sacrament, but after the Lord's Prayer, and some other Prayers, at the very instant of Communicating, and he proves it by the Liturgies of St. James, St. Chrysostom, by Anastasius the Sinaite, by George Codin, and by the Author of the life of St. Basil, attributed unto Amphilochius, but which in all likelihood was not his, and he observes that the Christians of Ethiopia practise the same Ceremony, which is quite different from the Elevation of the Latin Church, it being only done to call the People to the Communion, in saying, Holy things are for the Saints; and not to have them adore the Eucharist, as amongst the Latins. Therefore it is, that whereas the Elevation of the Latin Church is joined immediately after Consecration, which according to their belief, changing the Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and blood of Christ, renders that which that he celebrates holds in his hands, an Object of Sovereign Adoration, whereunto those which be present are invited by the elevating the Host presently after it is consecrated. That of the Greek Church was not done till a good while after Consecration, and as they were ready to communicate; so that the intent of it was only to call Believers to the participation of the Sacrament But Maynard rests not there he answers as Gore doth, those which wrist some words of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Denys the Areopagite, to prove that in his time, there was an Elevation of the Sacrament joined unto Consecration in the Greek Church, and he very judiciously observes, that this pretended Denys speaks only of a Ceremony observed amongst the Greeks, which is, that they kept the Divine Symbols hid and covered until the very instant of communicating; and that then they were uncovered to be showed to the people, to have them come to the holy Table in showing them: and although the Author but now mentioned speaks of this action, yet there is not to be found any Elevation of the Host presently after Consecration in any of the Greek Liturgies. I will add unto all this one thing very considerable, which is, That it appears by the ancient customs of the Monastery of Clunie, written about the end of the eleventh Century, That even to that time the Elevation was not practised in the extent of the Latin Church, not so much as that at first mentioned by Ives of Chartres, 
Antiq. consue. Cluniac. Monast. t. 4. Spicil. Dach. l. 2. c. 30.  which tended only to represent the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross. For in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these customs of the Congregation of Clunie is exactly, not to say scrupulously, shown all that was then practised in this famous Monastery; nevertheless there is not one word said of the Elevation of the Eucharist, only that 'tis observed in one place, That when he that celebrates, saith, throughout all Ages, 
Ibid. p. 143.  etc. the Deacon lifteth up the Cup alittle; it may easily be seen, this little raising the Cup is nothing like the Elevation which we examine, and that it was a little Ceremony, quite different from what is at present called Elevation. But if any ask me at what time they began in the Latin Church to turn the Elevation, made in several parts of the West to represent the Elevation of our Lord on the Cross, unto the adoration of the Sacrament, practised after the Eleventh Century: I affirm, That William Durand, towards the end of the Thirteenth Century, was the first, as far as I can discover, who referred Adoration to the Elevation of the Host, in his Rational of Divine Offices; for amongst several reasons of this Elevation, he alleges this last, 
Duran. Rat. Divin. O●lic. l. 4. de p●rt. can. fol. 169. n. 51.  contrary to the constant Doctrine of ancient Interpreters of the Liturgy we have spoken of: In the fifth place (saith he) the Host is lifted up, that the people might not anticipate the Consecration, but knowing thereby it is made, and that Christ is come on the Altar, they should how down to the ground with reverence. It was also in this Thirteenth Century that Honorius the Third, and Gregory the Ninth, made their Constitutions for adoring the Sacrament after Elevation, as shall be shown in the third part of this Treatise, where we are to discourse of the Worship, and by consequence examine the question of Adoration. In the mean time it is not amiss to observe, that before any Elevation of the Sacrament was practised in the West, Berengarius was spoken of in the World, and his followers were dispersed into all parts in great abundance; and the Albigenses and Waldenses, which soon followed him, had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church a great while before the Adoration of the Host, and the Elevation therewith enjoined: and by consequence there have always been Christians in the West, who never practised Elevation nor Adoration in their Eucharist; not to instance Christian Communions in the East, and elsewhere, which likewise never practised it.  
After Elevation comes the fraction, which in the Sacrament of Jesus Christ, and in that of the primitive Christians, immediately followed. For the holy Writers testify, That the Lord had no sooner blessed the Bread, but he broke it to distribute it; and because the Hebrews Loaves were flat and spread round, and something long, like our Cakes and Biscuits, and for that reason were easily broken, without any need of a Knife to cut them, therefore the holy Scripture still mentions the breaking of Bread, and not cutting Bread; it is therefore not to be questioned, but the Lord in celebrating his Supper made use of that sort of Bread; and broke it after the manner of the Jews, to distribute it to his Disciples. Nevertheless seeing the Apostle St. Paul expressly observes of the Bread of the Eucharist, that we break it, The Bread which we break, and that the Lord, explaining this Mystery, saith positively of the Bread, That it is his Body broken for us, he would teach us that this fraction of Bread is neither superfluous, nor useless, but that it makes part of the Sacrament, and that it therein represents unto us the sufferings of Jesus Christ, particularly those of his Cross; it was the signification which Theodoret searched therein in his Dialogues, 
Theod. Dial. 3. p. 147.  when he saith, O. Remember what the Lord took and broke, and by what name he called that which he had taken. E. I will speak mystically, by reason of those which are not initiated; (he means that he will not name the Bread.) After that he had taken and broke it, and distributed it to his Disciples, he said, This is my Body which is given for you, or which is broken, according to the Apostle; and again, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. O. He makes no mention then of the Divinity in showing the Type of that Passion? E. Not any. O. But of the Body and Blood? E. It is true. O The body than was Crucified. And venerable Bede, 
Bede in Marc. c. 14.  He himself broke the Bread which he presented unto his Disciples, that he might show the fraction of his Body. Also it is without all doubt that Christians carefully observed this Ceremony, for they consecrated a Loaf greater or less, according to the number of Communicants, which was divided into several Morsels, to be distributed unto each Communicant; all the Liturgies that are extant, true or false, testify this fraction, and all the holy Fathers confirm it. Accordingly we read in the life of Pope Sergius, who held the Chair towards the end of the Seventh Century, That he ordained that at the breaking the Bread of the Lord, 
T. 5. Concil. p. 407. Extr.  the people and Clergy should sing, Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the World, Have mercy upon us. Hugh Maynard, whom we mentioned before, hath caused to be Printed, at the end of the Book of Sacraments of St. Gregory, some ancient Manuscripts, which contain several Liturgies for the Celebration of the Eucharist; and in all these Liturgies, which are of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, the Fraction which we speak of is therein found. In that of Ratold, Abbot of Corby, who lived at the end of the Tenth Century, this Prayer is made, when the Body is broken, O Lord, vouchsafe to send, if it be thy Will, 
Appeared. ad lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 265.  thy holy Angel upon this holy and immortal Mystery, to wit, upon thy Body and Blood; for, O Lord, we break it, and be pleased to bless it, and vouchsafe to make us fit to handle it with pure hands and senses, and to receive it worthily. In another of these Manuscripts, towards the year 1079. 
Ibid. p. 276.  there is also mention made of the division of the Body of our Lord into several parts: and in fine, in a third, of the year 1032. or thereabouts, it is observed, That whilst the Bishop is making the Fraction, 
In Notis, p 24.  he saith, Lamb of God, etc. and that the Bread being broken, he bites in Communicating, in part of the Oblation. There is frequent mention made of this Fraction in those ancient customs of the Monastery of Clunie . 
L. 1. c. 13. p. 58. & l. 2. c. 30. p. 141. & alibi.  The Interpreter of the Roman Order, who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Century, observes what we have already alleged of Pope Sergius. And because there were some who were scrupulous because the Roman Order commanded to break the Bread of our Lord, he reproaches them by the Authority of the Scriptures, and of the Fathers: 
Apud Cassan. in litur. c. 29.  We are informed (saith he) that some persons of late times do find and think strange that the Roman Order enjoins the Bread of our Lord to be broken, as if they had not read, or that they had forgot what is written in the Gospel, That Jesus Christ took Bread, That he blessed it and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Take, eat, etc. and what is read in the Acts of the Apostles, That the Primitive Church continued with one accord in the Doctrine and Fellowship of the Apostles, and in breaking of Bread, and watched in the Exercise of Prayer. As for the holy Fathers, he saith, That forbearing at this time to speak of all others who celebrated the Divine Mysteries as they had been taught by the Apostles and the Evangelists, he contents himself to instance in the example of that Woman mentioned by Gregory the First in his Dialogues, who smiled when she heard Gregory call that Loaf of Bread, which she herself had made, the Body of Christ. It is upon this custom of the breaking the Bread of the Sacrament that Humbert, Cardinal of Blanch-Selva, grounds the slander he makes against the Greeks in this same Eleventh Century, in that they used Oblations which had been before consecrated, during the Lent, because that obliged them to separate the Benediction and breaking the Bread, from the distribution of it. And indeed during Lent they did not fully celebrate the Eucharist, but on Saturday and Sunday, and on that day they kept some of the consecrated Symbols to Communicate the other days of the Week; and so they were constrained to do that at several times which our Saviour did at once, when he celebrated his Sacrament. Thereupon Humbert presseth his Enemy Nicetas, 
Humbert. contr. Nicet. t. 4. Bibl. Pat. part. 2. p. 246. ●id. p. 216. B.  by the Example of the Son of God; We read (saith he) that the Lord himself gave unto his Disciples, not an imperfect, but a perfect commemoration, in giving unto them the Bread which he had broken, and at the same Instant broken and distributed; for he not only blessed it, deferring till next day to break it, neither contented he himself to break it, but he distributed it presently after having broke it; whence it is that the blessed Martyr Pope Alexander the Fifth, after St Peter, inserting the Passion of our Lord in the Canon of the Mass, saith not, as oft as ye do this, but, as often as ye do these things, that is to say, that ye bless, that ye break, and that ye distribute, ye do it in remembrance of him, because each of these three things, the Blessing without the Distribution, doth not perfectly represent the Commemoration of Jesus Christ, no more than the distribution doth without the Benediction and the Breaking. I say nothing here of the Decretal of Pope Alexander, which is a forged and a counterfeit piece, as are all the Decretals of the first Popes, until Siricius: it sufficeth that until the days of Humbert, and also before, it was owned to be true, that so its authority might serve to prove the Ceremony of breaking the Bread as a thing essential in the Celebration of the Sacrament; also we see that most Christian Communions observe it at this time, not distributing the holy Bread unto the Communicants until it be broken in parcels, to give a piece or morsel unto each one. So it is practised by the Greeks, the Moscovites, the Russians, and the Abassins'; for they make a Loaf of Bread greater or less, either in breadth or thickness, according to the number of Communicants; so that having blessed and consecrated it, they break it into little bits, to distribute it unto those who approach unto the holy Table to participate of this Holy and Divine Sacrament. From thence it is, as St. Austin hath observed, that in some places they called the Sacrament the Parcels, that is to say, the Pieces; amongst the Greeks, the Fragments, that is to say, the Portions and Pieces of the Eucharist broken, and the holy parcels. As for the Latin Church, this custom of breaking the Bread into little pieces, to be distributed unto each of the Communicants, was practised therein until the Twelfth Century, as we have seen at large: And this manner of speech was so frequent, that although they have abolished the action which had introduced it, 
Serm. de Azymo, c. 4. extr.  yet they do not forbear at this day to give the name of Particules (that is to say, little pieces) unto the Hosts which they distribute unto Communicants, although they give them unto each of them whole, and not broken: But you must take notice, that before the Latin Church had laid aside the use and custom of breaking the Bread of the Sacrament, to distribute it unto Believers, there was a very considerable Separation made from her by Berengarius and his followers, and the Albigenses and Waldenses and their adherents; whereby this practice and custom hath been still observed, even in the West itself, which is not now practised in the extent of the Church of Rome.   

CHAP. X.  
Of the Distribution, and of the Communion, and first of the Time, the Place, and Posture of the Communicant.  
IN the Celebration of the Sacrament, the breaking of Bread should be followed by the Distribution; but because the Distribution contains several things under its compass, as the Time, the Place, the Posture of the Communicant the Persons which distribute it, those which receive, with the words both of the one and the other; and in fine, the Things distributed, and received; it is absolutely necessary to examine them severally, to give the more light unto this part of the outward form of the Celebration of the Sacrament. Therefore we will rest satisfied to consider in this Chapter, the Time, the Place, with the Posture, and Gesture of the Communicant. As for the Time, there's no body can make any doubt, but that Jesus Christ did institute and celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the Supper of the Passeover, and at the end of the Supper; the Evangelists do witness it, and express themselves so fully, as that they give us not the least cause to doubt of it; which makes me believe, that the Apostles, and the Churches founded by their Preaching, practised the same during life. And to say the truth, it seems to be plainly found in the Eleventh Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Belivers of that Church, did celebrate this Divine Mystery, and participate thereof, after having eaten altogether; so that the Celebration of the Sacrament, was as it were the Seal, the Crown, and accomplishment of those Agapes, and Feasts of Charity; I know that all be not of this Opinion, and I do not intent to censure those who judge that the Celebration of the Sacrament was performed before the Agape. I will only say, that it is the Judgement of many Learned men, which they ground upon the following Reasons, which I am obliged to recite, that the Reader might judge of their solidity. In the first place it appears, that the design of these first Christians, was exactly to imitate the Order that was observed by Jesus Christ; who, as we said, celebrated his Eucharist after Supper. Secondly, 
1 Cor. 11.21.  They pretend that the Apostle gives an evident proof of it, when he saith, That some advanceth and taketh his own supper before, without staying for the rest; for that could not be if they had begun with the Celebration of the Sacrament, and ended with the Feast of Charity, it being unlikely, that the Sacrament would be solemnised before the Assembly was complete, and that all which were accustomed to be present, were come. In the third place, had it been practised otherwise, they think S. Paul should not have had so great cause to have charged the Corinthians of having received the Bread and the Cup of the Lord unworthily; nor to command them to examine themselves before they come unto the Lord's Table, because by this reckoning, the disorder he charges them with, should have happened after the Celebration of the Sacrament, and not before. So that the Apostle should only have had cause to blame the disorder of their Feast, without mingling therewith any discourse of the Sacrament; yet nevertheless, he doth the quite contrary; for he insists much more upon the Sacrament, than upon all the rest; which doth evidently show, that these first Christians assembled for their Feasts of Charity, began this Solemnity by the common Meal which they made all together, and did end it by the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whereof they did communicate, after they had ended Supper, after which the company was dismissed. Unto all these proofs, they add the marks of that ancient Custom, which remained in the V Century. Tertullian saith in some of his Works, That the Eucharist was celebrated at supper time; 
Tertul. de corona, c. 3.  as Rigaut, and Rhenanus confess upon the place. But although that the practice of celebrating it also in the Morning, was already very frequent in the Church; I cannot see how it can be concluded from the words of this Learned African, that the Celebration was made after the Meal, rather than before, no more than by what is observed by S. Cyprian about forty years after, for disputing against those who celebrated the Sacrament in the Morning with Water, and urging them with the Example of our Lord, who did his with Wine, he said, 
Cypr. Ep. 63.  that they happily imagined to be quit, under colour, That at Supper, Wine was offered in the Cup. All that can be inferred from these two passages of Antiquity, is, That in those times, the Eucharist was celebrated conjointly with the Agapes, or Feasts of Charity; but in such a manner, that it was also very frequently celebrated, and most commonly in the Morning, and by consequence, fasting. Also is it not therein, the marks of the ancient custom before mentioned are sought; as also in what is said by S. Austin in the beginning of the V Century; 
Aug. Ep. 118. c. 7.  That some were wont to receive the Sacrament after Meal time? but upon one day of the year only, to wit, Thursday before Easter, 
Concil. Carth. 3. c 29.  as is expressly observed by the Third Council of Carthage, assembled at the same time, ordering that this Sacrament should always be celebrated fasting, excepting only the day that our Lord's Supper is celebrated; that is to say, the day whereon Commemoration is made every year, of the Supper of our Lord, which is, as every body knows, upon Holy Thursday. But as this Rule would serve as a Law only in Africa; there were other Churches which used thus, not on that day precisely, but every week, on Saturday. And indeed two ancient Church Historians, Socrates and Sozomen, 
Socr. l. 5. c. 21. & Grac. 22. Sozom. l. 7. c. 19  who wrote some years after the death of S. Austir, inform us, That the Christians of Egypt, those of Thebais, and about Alexandria; in several Cities and Villages, did celebrate and receive the Sacrament Saturday at Evening, after having supped together. But for the most part, the Sacrament was celebrated in the Morning, except it was on station and Fasting days, for than it was celebrated about Evening; excepting such days, it was celebrated in the Morning before day in times of persecution, and afterwards, at three of the Clock in the Morning, which answers our nine of the Clock. The Pontifical Book attributes unto Pope Telesphore, the Institution of celebrating the Sacrament at nine of the Clock in the Morning, and indeed, there is to be seen in his life, 
Lib. Po●. in vi●a Telesph.  and indeed, there is to be seen in his life, That he Ordained, that excepting on Christmas day, no body should presume to celebrate Mass before the third hour, that is to say, before nine of the Clock, because our Saviour was Crucified at that time. From thence it is, that the Impostor who forged an Epistle Decretal in Pope Telesphore's name, borrows what he saith: But as Hugh Maynard hath judiciously observed, this Institution could not be so ancient, 
Hug. M●m in Sacram. Greg. p. 64.  because saith he, during the persecutions, the Christians, Assembled for the Service of God, and the Celebration of the Sacraments, met for the most part in the Night, which he proves by the authority of Tertullian, who wrote after the death of Pope Telesphore, wherein doubtless he hath much right: he might also have added, that the Pontifical Book is a miserable piece, and doth not deserve that any stress should be laid on most things that are therein to be found. It were much safer to descend unto the Third Council of Orleans, Assembled Anno 538. for the hour of celebrating the Sacrament; for it made this Rule: 
Concil. Aurel. 3 c. 14.  It must be observed, that in celebrating Masses on the principal Holy days only, that in God's name, they be begun to be celebrated at the third hour, to the end, that the Office being more conveniently ended in time, the Priests may be present at the Evening Service. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, amongst several hours which he assigns for Prayer, puts the third in the Morning; 
Constit. Apost. l. 8 c. 34. Isid. Hispal. l. 1. de Offic. c. 19  Because (saith he) it was at that hour that Pilate gave Sentence against the Lord. S. Isidore of Sevil, gives this other reason for it, That the Holy Ghost at that time came down upon Earth, to fulfil the promise which Jesus Christ had r●●de. But as in those places there is only mention made of Prayer, they cannot precisely be applied unto the Subject we treat of; we must then seek elsewhere whether the time of the third hour w●s so destined unto the Celebration of the Sacrament, that it might not be celebrated any other hour of the day: and if we use diligence in this Inquiry, we shall find, that the hours were divers, according to the different days The time of Celebrating Mass (saith Walafridus Strabo) is different, 
Walafr. Srrab de O●●c Eccles. c. 23.  according as the solemnity of Holy days require it, sometimes the Celebration is ended before Noon, sometimes about the ninth hour, that is, at our three of the Clock after noon, sometimes in the Evening, and sometimes at Night. John Belet, cited by Cassander in his Sum of Divine Offices, reduces unto three times, the proper hours of celebrating the Sacrament, (viz.) at the third, sixth, and ninth hours; that is, after our manner of reckoning, at nine of the Clock in the Morning, at twelve, and at three in the Afternoon. 
Apud Cassand. in liturg. c. 37.  Holy days (saith he) the third hour, and the sixth hour, the Eve of Holy days, which precede Lent, and Fast-days, yet not of all, because the saturdays of Fast in Ember Weeks, Mass may be celebrated very late, and the saturdays before Easter and Whitsuntide, it is also said la●e. There's more than 1200. years since S. Ambrose hath spoke of this diversity of times for celebrating the Eucharist. Let not (saith he) the Meats prepared for us, 
Ambros. in Psal. 118. Serm 8 t. 2. p. 945.  hinder us from participating of these Heavenly Sacraments, forbear but a little, the day draweth to an end, yet for the most part they come to Church just at Noon, Hymns are sung, the Oblation is celebrated, that is, the Eucharist. It is certain, that it so depended on the liberty of the Churches, that S. Austin observed, That the Thursday before Easter, 
Aug Ep. 118. c. 4.  in some places by reason of the great numbers of people, the Sacrament was celebrated Morning and Evening; whereas in other places, it was not wont to be celebrated but at the Evening. The Second Council of Braga, Assembled Anno 572. 
Concil. Bracar. 2. c. 9 t 4. Coucil.  speaks of celebrating it at nine or ten of the Clock, And because on Fasting days, the Sacrament as hath been said, could not be celebrated till about Evening, and that many not over zealous, being overcome with impatience, went out before the Celebration of the Sacrament, there were Rules made, by which it was declared, that those people did not fast, if they eat before Evening Service was ended, and the Sacrament celebrated. But as the thing is of no very great moment, and that those who have any knowledge of the ancient Church, own the truth of this circumstance; and that besides, what hath been said of the time and hour of the Celebration of Divine Mysteries, may suffice to satisfy the Readers curiosity, we will insist no longer upon it, but shall pass unto the consideration of the place of Celebration.  
The Place where the Distribution of the Sacrament was made, was for the most part the place of meeting or where the Assembly was made; but to consider it more particularly, it was the place where the Mystical Table stood, unto which the faithful People drew near to Communicate. Jesus Christ distributed the Sacrament to his Apostles, at the same Table where he eat the Paschal Lamb with them, and where he celebrated the whole Ceremony of this ancient Jewish Feast. In the days of Justin Martyr, it is evident, that after the consecration of the holy Symbols had been made, those present drew near unto the place where they had been Consecrated, there to participate of them by the ministry of the Deacons; but because sometimes afterwards, the Clergy were separated from the People, in a certain place compassed in by a kind of Rail or Balester, the Council made Decrees and Laws, forbidding the People to go within those Rails. Which showeth, that before those prohibitions, they therein entered to receive the holy Communion, because the Altar or holy Table, was set in a certain place which was after called for that reason, the Sanctuary; I think the first rule made thereupon, is that of the Council of Laodicea about the year of our Lord 360. 
Concil. Laod. c. 19  for speaking of the Celebration of the Sacrament, It suffers only the Ministers of the Altar (he means all the Clergy) to draw near and enter into the place where the Altar was, and there to Communicate. 
Concil. Tol. ●. c. 18.  The fourth Council of Toledo, assembled Anno. 633. hath left us this Canon, After the Lord's Prayer, and the joining of the Bread and the Cup, the blessing shall be given unto the people, and then, in this manner they shall participate of the Body and Blood of our Lord, the Priest and the Deacon shall communicate before the Altar, the Clergy in the Choir, and the people without the Quire. And thence it is, if I mistake not, proceed all the prohibitions, that Women and other Lay People, should not enter into the close where the Altar, 
Herard. in cap. t. c. 24.  and the Sacramental Table was; as when Herard Archbishop of Tours ordered Anno 858. That the Women and Lay Persons should not approach the Altar, it was probably what Pope Leo the fourth intended when he made this Decree, as is seen in his life, That whilst the solemnities of the Masses were celebrated, no Lay Person should presume to stand in the Presbytery, that is to say, 
Vit. Leon. 4. t. 6. Concil. p. 416. D.  in the Choir, or sit, or enter therein, but only such as are, consecrated, and appointed to perform Divine Service. The Council in Trullo Anno 691. doth except the Emperor, whom it permits to enter into the Sanctuary, when he would offer his Oblation unto God, 
Concil. in Trullo. c. 69.  That it is not permitted (say the Fathers) unto any Lay Person to enter into the Sanctuary; yet we do not pretend, by virtue of a very ancient Tradition, to include the Emperor's Majesty in this prohibition, when h● desires to present his Oblations unto the Creator. Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, and one of the most famous Canonists amongst the Greeks, doth extend much farther this privilege granted unto the Emperor; he refutes their Opinion who restrain this liberty unto the time that the Emperor made his offering at the Holy Table, as if he had not liberty to enter therein, to offer unto God other acts of Adoration: 
Balsam. in can. 69. Trullan.  For my part (saith he) I am not of that Opinion; for the Orthodox Emperors who do make Patriarches, by Invocation of the Holy Trinity, and which are the Lords anointed, do without any opposition enter when they please into the Sanctuary, and approach unto the Altar as often as they will. But the Greeks having no Emperor of their Religion, groaning for a long time under the Tyranny of the Turks, there is none amongst the Lay people, which partake of the privilege which their Monarch and Sovereign enjoyed formerly; therefore after the Clergy have participated of the Sacrament, to wit, him that celebrates, either Bishop, or Priest, in the midst of the Altar, the other Priests round the Altar, and the Deacon behind, but all generally within the rail of the Sanctuary, the Lay people communicate without; for the doors of that place being open, the Deacons go out to distribute the Sacrament unto the People, and the place where the Celebration is made, is a little higher than the rest of the Choir, as James Goar hath observed, an Eye witness, 
Gore in Encholog. p. 150. n. 171.  who also observes, that the same was practised amongst the Latins in S. Jerom's days, and proves it by these words of this holy Doctor writing against the ●uciferians, 
Id. p. 151. n. 179.  It pertains unto the Bishop to handle the Body of our Lord, and from a higher place, to distribute it unto the people. It is very probable that all those who make profession of the Religion of the Greeks, as the Muscovites and the Russians, do observe the same custom: it is also very near the same manner, which is observed in communicating the people in Prester John's Country, according to the report of Francis Alvarez a Portugueze, that had traveled in those countries' many years; for he writes, that the Seculars and Lay folks, 
Alvar. de Aethiop. c. 11.  are near the chief door of the place where the Clergy is, and it is there that both Men and Women receive the Communion.  
As for the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant, which is the last circumstance we intent to examine in this Chapter, it is certain that when the Lord distributed his Eucharist unto his Disciples, they were almost lying along, that is, leaning a little one upon another, because that was the manner of eating at that time amongst the Jews and other Eastern Nations, and that the Disciples changed not their posture in receiving the Sacrament, but continued in the same posture they were in during the Supper of the Passover. And because St. John, the beloved Disciple, leaned on the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Scripture mentions that he lay on his breast at the Table, or leaned on his bosom; the Christians of the following Age, drew near and approached unto the holy Table presently after Consecration, there to receive the sacred Symbols of their redemption, as may be gathered from Justin Martyr's Liturgy, where we do not see any Ceremony, nor any kneeling practised by the Communicants in participating of this Divine Mystery, only, that going before unto the Communion, they gave unto each other the kiss of Charity, in token of their Love and Union, whereof this venerable Sacrament was to be a more strict tye; and from hence it is, that in all the Liturgies, the faithful are warned to kiss each other, before they appear at the Lords Table, although this warning is given in some sooner, in others later, but in all, it is before the Communion; in those very Liturgies which we have remaining, we do not find any alteration to have happened in the posture of the Communicant: For after having showed the Sacrament unto the people, and invited them unto the Communion by these words, Holy things are for the Holy, each Believer draws near, with the motions and desires of Piety and Devotion which he ought to have, to partake worthily of this Divine Sacrament. Denys Bishop of Alexandria gives sufficiently to understand, 
Apud Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 9  that in his time (that is in the third Century,) the Communion was received at the holy Table, standing, and not kneeling, when speaking of a certain Believer which often appeared at the Lord's Table to partake of the Eucharist; for he useth a term that properly signifies to present himself, and to be there standing, 
Vales. in Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 9 p. 145.  which gave occasion unto this observation of monsieur de Valois, The Believers which were to communicate, drew near the Altar, and there they received from the Priest's hand the Body of Jesus Christ. standing, and not kneeling, as is at this day practised. Tertullian had spoke before Denys of this custom of Communicating standing, in his Book of Prayer, 
Tertul. de Orat. c. ult.  wherein he speaks of standing at the Altar of God, that is to say at the Sacrament Table; and St. Chrysostom informs us in one of his Homilies that it was so practised even in his time, 
Chrysost. t. 1. Hom. 22. de Simult. & ira, p. 260.  when he exhorts the Communicants, or at least when he observes, That they presented themselves at the Holy Table, and that they there assisted, standing on their legs. But because this Sacrament is an Object worthy the respect of a Christian; because it is the Memorial of the death of his Saviour, and at the same time of his love and charity, a bond of his Communion with him, and an efficacious means, savingly to apply unto him the holy Fruits of his bitter death and sufferings St. Cyrill of Jerusalem, 
Cyrill. Hi●ro●. Mystag. 5.  at the end of the iv Century, will have his Communicant approach unto the Holy Table, not with the hand open, and the fingers stretched out, but in supporting the right hand with the left, that he receive in the hollow of his hand the Body of Christ, or as he says some lines before, the Antitype of the Body of Christ, that he takes care not to suffer any crumb to fall to the ground, and that having in this manner Communicated of the Body of Christ, he draws near unto the Cup, having the Body a little bowed, in way of Adoration or Veneration, to show the religious respect with which we should participate of these Holy Mysteries. The VI 
Can. 101 t. 5. Concil. Gored in Euchol. p. 150.  Ecumenical Council ordained something of this kind, to wit, that one should present himself at the Communion, holding his hands in form of a Cross: which the Greeks observed a long while after, and their Clergy observe it still at this day; but as for the people, for some time past, they receive the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament both together in a spoon; but I do not find that the people which came to the Communion, were obliged to set themselves in Posture or Gesture of those which adore, until that in the XIII. Century, the Adoration of the Sacrament was established in the Latin Church; for this bowing of the Body, which St. Cyrill desires, is not properly the posture of him who really doth adore; because he which adores, prostrates himself on his knees before the Object of his Adoration, to show the motions of the profound humility of his Soul, and his self-denial before him, unto whom, by this action he confesseth, that he is but dust and ashes. But as for St. Cyrill, he only desires a little inclination of the Body in approaching unto the Mystical Table, to show the sentiments of veneration and respect which one ought to have for so great a Sacrament; not to insist upon what the Eastern Council above mentioned was content to ordain three hundred years after St. Cyrill, that we should go unto the Communion with the hands in form of a Cross, without mentioning the bowing of the Body, which St. Cyrill himself doth not prescribe unto the Communicant, but for the reception of the Holy Cup. John Damaseen, who borrowed of St. Cyrill and of the VI Council, what he saith of the posture of the Communicant in his time, that is, in the VIII. Century, doth not speak a word of this inclination of the Body, 
Gore in Enchoi. p. 100L.  in Goars Notes upon the Ritual of the Greeks. And what yet persuades me that Believers communicated standing, in the ancient Church, and that this custom was always practised in the greatest Christian Communions, excepting the Latin, which changed this custom in the XIII. Century; is, that besides the Greek Church, which is of a very large extent, and wherein they Communicate standing, the Abassins', who also make a very considerable Christian Communion, do not otherwise receive the Sacrament: 
Alvar. ubi supr.  During the time the Communion is distributed (saith the same Priest Alvarez) they are all standing. Now it is most certain, that the Christians which are fallen into ignorance, as for example, the Abassins', and the Greeks, have not taken away any ancient customs, but rather have added to the number of those observed by the ancient Church, which is the usual practice of ignorance so to do; and if the custom of Communicating standing, be still kept in the Eastern Churches, it may also be affirmed, it was observed in the West, seeing that before the Latin Church had introduced in its service the Elevation of the Host, to oblige the people to adore it, and by consequence, before the people were obliged to receive the Communion kneeling, a considerable Body of Christians had separated from her, and broke off, which Body retained and practised the custom of Communicating standing, as do at this time the Protestants of Europe, called Calvinists, excepting those of Holland, who Communicate sitting, and those of England who kneel in receiving the Communion: but their Doctrine declaring sufficiently what they believe of the Sacrament, it is easy to see that their kneeling is not addressed unto what they receive from the hands of the Priest at the Holy Table, but only unto Jesus Christ, who is in Heaven, and whom they profoundly adore in the Act of the Communion, as him who hath purchased for them this great Salvation, whereof they are about to Communicate in receiving his Divine Sacrament, and of himself, by means of his Sacrament, who died for their Sins, and is risen again for their justification. The same may also be said of the Protestants called Lutherans, although their belief in this point is different from the belief of those in England; for in that they kneel at receiving the Communion, it is a token of the Adoration which they give unto Jesus Christ: but it cannot be said without injustice, that they address this Adoration unto the Sacrament, because they hold and believe, that it is the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration; and farther they do not render this Act of Adoration unto Jesus Christ in virtue of what they believe of his presence in the Sacrament, because if so, than all those in the assembly should kneel during the Celebration of the Mystery, and yet it is only him that Communicates, that knelt in the moment that he receives the Sacrament. But before I leave this circumstance, it may not probably be unnecessary to instance some customs that were practised in the ancient Church in the act of the Communion: for I find, that Lay persons after having received the Sacrament at the hands of the Bishop or Pastor, did kiss it; It is what St. Jorom mentioneth in his Book against John, Bishop of Jerusalem; 
Hieron. Ep. 62  Is there any one that hath Communion with you by force? is there any one that after having stretched out his hand, turns away his face, and that in receiving the Holy Food gives you a Judas kiss? Monsieur de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebi●s his History, citys these words of Paul the Deacon, speaking of the Bishop Fidelis: 
In not. Val●● ad Euseb. p. 134.  Go your way (saith he) Communicate, and give us the kiss. It may be thought that Cornelius Bishop of Rome, makes allusion unto this custom, when speaking of one of the Bishops, who had given Ordination unto the Schismatic Novatian, and whom Cornelius had degraded amongst the common people, he saith, 
Apud. Euseb hist. l. 6. ●. 43.  We have admitted him, unto the Communion as a Lay person. I farther observe, that as Believers went unto the Communion, the Deacon often pronounced these words, 
Chrysost ora● 1. count. Jud. t. 1. p. 440.  Observe, know, and take notice one of the other, that they should take care that there were no profane Person, and that no Jew crept in amongst them, to approach unto the Holy Table. S. Chrysostom informs us so in one of his Orations against the Jews. I know not whether the Emperor Constantine did not think of this innocent custom, when he exhorted the guides of Christian Churches, unto Union and Peace, 
De vit. Constant. l. 2. c. 71. Ex●r.  and that he said unto them amongst other things, Know ye one another. And it may be the Heretic Martion intended the same custom, when having met the venerable old man St. Polycarp, Pastor of the Church of Smyrna, and glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ, he said unto him, Know us, as 'tis recited by St. 
Apud Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 14.  In●naeus in Eusebius. In the Liturgy which bears S. Chrysostom's name, which the Greeks make use of, the Deacon fitting himself for the Communion, 
●●u●g. Chrysost.  asks pardon, and kisseth the hand of him who gives him the Holy Bread. And James Gore, in his Notes upon this part of the Liturgy writes, that every one amongst the People setting himself in a readiness to approach unto the Communion Table, asks pardon of all that are present, saying in the vulgar Tongue, 
Gore in Eucholog. p. 149. n. 169.  Christians forgive me, and that those present, answer with a tender love and charity, God forgive you: he saith moreover, that these words are amongst the Eastern Nations a certain and infallible sign of a sincere and reciprocal Love and Charity, that if any one should be found so obstinate, as not to grant the pardon unto him which desires it publicly on this occasion, according to the custom, they are at that instant, by the authority of the Church, deprived of the Communion in these Divine Mysteries. It were much to be wished that this custom were sincerely practised amongst Christians, and I confess it savours of the tenderness and love which our Saviour requires in his Children; for he will have them forgive one another, as he hath forgiven them. Therefore St. Chrysostom addressed this excellent Exhortation unto his Flock, 
Chrysost. de prodi●. Jud. t. 5. p. 465.  Let us be mindful of the holy kiss which unites our souls, reconciles Spirits, and which unites us all into one body; and seeing we are all partakers of one body, let us all be mingled into one Body; not in mingling our Bodies, but in strictly uniting our Souls by the bonds of charity: to the end that by so doing, we may with assurance, enjoy the fruits of the Table which is prepared; for though we exceed in good works, if we neglect peace and reconciliation, we shall gather no benefit for our Salvation. And this custom of demanding pardon before Communicating, is not so particular unto the Nation of the Greeks, but that I see it practised amongst the Latins, and even in our France in the XI. Century: for the ancient customs of the Monastery of Clnny, written in that Age, testify, 
L. 2. c. 30. t. 4. Spicileg. p. 145.  That they all demanded forgiveness before they Communicated, and that they kissed the hand of the Priest.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of him who administered, and of the Communicant, and of the Words of both of them.  
HAVING treated of the Time and Place of the Communion, and of the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant; we are obliged to say something of the Persons who distribute the Sacrament, of them who receive it, and of the Words both of the one and the other. As for the Persons who distributed it, we find by the Holy Writers, that as it was Jesus Christ who Blessed and Consecrated his Eucharist, it was also him that distributed it; for there was none but himself who did the office and functions of Celebration, the Apostles assisting at this Divine Ceremony, but as particular Believers, which were to receive at the hands of their master this precious pledge of their Salvation. A little above a hundred years after, Christians received the Communion from the hands of the Deacons: for assoon as the Pastor, or (as St. Justin Martyr speaks,) him that presided in the assembly, had Blessed and Consecrated the Bread and Wine which had been presented unto him: 
Just. Martyr. Apolog. 2.  Those whom we call Deacons (saith this Saint) give unto each one that is present, the Bread, Wine, and Water, which were consecrated. It appears by St. Cyprian, 
Cyprian. de Laps. p. 175. ultim. edit.  that about a hundred years after the decease of St. Justin, the Deacons yet administered the Sacrament, at least the holy Cup: for he speaks only of the administration of this Symbol, because the Bishop or Priest who did celebrate, gave the holy Bread unto the Believers; yet this practice was not so well settled, but that in the iv Century, the Deacons, who had done nothing unworthy the degree they held in the Church, had liberty to distribute the Bread and Wine, as may be gathered from one of the Canons of the Council of Ancyra, 
Concil. Ancyr. c. 2. Concil. Arelat. 1. c. 15.  assembled Anno 314. Nevertheless the Council of Arles, in the same year, did forbid it by this Canon; Touching Deacons, which we are informed do offer in sundry places, we have thought good, that it should not be done. Offer, is their taken for administering, according to the explication of the XV. Canon of the second Council of the same place, Anno 452. from whence it may be inferred, that the Deacons might administer the Sacraments in the absence of the Priests. It seems also that the great Council of Nice, which forbids them to give the Eucharist unto Priests, 
Concil. Nicaen. 1. c. 18.  or to touch it before the Bishops, doth not forbid them to distribute it unto the people. The Council of Laodicea about the year 360. hath a Canon yet more express, for it is in these terms; 
Concil. Laodic. c. 25.  The Ministers must not give the Bread, neither may they bless the Cup. Commonly by the Ministers, is meant the Deacons; but I do not judge they are so to be understood in this place: and indeed in all the Canons of this Council, I find that these Ministers are distinguished from the Deacons, as being a degree below them, therefore I make no doubt but by these Ministers, is to be understood the subdeacons, which shows, that the Deacons were not comprised in the prohibition which was made unto these Ministers. Also the iv Council of Carthage suffers the Deacons to administer unto the people in case of necessity, 
Concil. Carthag. 4. c. 38. Ambros. de offic. l. 1. c. 41.  the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, even in the presence of the Priest, but by his order. St. Ambrose speaking of the Deacon and Martyr St. Laurence, saith, that he distributed the Cup; and St. Leo, in a Sermon where he treats of his Martyrdom, 
Serm. infestiv. Laurent.  and of his Triumph, advanceth his Dignity, by administering of the Sacraments; and elsewhere making the Panegyric of St. Vincent, who was also a Deacon and Levite, 
In nativit. Vincent. c. 2.  he saith, that he administered the Cup of our Lord Jesus unto Believers, for their Salvation. George Cassander allegeth in his Liturgies, these words of a certain Book which treated of all the Divine Offices, 
Apud Cassandr. in liturg. c. 31.  The Deacons are those unto whom it belongs to set in order upon the Holy Table, the offerings of the people which are to be consecrated, and after the Consecration, to distribute the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord, unto the people. And in the Dialogues of Gregory the First there is mention made of a certain Deacon who being affrighted at the cruelty of the Pagans, 
Gregor. l. in dial. l. 1. c. 7.  as he was administering the Cup unto the people, let it fall to the ground, whereby it was broken. In Spain, they administered the Bread and Wine in the VI Century, as appears by the first Canon of the Council of Ilerda, assembled Anno 524. In the Greek Church, it is the Deacons which administer the Sacrament unto the people; and amongst the Abassins', the Deacon gives the Bread in little bits, and the sub-Deacon, the other Symbol, in a spoon of Gold, Silver, or of Wood But it is needless to insist any longer on a matter so clear, and, besides, which is not of the greatest moment: therefore 'tis sufficient to know, that at the beginning of Christianity the Deacons gave both Symbols unto the Communicants; that afterwards they administered but the Cup only, he which celebrated, giving the Bread: although this custom was not so soon admitted in all parts, there being some places, where the Deacons in the iv Century distributed the whole Sacrament unto the faithful people; and if in some Churches they were disturbed in the possession of their Rights, yet nevertheless, they have commonly enjoyed the privilege of administering the Cup of our Lord unto Christians, after he that consecrated, had distributed the holy Bread; and it is they who amongst the Greeks, distribute the Communion unto the people. In the Kingdom of Prester John, the Deacon giveth the Bread, and the sub-Deacon the Wine, as well unto the Clergy as unto the People. But this is worth the considering, that in divers parts of the West, Women were permitted to administer the Sacrament unto the people; and forasmuch as this abuse, as far as I remember, began in Italy; 
Gelas. Ep. ●. ad Episc. ●ucan. t. 3. Concil. p. 636.  Pope Gelasius was also the first, if I am not mistaken, who endeavoured to prevent it, grievously censuring the Bishops of Lucania, for giving this liberty to Women, and suffering them to serve at the Altar, Men being only called unto this Office. But it seems that this censure of Gelasius, had not all the success as could have been wished, seeing that about 500 Years afterwards, to wit, about the end of the X. Century, Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy, 
T. 6. Concil. p. 431. T. 2. Spicil. p. 261.  in his Synodal Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese, which have passed until our days, for a Sermon of Pope Leo the Fourth; was forced to forbid Women to come near the Altar, or touch the Cup of our Lord; because in all likelihood, they administered it unto Communicants. And it was not only in Italy this permission was given unto Women, but also in divers Provinces of France; whence it is, That the VI Council Assembled at Paris under Lewis the Debonair, Anno 829. 
Concil. Paris. 6. l. 1. c. 15.  forbids it in one of its Canons, which is yet to be seen in the seventh Book, Cap. 134. of the Capitularies of Charles the Great, and of Lewis the Debonair his Son, a Prohibition which Isaac, Bishop of Langres, 
Isaac. Ling. can. tit. 5. c. 7. & 11. c. 23.  was constrained to renew some time after.  
As for the persons admitted unto the Communion, they were Believers, therefore the Deacons made the Catechumeni, the Energoumeni, the penitents, and generally all such as were not initiated in the Mysteries of Christian Religion, to go out, and those people were not only not suffered to participate of the Sacrament, but they were not suffered to stay in the Assembly, when it was celebrated. Indeed, that they were not suffered to assist at the Celebration of the Sacrament, was not always practised amongst Christians, seeing that it is most certain, that in the two first Centuries, and probably a good part of the third, they hide not their Mysteries, and did not celebrate with the Doors shut, as appears by the Works of Justin Martyr, which shows plainly, that the Liturgies which go in the name of S. James, and S. Mark, are forgeries; for therein is mention of excluding these sorts of persons above mentioned, the Deacon making them go out before the beginning of Consecrating the Divine Symbols, which is also to be read in all the other Liturgies; and I shall not stand to prove this matter, being indisputable, and owned by all the World, the truth whereof is easily to be seen by such as please to read the Liturgies which we have remaining, and which by the care taken therein by the Deacons, to shut out the Catechumeni, the Energoumeni, the penitents, and the uninitiated, do manifestly show, that they have been made since the third Century, whatever care the Authors of some of them have taken, to shroud themselves under the name of some Apostle, or Disciple of the Apostles. And if only Belivers were obliged to Communicate, this obligation regarded them all in general; for the Penitents were not thought to be Believers during the time of their penance; the sins they had committed, and for which they had been censured to undergo the burden of this penance, having made them fall from this privilege and happy state; when I speak of Believers, I do not mean only such as were grown up, and such as were of years of discretion, but also Children. Therefore we are necessarily engaged to make two Considerations of the persons of Communicants; the first shall treat of the Communion of Adults, the second, that of Children. As for the Communion of persons of Age, and years of discretion, there is no question to be made, but they were all obliged to Communicate when they were present in the Assemblies where the Sacrament was Celebrated; and if they neglected, 
Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes.  the Holy Fathers rebuked them with a holy zeal in their Sermons, witness what S. Chrysostom saith, That it is in vain the daily Sacrifice is made; that 'tis in vain, that Ministers assist at the Altar, when there is no body present to receive: And he adds, That it is a boldness and impudence to be present at the Action, and not to participate. Therefore it is, that elsewhere he considers the Eucharist as a Meal which ought to be common unto Believers; The Lord's Supper (saith he) ought to be common; 
Id. Hom. 27. in Ep. 1. ad Cor.  for our Lords goods are not for one servant to the exclusion of another, but for altogether in common. The Apostle therefore calls this Supper of the Lord, the common Supper; for it is our Lords, therefore you ought not to appropriate it unto yourself, and to exclude and hinder others, but make it common unto all, us being the Supper of the Lord, and Master of all. These were also the thoughts of the Author of the Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles in S. Jerom's Works, which he expresses in these words, 
In c. 11. Ep. 1. ad Cor.  The Supper of the Lord should be common unto all, because he gave the Sacraments unto all his Disciples alike. But the ancient Doctors were not content to censure those who did not Communicate being in the Assembly, and to show them, that the nature of the Sacrament invited them all unto the Communion; they moreover made Rules and Directions against this abuse; It is, whereunto tends this Decree of the Council of Antioch, Assembled Anno 341. Those who enter into the Assembly, 
Concil. Antioch. c. 2.  and do heart he holy Scriptures, and by a disordered liberty, do not join in prayer with the people, depriving themselves of the participation of the holy Sacrament, must be put out of the Assembly. And in the Canons commonly called the Apostles, after the VIII. Canon hath condemned and deprived of the Communion of Divine Mysteries, those amongst the Clergy, who without lawful cause abstain from the participation of the Sacrament, as being a stumbling-block to the people; the Ninth makes this Decree, 
Can. 9 Apostol.  All the Believers who enter into the Assembly, and hear the Scriptures read, but stay not for the prayers, nor receive the holy Sacrament, let them be cast out, because they are an offence to the Church. Accordingly the Constitutions called Apostolical, ordain, 
Constit. Apostol. l. 8. c. 11.  That the Deacon should stand at the men's Door, and the sub-Deacon at the women's Door, to hinder that none should go out during the time of Oblation. Which conduct teacheth us, that as before the Comunion the Deacon cried, All you which are under penance, you which cannot pray, 
Chrysost●. Hom. 3. in Ephes.  (that is, with the Believers) go out. So in like manner, he hindered Believers who were all bound to Communicate, That they should not go out until they had received the holy Sacrament. It is by this Maxim that the Deceiver, who forged some Decretals in S. Clement's name, makes him say in the second: 
Pseudo Clem. decret. 2. Greg. I. l. Sacram. p. 235.  That Sacrifices should be offered according to the number of the people. S. Gregory makes the same Decree when he requires, That there be laid on the Altar as many Oblations as need, for the people; And the first Decretal which falsely bears the name of Pope Anaclet, commands, 
Anaclet. decret. 1.  That the Consecration being ended, all those should communicate, that would not be thrust out of the Church. it was certainly for the same reason that the Deacon, 
Greg. I. l. 2. d●al.  as Gregory the First witnesseth, said aloud, Let all those which do not communicate, depart out of the Church; whence it may be concluded, that all those which remained did communicate. It is also the Instruction given unto us by the Micrologue, whose Author wrote in the Eleventh Century, after the death of Gregory the Seventh, who died Anno 1084. and of whom this Writer speaks as a Man of a good fame, an Epithet, as spoken of one deceased. It is to be observed (saith he) that according to the Ancient Fathers, 
Micrologic. 51.  none were to be present at the Divine Mysteries, but such as did communicate, and it is what the Consecration of the Sacraments do plainly declare; for the Priest doth not pray only for his own Oblation and Communion, but also for that of others. And although in the time of this Author, that is, in the Eleventh Century, and before the fervour and zeal of Christians was very much abated, we do not find that they ever approved to celebrate the Sacrament without Communicants; on the contrary, the Councils, and those which have written of Divine Offices, do not own any celebration to be lawful, without there are some to communicate with the Priest who officiates. In that sense is to be understood what is said by Walafridus Strabo, 
Walafr. Strab. de Beb. Eccles. c. 22. Extr.  That in a Lawful Mass, there should be a Priest, one that answers, one that offers, and one that communicates. And therefore 'tis, that the Council of Mayence, Assembled by Charles the Great, Anno 813. made this Decree, We conceive that no Priest can say Mass alone; for how can he say, The Lord be with you, or how shall he warn, Lift up your hearts, and many other like things, there being none present but himself? Which is repeated in the 48th Canon of the Council of Paris under Lewis the Debonair, 
Cap. 7.  Anno 829. An Advertisement, That Theodulph Bishop of Orleans gives his Priests, Anno 797. 
Cap. 28.  And Herard Archbishop of Tours unto his, Anno 858. The Canonist Gratian, represents unto us this Institution of Pope Soter in his Decree, 
Grat. de Cons. Dist. 1. c. Soter.  That no Priest dare presume to celebrate Masses, unless there are two persons present, and that he make a third, because he saith in the plural, The Lord be with you, and Pray for me. Now it appears, that this Doctrine is grounded upon the prayers of the Liturgies being public, and having for their object, not one or two Persons only, but all the Faithful in general, who ought to communicate; also all the Liturgies, Ancient and Modern, and all those who have commented upon them, give sufficiently to understand, that they have been all composed, and written in behalf of Communicants, without whom they were so far from celebrating the Sacrament, that Justin Martyr tells us, That it was sent unto those who were absent: which showeth, they looked upon the Sacrament, as a Seal and Pledge of the Communion amongst Believers. And therefore I suppose it is, that the Council of Laodicea, 
Concil. Laodic. c. 58.  forbids it to be celebrated in private Houses; this Divine Sacrament being appointed in nature of a Sacrament of Communion, for the benefit of all Christians. Therefore it is, 
Constit. Apostol. l. 8. c. 13.  that the Author of Apostolical Constitutions, mentioning the Persons who ought to communicate, and in what manner, he comprehends generally all faithful Christians, as well Clergy as People, without distinguishing Age, or Sex. John Cochloeus, writing against Musculus a Protestant, Josse Clicthou, upon the Canon of the Mass, 
Apud. Cass. in Liturg.  and Vitus Amerpachius, all three of the Communion of Rome, confess the truth of this Tradition, which we have established; and the two former confirm it by the Authority of Pope Calixtus: which practice is at this time observed in other Christian Communions, and which, I make no doubt, was always observed in the West, because at the time it ceased in the Latin Church, that is to say, in the Twelfth Century at soon, those who went out and departed from her, observed it very Religiously, never celebrating the Eucharist without Communicants, until the last separation of Protestants, whose practice also it is.  
Having spoken of the Communion of aged persons, we must treat of that of young Children, according to the rule which was proposed. St. Cyprian reports the story of a little Christian Girl, 
Cypr. de laps. p. 175.  whose Nurse had carried her unto the Pagan Temple, where they made her eat Bread steeped in Wine, both having been consecrated unto Idols, and that afterwards, as her turn came to Communicate in the Christian Church, they had very much trouble to open the Child's Lips, into whose mouth, with much ado, they poured a little of the Sacrifice of the Cup, but in vain, 
Id. Ep. 59  The Sacrament (saith he) not enduring to abide in this polluted Mouth and Body, and indeed she vomited what they had forced her to take. The same may be collected from another place in his Works, where he defines, with his Brethren and fellow Bishops, that nothing hinders the Baptising of Infants presently after their Birth, because that for the most part the participation of the Sacrament followed the reception of Baptism; and to say the truth, it seemeth that he explains himself sufficiently, not to leave us the least doubt of it. In the Apostolical constitution, 
Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 13.  Children are counted amongst those who ought to Communicate: this custom than is very ancient, seeing we find it established in the third Century: but if it is ancient, it was also of a large extent, this custom having since continued in all Christian Climates and Countries, and is at this time practised in all the Churches of the Greeks, the Russians or Moscovites, the Armenians, and Ethiopians, and we do not find that those Christian Communions have ever laid it aside; which doth fully prove what we said, That this custom was soon spread into all parts of the Christian World. But to speak particularly of the Latin Church, we must, as near as may be, follow the steps of this ancient practice: and in the first place, I will instance in what hath been said by the Jesuit Maldonat, in his Commentaries upon St. John. 
Maldon. in c. 6. Joan. v. 53.  I lay apart (saith he) the opinion of St. Austin, and of Innocent the First, which was believed and practised in the Church six hundred years, That the Sacrament also was necessary for young Children; at present the thing hath been cleared by the Church, and the practice of several Ages, and by a Decree of the Council of Trent, that not only it is not necessary for them, 
Ep. ad Syn. Mil. apud Aug. Ep. 93.  but that also it is not permitted to give it unto them. And indeed Innocent the First shows plainly that it was the practice of his time, that is, of the Fifth Century. As for St. Austin, his constant Doctrine, in a great many passages of his Works, is, That the Eucharist is necessary unto young Children for obtaining eternal Life. I shall content myself with two or three passages of this famous Doctor; 
Aug. de pec. mer. & rem. l. 1. c 20.  Let us hear (saith he) the Lord saying of the Sacrament of the holy Table, unto which no body approaches as they ought, unless they are first Baptised; If ye eat not my Flesh, and drink not my Blood, you have no Life in you. What more do we look for, what can be replied to this, only that obstinacy knits its Sinews to resist the Force of this evident truth? Else durst any one deny, but that this Speech concerns little Children, and that they can have life in themselves, without the participation of this Body and of this Blood? 
Id. ibid. 24.  And in the same Book, It is with great reason that the Christians of Africa call Baptism, Salvation, and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, Life; whence is that, as I think, but from an ancient and Apostolical Tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold for certain, That no body can attain, either unto the Kingdom of God, or unto Salvation or eternal Life, without Baptism and the participation of the Supper of our Lord. And writing against Julian the Pelagian; 
Id. contr. Jul. l. 2. c. 1. & alibi.  What (saith he) would you have me do? Is it that the Lord saying, If ye eat not my Flesh, etc. I ought to say, That young Children who die without this Sacrament, shall have Life? The same thing may be justified by several other Doctors of the same time; but seeing it is owned by both sides, it would be needless: It may be only observed that Maldonat set not his bounds right when he included this use, or rather abuse, in or about the six first Centuries; for besides that there is mention made of Communicating Infants presently after Baptism, in Gregory the First his Book of Sacraments, 
Lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 73.74. Conc. Tol. 11. Can. 11. Vit. Leufr. c. 17. in Chron. Insulae Lirin.  we have a Canon in the Eleventh Council of Toledo, Anno 675. which plainly commands it. In the beginning of the Eighth Century, the Life of the Abbot Leufred affords an example of this custom; for we therein read, That Charles Martel having desired him by his Prayers to restore health unto his Son Griphon, who was afflicted with a great Fever, amongst several things which he did, 'tis observed that he gave unto him the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord. Charlemagne, in a Treatise written by his order, and in his name, doth plainly show that this was still practised in the West at the end of the Eighth Century; 
De Imag. l. 2. c. 27.  for he not only saith, That there is no Salvation without participating of the Eucharist, but he also mentioneth the Communion of little Children, 
Capit. l. 1. c. 16. Suppl. Conc. Gal. p. 183. c. 7. Ibid. p. 306. c. 8.  whom he represents unto us, fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of our Lord: And in his Capitularies he commands, That Priests have always the Sacrament ready to Communicate Sick Folks, be they old or young, that they may not die without Communicating. Gautier, Bishop of Orleans, prescribes the same unto his Priests, in his Capitularies of the year 869. And Riculfe, Bishop of Soissons, unto his, in the year 889. proving the necessity of Communicating Infants, which he will have to be given presently after Baptism, by the same words whereby S. Austin proves it. The Book of Divine Offices, called the Roman Order, was written, as some think, at the end of the Eighth Century, or the beginning of the Ninth; and as others think, in the Eleventh. In that Book this Decree is to be seen; 
Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 84.  Care is to be taken that young Children receive no Food after they are Baptised, and that they should not give them Suck without great necessity, until they have participated of the Body of Christ. 
Greg. lib. Sac. p. 73.  Nevertheless in S. Gregory's time it was not forbidden to give them Suck, but at the end of the Eleventh, and beginning of the Twelfth Centuries this pity was showed unto these poor Infants; and for the difficulty there was in making them swallow Bread, they were communicated with the blessed Wine only. 
Pasch. 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. conc. patr. 1. p. 530.  So it was enjoined by Pope Paschal the Second, who succeeded unto Vrban the Second, Anno 1099. according to Cardinal Bellarmin's computation: and this custom continued after his death, as Hugh of S. Victor testifies (who lived in the Twelfth Century) in his Ecclesiastical Books of Ceremonies, Sacraments, Offices, and Observations; 
L. 1. c. 20. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 1376.  Unto Children new born (saith he) must be administered, with the Priest's Finger, the Sacrament, in the species of blood, because such in that state do naturally suck. And he saith, It must be so done, according to the first Institution of the Church: he laments the Ignorance of Priests, who (saith he) retaining the form, and not the thing, give unto them Wine instead of Blood; which he wished might be abolished, if it could be done without offending the ignorant. Nevertheless this practice of giving a little Wine unto young Children after Baptism, continued a long time in divers parts of the Western Church, 
Lindan. Panop l. 4. c. 25.  as appears by the words of Hugh of S. Victor; and some have observed that not much above one hundred years ago, the same thing was used and practised in the Church of Dordrecht in Holland, 
Apud Arcad. de concord. l. 3. c. 40.  before it embraced the Protestant Reform Religion. In fine, Simon of Thessalonica, Cabasilas, Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople, and Gabriel of Philadelphia, also defend this necessity of Communicating, not only of persons of discretion, but also of young Children. This Tradition thus established, there only rests, to finish this Chapter, to speak something touching the words of the Distributer, and of the Communicant. When the Lord gave unto the Disciples the Sacrament of Bread, he said, This is my Body; and in giving them the Symbol of Wine, This is my Blood, or, this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood; but we do not find that the Apostles said any thing. In Justin Martyr's time, 
Apolog. 2.  the Distributer nor the Communicant said nothing, but the Deacons gave unto the Believers Bread and Wine which had been consecrated; 
Serom. l. 1. p. 271.  and it may be collected from Clement of Alexandria that it was so practised at the end of the Second Century. Some time after, it was said unto the Communicants, in giving them the Sacrament, the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ; and the Receivers answered, Amen, as may be read in the Apostolical Constitutions, S. Ambrose, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Austin, and elsewhere; but it must also be observed that they said unto them, Ye are the Body of Christ, and that unto these words they answered, Amen, as they had answered in receiving the Sacrament, as is testified by S. Austin in his Sermon unto the new Baptised in S. Fulgentius. In the days of Gregory the First, and after, they said, in distributing the Eucharist, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep ye unto Life everlasting; The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ redeem ye unto Life everlasting. But I do not find that Believers answered so punctually, Amen; Such Liberty the Church hath used in this circumstance of distributing the Sacrament. Amongst the Greeks they say unto the Communicant, 
In Euchol. p. 83.  Servant of God, you do Communicate of the holy Body and precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in remission of Sins, and unto Life everlasting. But 'tis time to consider the things which were given unto Believers when they did participate of the Sacrament, and it is wherein we will employ the following Chapter.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the things distributed and received.  
WHat was distributed unto Believers in Communicating, were the things which had been Blessed and Consecrated, to be made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord. I will not now examine the change which Consecration may thereunto bring, this not being the place to treat of the Doctrine of the holy Fathers, which shall appear in the second part of this Treatise: it will suffice here to inquire if Christians have always participated of both Symbols, and if they have ever been permitted to Communicate under both kinds, as is spoken; or under one kind only. As for the Symbol of Bread, it is an undoubted truth that it hath always been given to Believers in all Christian Communions in the whole world; and there hath never been any contest on this subject, at least in what regards the thing itself, I mean the matter of fact, not to speak of the difference touching the quality of the Bread which ought to be used in this Mystery: The greatest difficulty than is to know the practice of the Church in the species of Wine; we are indispensably forced to treat of the Communion under both kinds, and to lay before the Readers eyes the practice of Christians, with the changes and innovations which have therein happened. Jesus Christ, who distributed the Bread unto his Apostles, gave unto them also the Cup, and expressly commanded them all to drink of it, as S. Matthew hath written: S. Mark hath said that they all drank of it. The Christians immediately following the Apostles practised the very same; but because it would make a whole Volume, to collect the passages of the Ancients to prove the certainty of this matter, and besides, both Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, confess, That Jesus Christ did institute this Sacrament under both kinds, That the Apostles taught so, and that it was so practised by the primitive Church for a long time, as I think it may suffice to prove this Tradition from age to age by some of the clearest passages, and to follow it until its abolishing at the Council of Constance, and from that time until the Council of Trent. Justin Martyr affirms, 
Apolog. 1.  that in his time, there was distributed Consecrated Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants. 
Ep. ad Philadelph.  The pretended Ignatius tells us, of one only Cup distributed unto all; And S. Irenaeus, disputing against certain Heretics who denied the Resurrection of the Body; 
Advers. haer. l. 5. c. 2.  How (saith he) do they deny that the Body is capable of the gift of God, which is life eternal, which is nourished with the Blood and Body of Christ? 
L. 4. c. 34.  And again, How do they again say, that the Body corrupteth (that is to say, with a final corruption), and that it receiveth not life; (to wit, in rising again) being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ. 
Hom. 16.  Origen on the Book of Numbers, What is this people which are wont to drink Blood? the Christian people, the faithful people, follow him who said, If you eat not my Flesh, and drink not my Blood, you have no life in you; because my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed. And to show, that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion, 
Hom. 14. in Matth.  he adds; It is said, that we drink the Blood of Jesus Christ, not only in the Celebration of the Sacraments, but also when we receive his words. And elsewhere he speaks, of unadvisedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian, 
Ep. 63.  hath written a Treatise expressly of the Sacrament of the Cup, as S. Austin calls it, where he amply proves this Communion which we examine; and in another place, writing, with his Brethren, unto Cornelius' Bishop of Rome, touching the resolution they had taken to admit into the unity of the Church, those who had flinched in times of persecution; and speaking of the excellent Motive which they found in communicating of the Cup to encourage Christians unto Martyrdom; see here what they said, 
Ep. 54.  How should we encourage them to shed their blood for the confession of the name of Jesus, if going to the Combat, we should deny them the Blood of Christ? Or how should we make them fit to drink the Cup of Martyrdom, if we do not admit them first to drink in the Church, the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication? And in his Treatise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church, he saith, 
P. 175. ult. edit.  That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present, as Justin Martyr also hath taught us. The Councils of Ancyra, Anno 314. 
Apud Athanas. Apolog. p. 732.  in the second Canon, and that of Neocaesarea the same Year in the XIII. Canon, inform us also the same thing; as also a Synod of Alexandria, Assembled during the Persecutions stirred up by the Arrians against S. Athanasius. Thence it is, that Leo the First, 
In natal. ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr. Parmen.  speaking in the V Century of S. Vincent Levite, (that is to say, Deacon and glorious Martyr) saith, That he administered the Cup unto the Christians for their salvation. Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia, observes the same of Cecilian, as he was yet but Deacon of the Church of Carthage, and writes also, that what drew on him the hatred of Lucilla, a powerful and factious Woman, who by her Riches and Credit, supported the Party of the donatists, against Cecilian, promoted to be a Bishop, was, That Cecilian performing the Office of a Deacon, pronounced a severe Sentence against her; because in presenting her the Cup, she kissed the Bone of some dead person or Martyr, before she put her lips unto the Cup of the lord 
Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism. c. 3.  S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks, Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ, draw near unto the Cup of his Blood, etc. S. Basil said, the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is, That eating and drinking, we should always have him in remembrance who Died, and is Risen again for us; And elsewhere, 
Ep. 289.  It is a thing good and profitable to communicate daily, and to participate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; The Liturgies also which go in his name, may be here alleged, and all the others which are now remaining, from which it is easy to collect the use and practice of communicating under both kinds. S Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. Matthew, 
Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E.  The same Table is offered unto all, the same Drink is given unto all, but not only the same Liquor, but it is also given unto us all to drink of one, and the same Cup; for our Father injoining us to love one another, he so ordered it, that we should drink of the same Cup; And upon S. John, speaking of the Water and Blood which came out of Christ's side; 
Hom. 85. Graec.  The Mysteries do from thence take their Original, to the end as oft as ye approach unto the terrible Cup, ye should draw near, as if it were to drink out of his side itself. And upon the Second to the Corinthians, 
Hom. 18.  There are certain times, when there is no difference betwixt the Priest and those over whom he doth preside; as when they are to participate of the terrible Mysteries, for we are all equally admitted there; it is not as under the old Law, the Priest eaten some things, and the people other things, and the people were not permitted to eat of what the Priest did eat: but now it is otherwise, for one Body, and one Cup, is offered unto all. S. Austin in his Questions upon Leviticus, The Lord saying, 
L. 3. c. 57 t. 4.  If you eat not my Flesh, and drink my Blood, you have no life in you. What was the reason of so strictly prohibiting the people from the Blood of the Sacrifices offered for sins, if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacrifice, wherein the true and full remission of sins is made? nevertheless, no person is hindered from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment, but rather all those who would be saved, are exhorted to drink it. Leo the First, in his Lent Sermon speaking of the Manicheans, who, not to appear what they were, frequented the Assemblies of Believers, and did also participate with them of their Sacraments: 
Serm. ●. c. 5.  To hid (saith he) their Infidelity, they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries, they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments; to shelter themselves the better, they receive with an unworthy mouth the Body of Christ, but they absolutely refuse drinking the Blood of our Redemption; Therefore we give your Holiness notice of it, to the end this kind of men may be known by these marks, and that such other Sacrilegious Dissimulation hath been discovered, may be marked, and that being forbidden to be present in the Society of the Saints, they might be expelled by the Priestly Authority. In the Tenth Action of the Council of Chalcedon, Assembled An. 451. there is a request of the Priests of the Church of Edessa, against Ibas their Bishop, wherein they complain of many things, 
T 3. Concil. p. 382. F. ult. edit.  but more especially, That when the Commemoration of Martyrs was made, there was no Wine given to offer at the Altar, to be Sanctified and distributed unto the people, except it were a very little, and that bad and muddy, just newly pressed and made. Pope Gelasius at the end of the V Century, 
De consecr. dist. 2. Ep. ad Major. & Joan.  in Gratians Decree: We have been informed (saith he) that some persons having only taken part of the holy Body, do refrain the Cup of the holy Blood; which persons doubtless, it being said, they are hindered by I know not what Superstition, aught to receive the whole Sacraments, or be quite excluded from them; because that the dividing of one and the same Mystery, cannot be done without Sacrilege. 
Fragm. 28. contr. Fabian. L. 2. de vita sua, c 15. p. 216.  S. Fulgentius said, That we participate of the Body and Blood of Christ, when we eat of his Bread, and drink of his Cup. S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon in the VII. Century, requires, That the sick should with Faith and Devotion, receive the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ. 
T. 4. Concil. p. 503.  The Third Council of Toledo, Assembled Anno 589. in the second Canon, Ordains; That the people's heart being purified by Faith, they should draw near to eat the Body and Blood of Christ. Which the Fourth held in the year of our Lord 633. in the 7. and 8. Canons called, 
Ibid. p. 584, 587.  To receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. And in the Eighteenth Canon, it makes this Rule for reforming a certain abuse crept into the Church, in the celebration of this Sacrament. Some Priests communicate presently after saying the Lords Prayer, and then give the Blessing unto the people, which we forbidden for the future; but that after the Lord's Prayer, and the conjunction of the Bread and the Cup, the blessing be given the people, and that then the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord be received in this manner, that the Priest and Deacon communicate before the Altar, the Clergy in the Choir, and the people without the Quire. From which words it appears, That in Spain in the VII. Century, the Communion of the Laity, did nothing differ from that of the Priest who Officiated as to the manner, but in respect of the place only. Also the XI. Council of Toledo, 
Ib. p. 825.  Assembled Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon plainly speaks also of the Communion under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine, when it forgiveth such as being very sick through weakness, refuse the Eucharist, not through infidelity, But because they cannot swallow it down, except it be what they drink of the Lords Cup. Thus far it was the practice of the Church, to administer unto Communicants both Symbols severally apart; It is true, that at the same time of this XI. Council of Toledo, some going about to change this wholesome custom, and to administer the Bread steeped in the Consecrated Wine, the Council of Braga in Gallicia, made a Decree to stop the current of this practice; but before we allege this new Decree, it must be observed, That the Church by a charitable condescension, suffered the Eucharist steeped to be given unto very weak and sick persons, and to young Children, who were of a long time admitted to the participation of the Sacrament, as hath been shown; We have an instance of the first, in the old Man Serapion, a Penitent, and Bedridden, (for as I perceive in the Third Century, the Eucharist was administered to no sick folks, but such as were of the number of the Penitents, and in danger of Death); And we read in Eusebius, that a Priest of Alexandria following the example of Denys his Bishop, sent by a young Boy a bit, or little parcel of the Eucharist, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 44.  commanding that it should be steeped, and put into the old Man's mouth, that he might swallow it. As for young Children it appears, that it may be collected both from S. Cyprian in his Treatise of those that were fallen and yielded, during the time of Persecution, 
Dimid. temp. c. 6.  and of the counterfeit Prosper, in what he hath written of Promises and Predictions, that it was so done to such as were very weak; I say it may seem to be gathered, for the thing is very dubious in S. Cyprian who teacheth us, that the Communion was given unto little Children, but he doth not positively say, that the Bread was steeped in the Wine; the pretended Prosper speaks more formally. In a word, it is evident, that this kind of Communion was not practised but in great necessity, 
De commun. sub utraque spec. p. 1027.  and also as Cassander hath judiciously observed, Those persons who steeped the Bread in the Wine, did plainly show and declare, how necessary they believed both Symbols were, to make a lawful Communion.  
I say this sort of Communion was not practised; I mean that the Bread was not steeped in Wine, but upon great necessity. In fine, Hugh Maynard a learned Benedictine, speaking of the Council of Clermont under Pope Vrban the second, as 'tis reported by Cardinal Baronius, he collects, that according to the intent of the Council, may be given in a Spoon, unto sick Persons ready to die, the Body of our Lord steeped in the Blood, that they might swallow it the easier. And to show that the Eucharist was not so administered, but unto such as were very weak, he makes mention of a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims, Of the anointing the sick, written towards the end of the X. Century: upon which he observes, that when the Sacrament was administered unto such as were not extreme ill, it was said unto them separately, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting; the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you unto life everlasting: which words (saith he) make a separate and distinct reception. But as for those who were as 'twere at the point of death, these two expressions were joined together, saying, The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting life; because (saith he) there was given unto the sick Person in a Spoon, the Body of the Lord steeped in the holy Blood. Now to return to the Council of Braga in Gallicia, it was assembled in the year of our Lord 675. and in the second Canon, which Gratian, Ives of Chartres, Cassander, and several others misalledge, as a Fragment of an Epistle of Pope Julius to the Egyptians; I say, in the second Canon it reproves divers abuses, and amongst others, that of administering the Sacrament steeped; therefore we will rest satisfied with alleging that which properly relates to the Subject in hand, 
T. 4. Concil. p. 832.  We are given to understand that some Persons present unto the people, as a perfect Communion, the Eucharist steeped. And having touched another abuse, and having proved by the Scriptures, that Milk should not be offered in stead of Wine in divine Sacrifices, the Fathers add, And whereas they give unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped, the example of the Scripture which is alleged, where Jesus Christ recommended his Body and Blood unto his Apostles, will not admit of it: for it is said, that he bid them take his Body apart, and his Blood apart. And we do not read that Jesus Christ gave the steeped Bread unto any but the Disciple, which should be known to be him, to whom 'twas given, even him that would betray his Master, and not to show the Institution of the Sacrament. We are then arrived at the end of the VII. Century, without seeing any other attempt against the Communion under both kinds separately, but that which was vigorously condemned and censured by the Council of Braga. Let us continue to give farther proofs of this use. A Council at Paris assembled Anno 829 under Lewis the Debonnair, it is the VI which unto that time was there celebrated; this Council I say, in the first Book, Canon the 45. condemns an abuse which was crept into certain Provinces, 
T. 3. Concil. Gall.  Where the Women distributed unto the people (that is in the Churches) the Body and Blood of our Lord; and in the 47. Canon, it forbids Priests, to celebrate Masses any where but in consecrated places, unless it be in case of necessity, To the end the people should not be without the celebration of Masses, and the participation of the Body and Blood of our lord 
De ord. Bapt. z. c. 18.  Theodulph Bishop of Orleans, in the same Century, speaking of life eternal: To obtain (saith he) this life, we are Baptised, and we eat the flesh of Christ and do drink his Blood, and afterwards, the Church continues the custom of receiving the Eucharist which was bequeathed unto her by Jesus Christ, that is when any one is new born by Water and the spirit, (that is to say, is Baptised), he is nourished with the body of our Lord, and drinks his Blood; because that immediately after Baptism, 
T. 7. Spicil. p. 174.  they received the Sacrament. Amalarius Fortunatus; It is to be observed (saith he) that every Sunday in Lent, all the believers, (except such as are excommunicated) ought to receive the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ. Pope Nicholas the First, in his answer to the Bulgarians, requires, 
T. 6. Concil. p. 619. c. 65.  that the venerable Body of Christ, and his precious Blood, be distinguished and discerned from other meat, and that the one and the other be received. Regino, in his Chronicle of the year of our Lord 869. observes that Pope Adrian the second gave the Sacrament unto King Lothair, after that he had sworn, that he had dismissed for ever, Waldrad, his Concubine, 
Regino in Chro. ad an. 869.  and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of the Lord: and that it may not be thought it was a privilege belonging to Lothair by reason of his Kingly Dignity, the Historian saith, that Pope Adrian did present the Communion unto all those which accompanied Lothair, with these words, If you have not been assisting unto Lothair your Lord and King, in the sin of Adultery laid to his charge, and if you have no way consented thereunto, and have had no communication with Waldrad, and others who have been excommunicated by this Apostolical Chair, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable unto you for life everlasting. Ratherius, Bishop of Verona in Italy, 
De Contempt. can. part. 1. t. 2. Spicileg. p. 182. Ib. p. 262.  towards the end of the X. Century, Let all evil intentions be laid aside, as well of those which receive, as of those which administer the Body and Blood of the Lord; in his Synodical unto his Priests, he order them, to warn Believers to come four times a year to the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; and in his first Sermon of Easter, 
P. 309.  Let us (saith he) celebrate the Feast, (that is to say) let us eat the flesh of the Lord, and drink his Blood; And again, Lay aside wickedness, 
Page 310.  if you will eat the flesh of the Lamb of God, and drink his Blood. And again speaking of him that had unduly celebrated the precedent Easter, 
P. 311.  He dared approach to receive the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God. And of him that had not followed the example of the Saints, 
P. 313.  How doth he presume without sighing and grieving, this day to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord; And in his second Sermon. 
P. 320.  Let us with joy receive the Body and Blood of Christ, which was sacrificed for us; And in the third, Let every one examine himself, to see if the Priest hath said true of him (that is to say) if he hath received the Body and Blood of the Lord, with the unlevened Bread of sincerity and of truth. Ratherius died Anno 974. yet it is true, that the practice of administering the Eucharist steeped, was introduced into some places about the time Ratherius did write; for Hugh Maynard above mentioned, amongst several Manuscripts he used in his work upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First, makes use of one under the name of Ratold, Abbot of Corby, written about the year of our Lord 986. wherein it is read that the Bishop should give the Communion unto the subdeacons, In mingling the Sacrifice, that is to say, in mingling the holy Bread with the consecrated Wine; for as for the Priests and Deacons, he will have them to taste with their lips, the Blood in the Cup, the sub-Deacon holding it; And another of John, Bishop of Auranch, whose title is The ancient manner of celebrating Mass, which he got from an ancient Manuscript of the Priory of Saluza, of the prebend's of the Order of St. Austin in Normandy, of Vexin near Vernon. But it appears by the beginning of the Manuscript cited by Maynard, that this John, Bishop of Auranch, is Author of the piece which he dedicated to Maurill, Archbishop of Rouen, and this John died, as the same Maynard in his Notes observes, 
P. 277.  in the year 1079. there this is to be read, That the Priest should communicate not with steeped Bread, but according to the definition of the Council of Toledo (in all likelihood he means that of Braga, in the year 675.) The Body apart, and the Blood apart, excepting the people, unto whom he is permitted to give the Communion with steeped Bread, not by authority, but by great necessity, for fear of shedding the Blood of Christ: where the Reader may observe if he please, that the case is, by way of permission; and farther, of a permission grounded not upon the authority of a Council, but upon the necessity that is alleged, of the fear or danger of effusion: something of like nature is to be found in the ancient customs of the Monastery of Clunie, which were written after the death of the Abbot Odilon, who died about the middle of the XI. Century, but in such a manner, as appears that this custom was peculiar to the Congregation of Clunie, the other Churches distributing both Symbols severally: 
L. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. spicil.  Vuto all those unto whom he gives the holy Body, (say these ancient customs) he first wets or steeps it in the Blood; but in the Margin, they make this observation, Another Manuscript adds, Although this be contrary to the practice of other Churches, because some of our Novices are such slovens that should they receive the Blood by itself, they would not fail of being guilty of some great neglect. 
Non remaneret.  Which words, Cassander alleged in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds; for he saw the Manuscripts before the customs were Printed, as they have been within this six or seven years past; but it appears by the words above alleged, that in most Churches, the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were given apart and distinct from one another. In the year 1095. Vrban the Second held a Council at Clermont in Auvergna, that made a Decree which is variously reported; Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals gives it us in these terms, 
T. 11. ad an. 1095.  That no Body presume to Communicate at the Altar without receiving the Body apart, and also the Blood by itself, unless it be by necessity and with precaution. This necessity regards the sick , and this care, or precaution, refers in all likelihood, to the danger of spilling, which might happen more especially at great and festival Communions, by reason of the great number of people that comunicates; and doubtless it was upon such occasions that John Bishop of Auranch intended it should be permitted to give the Sacrament steeped unto the people; if it were not better to refer unto the same subject (that is to say) unto sick bedrid Persons, both the necessity and precaution of the Canon in Baronius. In a word, Oderic Vital in his ninth Book of his Ecclesiastical History upon the year 1095. upon the relation of Maynard in his Notes upon the same Book of Sacraments of Gregory, thus represents unto us the Canon, 
Page 379.  That the Body of the Lord be received separately, and also the Blood of the Lord; he speaks neither of necessity nor precaution: and without that, the Canon is clear and intelligible and without any difficulty; it is no easy matter to judge in what manner the Council expressed itself, it only can be said, that it seems to express itself, as Oderic Vital saith, if it be considered in the first place, that 'twas in this Council of Clermont, the Croysade was granted for recovering the Holy Land. Secondly, that it appears by a Letter written from Antioch by the Adventurers, four years after the Council, that is to say, in the year 1099. and directed unto Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims, that the Christians resolving to make a sally upon those which held them closely besieged in Antioch, did first Communicate, but under both Symbols distinctly, These things being heard, 
T. 7. Spicil. p. 195.  the Christians being purified by cenfessing their sins, and strongly armed by receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, and being prepared for the combat, they marched out of the gate. Unto which may be added, that a little before the Council of Clermont, most Churches did Communicate, as we have been informed by the ancient customs of Clunie, under both kinds distinctly. But Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban, Anno 1099. commands both Symbols to be distributed separately, 
Pascal. 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. part. 1. p. 130.  except it be unto young Children, and such as are at the point of death; for unto such, he gives liberty they should be communicated with the holy Wine only, because they cannot swallow down the Bread. And about the same time the Micrologue observes, that the Communion with the steeped Sacrament, 
Cardinal Humbert against the Greeks. t. 4. Bibl. patr. part 2. p. 217. A. Microlog. c. 18.  is no lawful Communion, and proves it by the authority of the Roman Order. It appears also that about fifty years before this Council of Clermont, the steeped Sacrament was not always given unto Persons ready to departed this life, but the holy Bread, and the sanctified Cup apart; at lest nothing hinders but it may so be gathered from the Chronicle of Fontanella, otherwise St. Wandrill, in Normandy: for speaking of Gradulph, one of its Abbots, who died in the year 1047. 
C. 8. t. 3. Spicil. p. 268.  it saith, That being at the point of death, and having received the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, he died.  
Nevertheless, the best and most holy things absolutely degenerate from their institution, let us see the manner that the Communion with the steeped Eucharist was introduced and established in several places, but not universally. We have a Letter of Ernulph, or Arnulph, or if you please of Arnold, at first a Monk at S. Lueiens of Beauvais, then at Canterbury in Lanfranck's time, afterwards made a Prior by Anselm; a little after, Abbot of Burk, and at last by Radulph, Bishop of Rose, now Rochester, in England; he died Anno 1124. 
T. 2. Spicil. p. 432.  in this Letter which he writes unto one Lambert, who demanded wherefore the Sacrament was then given steeped, seeing our Saviour gave the Bread and Wine distinctly; he approves this new manner of giving the Sacrament, although he owns that Jesus Christ distributed it otherwise, and he likes it for the danger of shedding, especially upon Festival days, because of the great numbers of persons that then use to communicate; also he touches the inconvenience might happen by reason of men that have long and great Beards, representing, that if at their Meals, they wet their Whiskars in the Liquor before they receive it in their mouth, it may be feared, they do the same in the Consecrated Wine, if they are admitted unto the Sacramental Cup, which he accounts a great crime, which he chargeth upon the Communicant, and also him that celebrates: besides, to strengthen what he saith, of the danger of effusion upon solemn Festival days, when great numbers of Men and Women must be communicated of all sorts, and conditions; he observes, that he that officiates, will be still in danger of spilling something out of the Sacred Cup, let him take never so much care and caution in distributing it, because he often runs the hazard of this effusion, when he is about to drink of it himself; which cannot be done, as he tells us, without falling into a great sin, whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance. From all which he concludes, in favour of the steeped Sacrament, and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steeped in Wine, saying, That pious men had prudently directed, that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry, as our Lord had done, but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord, and that by this means it should happen, that according to the precept of our Saviour, we should eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter, might avoid the danger. And he gives for a reason of this conduct, That we eat dry, and drink liquid what goes down the throat, after having received it in the mouth, either together, or separately. And because some considering that Jesus Christ had given the steeped morsel unto Judas, did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament, he saith, there's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped, and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betrayed him, because the actions which have a different occasion, cannot agree well together: Afterwards taking with many others, the Decree of the Council of Braga, of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament, for a Decree of Pope Julius, he saith, this Decree is no longer of force with modern persons, and that the customs of the Church, which surpass all others, as well in reason, as in authority, hath overcome this ancient Constitution, that it should not be thought strange, because the Decrees of other Popes are changed for the like, and sometimes upon smaller occasions.  
But although this Author of the XII. Century, of whom Cardinal Cusa citys something in Cassander, in his Liturgies, gives us this form of administering the Sacrament with steeped Bread, as established in his time in the West; it cannot be said, that it was universally received in all Churches without exception. In fine, besides what we alleged out of the Micrologue, and of Pope Paschal, who made his Decree in the XII. Century; Arnold of Bonneval, contemporary with S. Bernard, in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord, in S. Cyprian's Works, showeth us sufficiently, that in the same XII. Century wherein he lived, the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people, when he saith, 
Apud. Cypr. p. 329. ult. edit. vid. p. 330.  It was under the Doctor Christ Jesus, that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World, that Christians should drink Blood, whereof the use was so strictly prohibited by the Authority of the ancient Law; for the Law forbids eating of Blood, and the Gospel commands to drink it; And again, We drink Blood, Jesus Christ himself commanding it, being partakers by, and with him of everlasting life. And at the conclusion of the Treatise, he with several other Doctors of the Church, who lived before him, in that Believers are partakers of one Bread, and of one Cup, doth search a type of their union, 
Ibid. p. 33●.  or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus, who is the head of this Divine Body. We also (saith he) being made his Body, are tied and bound unto our head, both by the Sacrament, and by the matter of the Sacrament; and being members one of another, we mutually render each other the duties of love, we communicate by charity, we participate with eating one and the same meat, and drink one and the same drink, which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock, which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval, Peter de Cells, Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims, who lived at the end of the XII. Century; for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline, which is come to light but within these seven or eight years, he speaks in this manner; The communication of the Body of Christ, 
T. 3. Spicil. p. 99  and of the Blood of Christ poured forth, to wit, of the Lamb without spot, purifieth us from all guilt, and from all sin. Let us say something more formal, Peter of Tarantes, 
Apud. Cassand. de Commun. sub utraque specie, p. 1043.  afterwards Pope, under the name of Innocent iv writes, That the most considerable, as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar, do receive the Sacrament under both kinds. William of Montelaudana; in sundry places (saith he) They communicate with the Bread and Wine, (that is to say) with the whole Sacrament. And Peter de Palude, testifies, that in his time, It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species. Richard de Mediavilla, was of the same Judgement with Innocent IU. the one and the other giving for a reason, that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds, Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution. All these, saith Cassander, lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place, that Thomas Aquinas, who defends the use of communicating under one kind, doth not say, that this custom was universally received, but in some Churches only. And to say the truth, Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord, that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion, to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind, there were several Churches, that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup, invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices, by means whereof, they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord, as Beatus Rhenanus, 
p. 438.  testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis; and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds: 
p. 1036.  both of them in their time, having seen of these Quills or little Pipes, which were used for communicating the Laity. Let us descend yet lower, and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance, an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome itself, not indeed of the People, but of all the Cardinal Deacons; for urban VI who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI. He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar, in his Pontifical Habit; wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubric; and in fine, he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons, with the precious Body and Blood of Christ; as it was always the manner of Popes to do; 
T. 4. p. 306.  Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders, Anno 1378. by Pilei●de Prata, Archbishop of Ravenna, and Cardinal, in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery.  
But, as from the distribution of both Symbols separately, in the latter Ages they came to administer the Bread in the Consecrated Wine; so from the distributing the Eucharist steeped, by little and little, insensibly in some Churches of the West, they gave the Communicants only the consecrated Bread, a custom which in process of time introduced itself almost into all the Western Churches, until that it was established in the year 1415. upon Saturday, the 15. of June, by this Decree of the Council of Constance. 
Sess. 13. t. 7. Concil. part. 2. p. 1042.  This present holy general Council of Constance lawfully Assembled by the Holy Ghost, declares, discerns, and defines, that although Jesus Christ after Supper instituted and administered unto his Disciples, this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of Bread and Wine, yet nevertheless the commendable authority of holy Canons, and the approved custom of the Church hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper, nor to be received of Believers but fasting, except in case of sickness or some other necessity, allowed, or admitted by Law, or by the Church: and in like manner, that although in the Primitive Church, Believers received the Sacrament under both kinds; yet nevertheless to avoid certain perils, inconveniencies, and scandals, this custom was fitly introduced, that those who officiated should receive under both kinds, and the Laity under the species of Bread only, withal that they should firmly believe and nothing doubt, that the entire Body of Christ, and the Blood, are truly contained, as well under the species of Bread, as under the species of Wine. Therefore such a custom being reasonably introduced both by the Church and by the holy Fathers, and that it was a long while observed, it ought to pass for a Law, which is not allowed to be rejected, nor changed by every body's fancy, without the Authority of the Church. Therefore they are to be judged erroneous, that think it to be Sacrilegious or unjust to observe this custom, or this Law; and those who obstinately affirm the contrary of what is above said, aught to be banished as Heretics, and severely punished by the Diocesans of the places, or their Officials, or by the Inquisitors of the Heretical evil, in the Kingdoms or Provinces, where by hazard or on purpose, they have attempted or presumed any thing against this Decree, according to the lawful Ordinances and Canons which have been seasonably made against Heretics, and their abettors against the Catholic Faith. But notwithstanding the severity of this Decree, Cassander hath left us upon Record in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds formerly cited, That it is read, that Pope Martin the Fifth, 
p. 1037,  after the Council of Constance, did practise, in the solemn Office of Easter, the Precept and Formulary of the Roman Order, in giving the Communion unto the people under both kinds: The same in the same place relates, as from Thomas Waldensis, That after the Synod of Constance, the Pope of Rome did not forbear giving the Communion after the use of Rome (that is to say, under both kinds) unto the Deacons, the Ministers of the Altar, and unto other persons eminent in Piety and Worth, as also unto Rectors of places, and considerable Monasteries, his Brethren, and unto others he thought worthy of so great a Gift. He saith moreover, That Cardinal Cusa, in his Letter written unto the Clergy and learned Men of Bohemia, Anno 1452. some years after the Council of Basle, declares, That until very near his time, the Pope, at the Feast of Easter, suffered the Laity, unto whom he had with his own hands given the Body of the Lord, to receive the Blood from the hands of the Deacons: And that Nicholas of Palerma, who assisted at the Council of Basle, saith, That the opinion of Doctors is, That it would not be ill done that the Communicant should also receive the Blood. This Council of Basle, whereat this Archbishop was present, granted unto the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds, provided that in all other things they should conform unto the Church of Rome, and that they would instruct them to believe, that Jesus Christ was contained wholly under the one and the other species. All those who are any thing read in the History of those times, know that those of Bohemia, who differed nothing from the Church of Rome, but only in the matter of the Communion under both kinds, were called for that reason Calixtins, different from the true Taborites: but so 'tis, as it appears by a Letter from George Pogiebrac, King of Bohemia, that these Calixtins did not quietly enjoy this Grant; for in this Letter, which was written in the year 1468. and for which we are obliged unto Dom Luke d'Achery, 
T. 4. Spicileg. p. 413, 414, 415.  a Benedictine Monk, this Prince declares himself plainly to be a Calixtin; That he was bred up in this manner of Communicating under both kinds; That his Father, Mother, and Grandmother had so practised; That the Council of Basle had granted Liberty of it unto his Subjects, not by way of permission, as the Church sometimes tolerates Sins, but to the end it should be allowed by the Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our holy Mother the Church, his Spouse; That in all other things he agrees with the Church of Rome; so that it appears by this apologetical Letter, which he writes unto Mathias King of Hungary, his Son-in-Law, that he only desired liberty of Communicating under both kinds, as he had been taught by his Father and Grandfather; and I doubt not, but a part of this Apology will in convenient time and place, give sufficient ground for making a clear and certain Judgement of the Belief of the ancient Taborites, upon the point of the Eucharist. But after all these changes, happened at sundry times, the Council of Trent in the 21. Session, being the Fifth under Pope Pius IV. Anno 1562. the 16. of July, after having spoken of the Authority which the Church hath always had in the dispensation of Sacraments, to change in time, and place, what she thought fit, the substance still remaining entire: it adds, 
Sess. 21. c. 2. & 3. de doctr.  That therefore the Holy Mother the Church, being sensible of this wholesome Authority in the administration of Sacraments, although that at the beginning of Christian Religion, the use of both kinds was frequent; nevertheless, in process of time this custom being changed, it was introduced for wise and solid reasons, to approve this custom of communicating under one kind, and hath commanded it to pass into a Law, which shall not be allowed to be altered or laid aside at pleasure, without the Authority of the same Church. And in the following Chapter, which is the Third of Doctrine, It declares moreover, That though our Redeemer (as it is said) in his last Supper, instituted this Sacrament under both kinds, and gave it unto his Apostles; Yet it must be confessed, that Jesus Christ entirely, and the true Sacrament; is received under one species, and that so, as to what concerns the benefit, such are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation, who receive but under one kind. After all which, the Council makes these three Canons: If any one shall say, 
Can. 1.  that by the command of Christ, or for necessity of Salvation, all Believers in general, and each one in particular, is obliged to receive both kinds of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, 
Can. 2.  that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes, and reasons, to administer the Communion unto the Laity, and Clergy not officiating, under the species of Bread only, or that she hath therein erred, let him be Anathema. If any body shall deny, that whole Christ, 
Can. 3.  the Fountain and Author of all Graces, is received under the sole species of Bread, because as some falsely suggest, he is not received according to Christ's own Institution under both kinds, let him be accursed. See here exactly whereunto things amounted in the West. Whereupon some have made these Reflections; In the first place, that about 300. years before the use of the Cup was taken away from the people by public Authority; the Albigenses, and Waldenses, had separated themselves from the Latin Church, to make a Body apart, which Body hath always practised the Communion under both kinds: Secondly, that at the time the Council of Constance made her Decree, there was in Bohemia, besides the Calixtins, who only desired the use of the Cup, agreeing in all other points with the Church of Rome, the Taborites, so called from the Mountain Tabor where they had their Assemblies, unto whom some joining many of the Waldenses, who, according to the testimony of Dubravius, had sheltered themselves in those parts ever since the XII. Century, and that there were not only of these Waldenses at that time in Bohemia only, but also that there were great numbers of them in England, in Provence, the Valleys of Piedmont, and elsewhere. In the third place, that when the Council of Trent, in our Father's days, renewed and confirmed the Decree of Constance, touching the taking away the Cup from the Laity, and Clergy that did not officiate, yet it referred unto the Pope's disposing and power, to grant it unto those whom he should think fitting, and upon what conditions he should judge convenient, without insisting here upon the liberty our Kings have of Communicating under both kinds. In the fourth place, that since the Decree of the Council of Trent, an infinite number of persons of that same Communion, earnestly wished, that the use of the Cup which had been taken away, might be restored unto the people. Those which be any thing curious, may read what Cassander hath written, a man of the Communion of the Roman Church, and very intelligent in Ecclesiastical Antiquity; I say, in his Consultation, Art. 22. In his Defence of the Book touching the Duty of a Devout Man, page 864. and in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds; and the demand which Catherine de Medicis, Queen of France, caused to be made unto the Pope in the behalf of France, Anno 1561. as is related at large by Monsieur de Thou, 
Hist. Thuan. l. 27.  in his History. In fine, that the practice of all Christians is contrary to that of the Latins, because they all administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under both kinds, to wit, the Grecians, the Melchites or Assyrians, the Georgians, Circassians, and Mingrelians, the Muscovites, and Russians, the Nestorians, the Christians of S. Thomas in the Indies, before they turned to the Latins, which was but in the last Century hither did they renounce their belief or worship, to embrace the worship of the Latin Church, till the year 1599 the Jacobites, which are exceeding numerous, the Cophtites, or Christians in Egypt, the Abassins' under Prester John, who is one of the greatest Princes in the World, the Armenians; and in fine, the Maronites, until that they submitted themselves unto the Latin Church in Clement VIII. his time. It is certain, there is some difference in the manner of distributing the Sacrament under both kinds amongst these Christian Nations; for some of them put the Bread and Wine both together in a Spoon, as the Muscovites; others administer the Sacrament steeped, as the Armenians; if we may credit some persons; It is said, that the Greeks at this time do so, heretofore they distributed both kinds separately. In effect I see, that all agree that the Greeks give the Bread steeped. Therefore Humbert Cardinal of Blanoh-Selva, writing against the Calumnies of the Greeks in the XI. Century, said, That they put the Bread and Wine together, as we said the Muscovites do, who are of the Religion of the Greeks, taking them in a Spoon, which the Laity do at this time by relation of Gore, in his Notes upon the Euchology; but the Clergy receive both kinds separately. As for all the other Christians above mentioned, they Communicate under both kinds separately, unto whom we may join all the Protestant Christians; but so it is, that there is not any one Christian Communion in the whole World, excepting only the Latin, but believe that the use of both Symbols is necessary unto a lawful Communion, whatever difference there may be amongst them in the manner of administering of it. Now it is evident by what hath been said, that unto this Communion under both kinds, cannot be opposed that, called the Communion of the Laity by the Ancients, because that means nothing else, as the learned on both sides agree, but to communicate with the people, and not with the Clergy; for instance, when a Clergyman was degraded from his Office for some great sin, he was reduced to the degree of the common people, amongst whom he did communicate, and not with the Clergy, which is at this time practised amongst the Abyssins', and amongst the Protestants; but that makes nothing to the communicating under one kind, because the people participated of both kinds; Nor the peregrine Communion, whereof mention is made, but very seldom, in the Monuments which remain unto us of Antiquity; for all the certain knowledge we have of it, by reason of the few places that speak of it, is, that it regarded strangers who came from some other parts, unto some Church where they were admitted to receive the Sacrament; but after the manner that 'twas there celebrated, under both kinds. If this peregrine Communion may not better be understood of Clergymen which traveled from one Church to another without Attestations or Certificates, in which case they were civilly received by reason of their character, but without admitting them unto the Communion of Divine Mysteries, almost as S. Chrysostom served Ammonius, and Isidorus; which also administered unto Theophilus Bp. of Alexandria, a pretext for persecuting S. chrysostom; Nor that Believers were suffered to carry home unto their Houses the Bread of the Eucharist, to take it when they pleased: for besides, that it was an abuse which indeed was tolerated along time in the Church, but could be no prejudice unto the practice generally received, it may be observed, that those very persons which carried home with them the Bread of the Sacrament, did it not in all likelihood until after they had eaten part of it in the Assembly, and participated of the Cup of the Lord. Nor that there was given unto sick Folks at the point of Death, the Eucharist steeped, because it was a thing extraordinary, and that beside it was shown by this practice, that both Symbols were believed to be necessary, nor that the XI. Council of Toledo, permits the Cup only to be given unto those who are so weak, that they are not able to swallow down the consecrated Bread, unto whom Pope Paschal II. joins young Children, because this sufferance is grounded upon invincible necessity, as well as that which is practised by some Protestant Churches, towards those who have naturally such an aversion for Wine, that 'tis not in their power to surmount; in which cases, she dispenseth with the participation of the Cup, and is content to administer the Bread only.  
After what hath been hitherto spoken of the Communion under both kinds, I think it will be needless to add any more unto this History, which if I mistake not, I have written large enough to satisfy the curiosity of those who desire to be informed of what passed in the ancient Church, in the practice of so important a matter, as is that of the Communion of the holy Cup; not but that a great number of other testimonies may be alleged for the establishment of this Tradition; but when I consider that if the great number of passages doth not prejudice the matter which is examined, yet it proves tedious unto the Reader, when too large: I shall forbear alleging any more to avoid tiring those who shall give themselves the trouble of reading this Treatise; and I forbear the rather, that if they are persons who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, they will know of themselves without my help, that there be many others in the Works of Tertullian, of S. Ambrose, Gaudentius, S. Jerome, S. Austin, besides those related by Gratian in his Decree of Gregory the First, in the Roman Order, in the Books of Images, under the name of Charlemagne, in the Writings of Rabanus of Paschase, of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Fulbert of Chartres, Humbert of Blanch-Selva, of Lanfranc, Guilmond, Rupert de Duitz, Alger, S. Bernard, Odo Bishop of Cambray, of Lombard Master of the Sentences, and elsewhere; as for such as have not applied themselves to the reading the Holy Fathers, they may sufficiently inform themselves of what I have written, how Christians have from time to time governed themselves in the matter of communicating under both kinds. Therefore I shall content myself in touching a circumstance which I had almost forgotten, and which in all likelihood will not be displeasing unto any; it concerns a Chalice of Saint Remy Archbishop of Rheims; this Prelate who was so famous in our France, especially after he had Baptised Clovis the first of our Kings who embraced the Christian Religion: this Prelate I say, did Consecrate unto God a Cup to distribute the Communion unto the people, upon which he caused three Latin Verses to be ingraved, which are preserved unto our days, although the Chalice is not in being, the Church of Rheims having been constrained to melt it, and to pay it for their Ransom unto the Normans, above 700. years ago; and these Verses plainly show, that in S. Remy's time, that is, towards the end of the V Century, the people did not participate of the Bread of the Sacrament only, but also of the Cup of Benediction: Flodoard citys them in his History of the Church of Rheims, and I'll make no difficulty of representing them in this History, in the same stile in which they were written; 
Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro 
Flodoard. Histor. Remens'. l. 1. c. 10.   
Injecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus.  
Remigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos.  Now I say to conclude this Chapter, it appears plainly by all that hath been said, that the Christian Church universally practised the Communion under both kinds separately, the space of 1000 years; that since that time, they began in some places in the Latin Church, to administer the Sacrament mixed, or steeped; from the Eucharist steeped, they came in process of time to distribute the consecrated Bread only, not in all places, but in some Churches, until that the Council of Constance, in the Year 1415. commanded by a public Decree, the Communion to be given under one kind only, which yet was not so generally obeyed, but that we have produced since that time, examples and instances of a contrary practice. But in fine, the Council of Trent made its last Essay in the manner as hath been above declared; as for all the other Christian Churches which hold no commerce with the Latin, they administer the Sacrament under both Symbols, although it be with some little difference.   

CHAP. XIII.  
The Eucharist received with the hand.  
BUT because it is not sufficient to know the things which were distributed unto Communicants, if we do not at the same time know the manner they were received by Believers; I think fit to employ this Chapter in the inquiry of this Custom and Practice. When Jesus Christ celebrated and instituted his first Sacrament, he said unto his Disciples, Take; the Greek word used by him in this place imports, to take with the hand, or receive with the hand what is given; accordingly the ancient Christians which succeeded the Age of Jesus Christ and his Apostles did in the very same manner; and it is certain, that all the Communicants generally received with the hand in the Church, the Sacrament of the Eucharist; so Tertullian teacheth us in his Treatise of Idolatry, where showing, that it is not lawful for a Christian Workman to make Idols, that is to say, Images of false Gods, he expresseth his anger against any amongst the Christians, 
Tertul. de Idol. c. 7.  Who come (saith he) from making Idols, to Church, who lifteth up unto God the Father, the hands which are the makers of Idols; 
Id. de Coron. c. 3.  And in fine which stretcheth forth those hands to receive the Body of the Lord, who gave Bodies unto Devils. And elsewhere, We receive the Eucharist from no other hand but from his who doth preside; 
Id. de Orat. c. 14.  And in his Book of Prayer, Having (saith he) received the Body of the Lord and kept it. Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the Second Century wherein he lived, teacheth us, that there were certain Priests who did not distribute the Sacrament unto Communicants, but permitted each one that approached unto the holy Table to take it. 
Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 271. Apud. Cassand. in Liturg. c. 31.  Some (saith he) having divided the Eucharist according to the usual manner, suffered each one of the people to take part of it. Cardinal Cajetan, was of opinion, that Jesus Christ did after the same manner, and that the Primitive Church Religiously followed his example; and it is at this time the manner of Communicating amongst the Protestants in Holland: yet this is still receiving the Sacrament with the hand; which was observed in S. Cyprians time, 
Cyprian. Ep. 56.  that is to say, in the Third Century, as appears by these words, Let us arm the right hand with the Spiritual Sword, that it may courageously reject wicked Sacrifices, being mindful of the Eucharist, and that which receives the Body of the Lord, might afterwards embrace Christ himself, that hand which is to receive the price of immortal Crowns. So it is that Mr. Rigaut hath in his Notes corrected this passage, by the Manuscript Copies of the Vatican. And again, 
Id. de laps. p. 175.  He that is fallen, threatens those which stand; those which are wounded, them which are not; and the sacrilegious Person is offended at the Priests, because he doth not presently receive the Body of Christ with defiled hands, or that he drinks not the Blood of the Lord with an impure mouth. And in another Treatise, where he teacheth that the works of the flesh are overcome by means of patience; 
Id. de bono patient. p. 226.  Let patience (saith he) be strong and well rooted in the heart, that the sanctified Body and Temple of God, defile not itself by Adultery, and that the hand, after having received the Eucharist, defile not itself with the Sword and Bloodshedding. Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, contemporary with St. Cyprian, also showeth plainly that it was so practised in the Church of Rome, when writing unto Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, he tells him that Novatian the Heretic, made those who came unto him to receive the Communion, to swear that they would be of his party; 
Apud Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 43. Vales.  After he had made the Oblations (saith he) and that he had distributed and given unto every one, part of the Sacrament, he constrained these wretches to swear unto him, instead of the benediction and Prayers, taking with both his hands, the hands of him who received, and letting them not lose, till they had engaged unto him by Oath. We have again in the same Eusebius, another example of this use and custom about the same time which Cornelius wrote, for we there find, that Denys Bishop of Alexandria writing unto Sixtus Bishop of Rome, speaks unto him of a Brother, that is to say, a Believer, who had lived a great while in the Church after he had entered into its Communion, and forsaken the Heretics amongst whom he had been Baptised; and amongst many things which he saith, he observes this circumstance, That he presented himself at the holy Table; 
Ibid. l. 7. c. 3.  that he had stretched out his hands to receive this holy nourishment; that he had received it, and that he had been a great while partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was unto this custom doubtless, that Gregory Nazianzen had respect, when he said of Julian the Apostate, 
Greg. Nazian. orat. 1. in Jul. p. 70.  He pollutes his hands, to the end there should remain nothing of the unbloody Sacrifice, whereby we communicate of Jesus Christ, of his sufferings, and of his Divinity: The Abbot of Billy, one of the Scholiasticks of Gregory, subscribes thereunto, and observes upon the place, That almost all the Ancients, after Turtullian, testify, that anciently, the Eucharist was given into the people's hand. And in the funeral Oration of Gorgonia his Sister, he sufficiently teacheth the same, when he saith, That her hand had hid some of the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of 
Id. orat. 11. p. 187.  Jesus Christ. St. Basil his intimate friend, deposeth in favour of this same practice about the end of the V Century; 
Basil. Ep. 289. t. 3.  In the Church, (saith he) the Priest gives one part, (that is, of the Sacrament) and he which receiveth it, keeps it with all freedom, and so bears it with his own hand to his mouth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem suffers us not to make any question of it when he speaks of receiving the Body of Jesus Christ in the hollow of the hand, and that he warns the Communicant, 
Cyril. Hieros'. Mystag. 5. Ambros. Hex. l. 6. p. 103. t. 1. id. de el. & jejun. c. 10. Chrysost. ad Pop. Antioch. Hom. 21. t. 1. p. 266.  That he take care that he lose none of it, and that not a crumb of it, fall or be lost; And St. Ambrose, doth he not say, That the hand is that whereby we receive the heavenly Sacraments? And elsewhere he declares that we receive the Sacraments at the Altar. St. Chrysostom, who died the in beginning of the V Century, gives us several proofs of this ancient custom; Consider (saith he,) what you receive with the hand, and be not so inconsiderate as to strike any Body; and after having honoured it with so great a gift, do not dishonour it in employing it to strike: consider what 'tis you receive with the hand, and keep it free from all covetousness, etc. Think that not only you receive it with the hand, but also that you put it unto the mouth. 
Id. Hom. de simult. p. 285.  And in the same Tome, See here, I preach, I conjure, I warn with a loud voice, that he who hath an Enemy, should not approach unto the Holy Table, and that he should not receive the Body of Jesus Christ. 
Id. in Seraph. p. 891.  And in the third Tome, The Seraphin durst not touch it with his hand, but with the Tongues; and you, you receive him with the hand. It is unto this time, must be referred what Sozom●n the Historian hath left us upon Record, of the Woman which being of the Sect of Macedonius, who denied the Divinity of the holy Ghost, went through complaisance to her Husband, who had quitted this Sect by the powerful Sermons of St Chrysostom, 
Sozom. hist. l. 8. c. 5.  unto the Church of the Catholics, and disposed herself to communicate with them; but he saith, That retaining what she had received, she bowed herself as if she would have prayed, and that at the same instant her maid who was there with her, gave her privately what she had in her hand, and that she had brought along with her; but she had it no sooner between her teeth, but it became a stone. Unto the same purpose may be applied what St. 
Apud Theodoret. Hist. l. 5. c. 17. Isid. Pelus. l. 5. Ep. ult.  Ambrose said unto the great Theodosius, after the severe vengeance which he used against the inhabitants of Thessalonica; and St. Isidore of Damiette reproacheth a Priest called Zosimus, that Believers rather chose to abstain from the Communion, than receive it from his impure hands. In a Council at Saragosse in Spain, 
T. 1. Concil. p. 684. Ib. p. 739.  assembled Anno 380. there is a Canon against those who received the Eucharist, and did not eat it, an Ordinance which is found to be renewed in the fourteenth Canon of the Council of Toledo in the year four hundred, upon which Canon, 
Page. 47.  Garsias Loaysa, a Spaniard, observes, That anciently the Church was wont to give the Eucharist unto Believers in their hand; and he proves, it by several testimonies, some whereof we have already cited. The prohibition made by a Council of Carthage Anno 419. of giving the Eucharist unto dead Bodies, doth no less justify this practice, because the Fathers allege for a reason, that it is written; 
Can. 18. in Cod. Afric.  Take, eat; and that dead Bodies can neither take nor eat. St. Austin, who was present at this Council, intended not to departed from this use; for writing against the Donatist Petilian, 
Contra Petil. l. 2. c. 23. t. 7.  he saith unto him, When you celebrated the Sacraments, unto whom did you give the kiss of Charity? into whose hand did you give the Sacrament, and unto whom at your turn, reached you out the hand to receive it of him that gave it? Hitherto Communicants received the Eucharist with the naked hand, but in this V Century, there began some difference to be made betwixt Men and Women; so that in some places, the Women were obliged to receive the Sacrament with the hand indeed, 
Serm. 252. de temp. t. 10.  but upon it a clean Linen-cloth. The Men, saith St. Austin, when they desire to communicate, wash their hands, and the Women present clean , whereon they receive the Body of Christ. A Diocesan Synod of Auxerr, assembled Anno 578. by Aunacharius the Bishop of that See, calls the Linen-cloth used by the Women to receive the Sacrament, The Dominical; That each Woman, saith the 42. Canon, 
T. 1. Concil. Gall. Sirmond.  when she communicates, have her Dominical; and if there be any which hath it not, let her not receive until the next Lord's day. And in the 36. Canon it made this Decree, A Woman is not permitted to receive the Sacrament with her naked hand. But in a word, it was still received with the hand, seeing that a few years after this Synod of Auxerr, Cautin Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, saith unto Count Eulalius, by the report of Gregory of Tours, in his History, 
Hist. l. 10. c. 8.  Take the part of the Sacrament, and put it into your mouth. Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals, attributes unto Maximus, who lived about the year of our Lord 650. and whom he styles defender of the Catholic verity, against the Monothelites, the same words but now alleged of St. Augustine's, or very near them, 
Apud Baronium Annal. Eccl. add an. 57 n. 148.  That all men who desire to communicate, do first wash their hands, to the end that with a clear understanding and purified conscience, they may receive the Sacraments of Christ; That the Women also present clean , whereon they receive the Body of Christ with a pure understanding and a clear conscience. Nevertheless the VI Universal Council assembled Anno 681. made a certain number of Canons ten years after, that is, in the year 691. in one of which it expressly prohibits receiving the Sacrament any other way but with the hand only, and blames all those who employ any thing else for this use; and because this Canon is none of the worst Monuments of Antiquity, we will make no scruple of inserting it here at large; 
Can. 101. T. 5. Concil. p. 349.  The Apostle St. Paul doth boldly call man created after the image of God, the Body and Temple of Christ; he than that is above any sensible Creature, hath obtained a Heavenly Dignity by the saving passion, eating or drinking Jesus Christ, is absolutely disposed and fitted for eternal life, and partaketh of Divine grace, being sanctified both in Body and Soul. Therefore if any desire to participate of the immaculate Body, and will present himself at the Communion in the Assembly, let him put his hands in form of a Cross, and so draw near and receive the Communion of Love; as for those, who instead of the hand, make use of Vessels of Gold, or of any other matter, to receive the Divine Gift, and who therein receive the immaculate Communion, we do by no means admit them, because they prefer an inanimate thing, and which is inferior unto them, before the Image of God: if any one therefore be taken giving the blessed Communion unto such as bring such Vessels, let him be Excommunicated, with him that brings them.  
We are then come unto the end of the VII. Century, wherein the custom of receiving the Eucharist with the hand continued, without any other alteration, than what hath been mentioned, either with the linen , with which the Women in the V Century, were obliged, in some places, to receive the Communion; at least, if the Sermon above cited in S. Austin's name, be his, which is not over certain, in which case, we must descend towards the end of the VI Century, and besides, not pass the limits of the Diocese of Auxerr; or of those little Vessels forbidden by the VI Ecumenical Council, establishing the ancient use of receiving the Sacrament with the hand only. And I do not see that the Roman Catholics, 
Ad an. 57 n. 147, 148.  or the Protestants, do deny it; for Cardinal Baronius in his Annals, the Friar Combefis in his Augmentation of the Library of the Holy Fathers; Gabriel de Laubespine Bishop of Orleans, 
T. 2. p. 1014. L. 1. obser. 16.  a very learned Prelate in the Discipline of the ancient Church, in his Ecclesiastical Observations; the famous Monsieur Arnold, in his excellent Book of frequent Communicating; 
Part. 1. p. 265. P●g. 403. Pag. 747.  and the Abbot of Billy, upon Gregory Nazianzen's first Oration against Julian the Apostate; and Garsias Loaysa, upon the 14. Canon of the first Council of Toledo, in the first Tome of the Councils of the last Edition at Paris; all those I say, and others also concur herein with the Protestants. It is true, Baronius and Combesis observe, that this custom continued longer in the Eastern Church; which I do not judge aught absolutely to be denied: but the better to follow its traces in the Western Church, it will be requisite further to survey what remains to be seen in the Latin World. The XI. Council of Toledo, Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon, doth explain the XIV. 
Council Tolet. 11. can. 11.  Canon of the first Council of the same place, Against those who having received the Eucharist did not ' eat it. And the XVI. Council in the sixth Canon Anno 693. 
Concil. Tolet. 16. c●n. 6.  alleging against some Priests who made a little round crust for the Communion, the example of Jesus Christ, sufficiently gives to understand, that they intended that example should inviolably be kept: now it declares two several times, That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Leaf, and broken it in blessing it, gave it by parcels unto each of his Disciples. Yet I will not deny, but that I have observed in the Seventh Century, examples of the Sacrament being put into the mouth of Communicants, but upon occasions that, as I suppose, are not to be insisted upon. In the Appendix of the fifth Tome of de Achery's Collection, is seen the life of S. Magnobode Bishop of Angers, which is supposed to be written by one that lived at that time: and as these sorts of Lives are full of Miracles, which those should have done whose actions are to be written; amongst several attributed unto S. Magnobode, there is mention first made of a certain blind person, that being drawn by the great reputation of this Bishop, came unto him as he was celebrating Divine Service, desiring him earnestly and with a loud voice, to restore him his sight; this Prelate being touched with his complaints, prayed for his recovery, and having ended the office of the Mass, He put (saith the Author) into his mouth, with the Benediction, 
Vita Magnob. c. 9 Append. t. 5. Spicileg. p. 137.  the perception of the holy Body. Secondly, there is mention of a young Maid of Quality at Rome, who being for three years' space, exceedingly afflicted with a most grievous Fever, which all men thought incurable; she with tears desired to be carried to the man of God, Magnobode, whose Miracles had already been noised abroad, which her Parents resolved to do, and carried her to Angers, where they found him at the same Exercise that the blind man above mentioned had done, whom he restored to sight; so that understanding the cause of so great a Journey. 
Ibid. c. 5. p. 141.  He received them courteously, and put into the little Maid's mouth the Mystery, or the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord, which he handled with his holy hands. It is evident, if I mistake not, that these two occasions were extraordinary, either if the persons be considered, on whom these two Miraculous Recoveries were made; or if the exercise wherein they found this Prelate be considered: so that there can no consequence be drawn, for the practice of putting the Sacrament in the mouth of Communicants. In the Life of S. Eloy Bishop of Noyon, which is in the same Tome of Dom Luke de Achery's Collection, and who lived also in the Seventh Century; it appears, that this Bishop forbids amongst other things, to sing the Songs of Pagans, and he gives this reason. 
T. 7. Spi●● 217.  That it is not just they should proceed out of the mouth of Christians, wherein is put the Sacrament of Christ. But the Sacrament being there put either by him that celebrates, or him that communicates; and moreover, the custom confirmed by the Decree of an universal Council, in the year 691. requiring Communicants to receive it with the hand, and that they should themselves put it in their mouth, it cannot be reasonably thought, these words of S. Eloy make any thing against the commonly received practice. In fine, at the end of the Seventh Century, it was received with the hand in England, which then related unto the Latin State, wherein we travel; for venerable Bede tells us of a certain man called Caedmon, who having passed most of his life as a Secular, and without holy Orders, at last became a Friar at the request of an Abbess. This man falling sick, 
Bed. Hist. Angl. l. 4. c. 24.  and finding his death at hand, desired the Sacrament might be brought, And having received it in his hand (saith the Historian) he asked if they were all in Charity with him. Since that time there began to appear in the West, but not suddenly, some alteration in this ancient custom, but without abolishing it quite; for in the Book of the Roman Order, written as some imagine, in the Ninth, or the end of the Eighth Century, or as others suppose in the Eleventh, which I conceive to be the most likely, in the Chapter of the Order of Procession, if sometimes the Bishop please to celebrate Mass on Holy days, there it may be seen, that the Priests and Deacons receive the Communion with the hand, and the subdeacons with the mouth: 
Ordo Rom. Bibl. Pat. t. 10. p. 10. ult. edit.  That the Priests and Deacons in kissing the Bishop, receive of him with their hands, the Body of Christ, but the subdeacons in kissing the Bishop's hand, let them receive from him the Body of Christ in their mouth. And Hugh Maynard, in his Notes upon the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the Great, alleges something of this Nature, touching the Priests and Deacons, relating to the Mass of Illyrica, 
Pag. 383.  written, as Maynard conjectures, a little before the beginning of the Eleventh Century, that is, towards the end of the Tenth; he calls it the Mass of Illyria, because it was taken out of the Palatinate Library, 
Pag. 380.  and published by Mathias Illyricus, a Protestant Lutheran. Of this Mass, this Benedictine Friar citys these words, 
Pag. 390.  Then the Priests and Deacons receiving the Body in their hands, it is said unto each of the Communicants, Peace be with you. But it must not be imagined, that this manner of Communicating, was peculiar unto Priests and Deacons, to the utter exclusion of other Communicants, at least in the Ninth Century; for we have been informed by Reginon's Chronicle, that in the year 869. Pope Adrian the Second at Rome itself, gave the Communion unto King Lothair, and that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of our Lord: 
Regin. in Chron. ad an. 869.  which is also to be concluded of all those which attended him, unto whom the Pope administered the Sacrament. I shall then make no difficulty to believe, that what the Roman Order speaks of subdeacons communicating with the mouth, was done by reason of the solemnity of the day, on these occasions, to distinguish betwixt the subdeacons, and the Priests and Deacons, who are superior unto them; besides, that this distinction began not to be made until before the Eleventh Century. But in fine, if we enter in the Tenth Century, we shall find it something divided concerning this custom. Ratherius, Bishop of Verona, died in the year 974. in what we have resting of his works, there may be seen the two ways of receiving the Sacrament, with the hand and with the mouth; in the second Sermon of Easter, he speaks thus, But O sadness! 
T. 2. Spicileg. p. 314.  I have seen some sleight this Council, and would to God it were not such as ought to give example unto others, that they continually lay snares to destroy even him who puts the consecrated Bread in their mouths, saying, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ profit you unto eternal life. But in the following page, see here what he saith, 
Ibid. p. 315.  If they had seriously thought on these things, they would at least have avoided receiving holy things from the hand of him whom they hated, fearing lest they should so openly have imitated Judas. And in the third Sermon, he allegeth these words of the seventy seventh, 
Ibid. p. 316.  and according to the Hebrews, the seventy eighth Psalm, The meat was still in their mouth, and the anger of God waxed hot against them; And he continues, It is because Satan who of a long time possessed them by a most wicked and evil intention, entered into them by an evil operation, after the Morsel, as if they had heard say by him that gave them the Morsel, What thou dost, do quickly. 
Ibid. p. 317.  And in the same Sermon, When I gave unto them who were such, the sacred Morsel with the hand, which they wished cut off. And in the first Sermon of the Ascension, If before we come to speak of his Judgement, 
Ibid. p. 325.  we truly accuse ourselves, with what neglect and carelessness do we Consecrate the Bread which we are to distribute or present. Methinks, from all this it may be concluded, that in the Tenth Century, they began in some places to introduce the custom of putting the Sacrament in the mouth of Communicants; yet without blaming the ancient practice which required that it should be received with the hand, notwithstanding what is alleged by Regino, of a Council of Rovan, in Cassander, 
Apud. Cassand. in Liturg. p. 80.  and the Precedent Duranti in one of his Books of the Ceremonies of the Catholic Church, l. 1. cap. 16. n. 12. In fine, Molanus Doctor and Divine of Louvain, hath made a kind of Martyrology peculiar for the Saints of Flanders, that is, of the countries' formerly inhabited by the people of Belgia, and upon the 6th. of June, speaking of Norbert, Founder of the Order of the Premonstre, he relates this out of Robert du Mont, Continuator of Sigebert's Chronicle of the Year 1124. which is still to be seen: 
Supplem. Chron. Sigeb. ad an. 1184. Natal. Belg. p. 110.  Norbert preaching, the Men and Women being pricked at the heart, brought the Body of our Lord which, for ten Years and upwards, they had hid in Chests and corners; from which things, saith Molanus, Pontac in his Chronology doth conclude, That Christians at that time, did receive the Body of Christ with their hand. And in truth, Pontac, who was one of the most Learned men of his time, had reason so to judge, being necessarily inferred from the words of the Continuator of Sigebert. Those poor people, of whom he speaks, were seduced by a certain Heretic called Tanchelin, or as 'tis in the Edition I have, Tandem, who had persuaded the Inhabitants of Antwerp, which was a very populous City, That the participation of the Body of Jesus Christ, was not necessary unto Salvation; therefore they had hid in certain places, the Body of our Lord, until such time as they were disabused by Norbert, unto whom both Men and Women after ten years' time, and more, brought what each had hid: but in the main it appears, that in the Twelfth Century, Communicants received the Sacrament in their hand; for otherwise, those we speak of, could not have done what hath been mentioned, and I know not whether unto this purpose may not be referred the fifth Canon of the Council of Tholouse, Assembled in the Year of our Lord 1228. which ordains, 
T. 2. Spicil. p. 624.  That when any sick person hath received from the hand of the Priest the holy Communion, it should be carefully kept until the day of his death, or of his recovery, etc. For to take and receive, is an act of the hand, rather than of the mouth. However it be, we have justified by the Tradition of the Church from Age to Age, that even in the Western Church, Christians received the Sacrament with their hand until the Tenth Century, excepting, it may be, some particular occasion, which cannot prejudice the established Law, and generally received custom; that in the Tenth Century, they began to introduce in some places the custom of receiving with the mouth, without condemning the other practice, which required it to be received with the hand, whereof we have seen examples in the Twelfth Century, and even in the Thirteenth, which justifies, that the manner of receiving the Eucharist with the hand was ever practised in the West, ever since Christianity had been first established; because that before the Latin Church had abolished this custom, the Albigenses, and Waldenses, had separated themselves from its Communion, and carefully practised it amongst them, until the time the Protestants separated themselves, who continue to practise it at this time. As for the Greeks, James Goar, a Friar of the Order of preaching Friars, observes upon the Euchologie or Ritual of that Nation, 
In Euchol. p. 149. n. 170.  That the Priest or Bishop gives the holy Eucharist into the hand, according to the ancient practice. And he represents the gesture wherein the Clergy set their hands to communicate, which is almost the same required by S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and, 300. years after him, the Council in Trullo; which was common also unto the people, a long time, as well as to the Clergy: but at present, saith the same Gore in the same place, The Laity receive the Bread and Wine together in a Spoon.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Of the Liberty of carrying home the Sacrament after having received it in the Church, and of carrying of it in Journeys and Voyages.  
UNto this ancient custom of receiving the Sacrament with the hand, must be joined that of carrying it home to their house, and keeping it, after having received it. 
De Orat. c. 14.  Tertullian intimates it sufficiently when he speaks of receiving the Body of our Lord, and keeping it; for although he speaks of keeping it to the end of the station only, nevertheless it was at every one's free choice to keep it longer if he pleased, or to carry it home along with him: and in another place in his Writings, he plainly establisheth this custom; for writing unto his Wife, and informing her of the inconveniencies which attend the Marriage of a Believing Woman unto an Infidel, 
Lib. 2. ad Ux. c. 5.  he saith unto her, The Husband will not know what you eat in private before any other Meat; and if he know 'tis Bread, will he not believe that 'tis that which is so called? 
Cypr. de laps. p. 176.  S. Cyprian also teacheth the same, when he saith, A certain Woman having endeavoured, with her unworthy hands, to open her Chest, where the holy thing of the Lord was, she was affrighted at the Fire which came out, so that she durst not touch it; and elsewhere, speaking of him that run to the Theatre and Shows of Pagans; 
Id. de Spect. p. 292.  Who (saith he) runs unto a Show, after having been dismissed, (that is to say, after the Celebration of Divine Service) and also carrieth along with him the Eucharist, according to the usual custom. Gregory of Nazianzen, speaking of a great Sickness of Gorgonia, 
Greg. Nazian. orat. 11. p. 187.  his Sister, If her hand (saith he) had not hid some part of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood. S. Basil, his intimate friend, tells us that was first begun during the time of persecution, and that this custom, which still continued in the Deserts amongst the Friars, and all over Egypt, amongst the People, was innocent, and deserved no reproof: They were constrained (saith he) during the times of persecution, 
Basil. Ep. 289. t. 3.  there being no Priest or 〈◊〉 inister, (that is to say, Deacon) to take the Communion with their own hands; and it would be superfluous to show that it was not a thing intolerable, because it was a thing which had been effectually confirmed by a long custom; for all those who lead a Monastic life in the Woods, where there is no Priest, having the Eucharist in their House, do receive it themselves: At Alexandria also, and over all Egypt, each one of the people hath most commonly the Sacrament in their Houses; for the Priest making at once the Sacrifice, and distributing it, he who receives it whole and entire at once, and who takes of it daily, aught to believe that he participates thereof as effectually as if he received it from the Priest's hand; for also in the Church the Priest gives one Portion, and he that receives it, keeps it with free liberty, and so with his hand puts it to his mouth; it is then the same thing, as to the virtue of it, if there be received from the hands of the Priest one Portion, or several Portions at once. It is collected out of S. Jerom to have been so practised at Rome in his time; for in his Apology unto Pammachius, 
Hieron. Ep. 50. c. 6.  for the Books which he had writ against Jovinian, he speaks in this manner, I know at Rome they have this custom, that Believers should daily receive the Body of Christ: which I neither approve nor condemn, for let every one judge as be pleases; but I arraign the Consciences of those who Communicate the same day that they have defiled themselves with Women, and who, according to Persius, wash themselves at night in the River; wherefore do they not dare to go towards the Martyrs? why do they not go into the Churches? Is Christ one thing in private, and another in public? What is not permitted in the Church, is not permitted at home: I also refer unto this custom what S. Austin saith of a believing Woman, 
Aug. oper. imperf. count. Jul. l. 3. c. 164.  That she madam a Plaster of the Eucharist, to put upon her Son's Eyes, who was naturally blind: It was in all likelihood of the Sacrament which she had kept. There is in the Tomes of the Councils a Council of Sarragossa, in Spain, of the 380th year of our Lord, 
Ad An. 57 n. 150.  but which Cardinal Baronius thinks was assembled in the days of Pope Hormisda, that is, in the beginning of the Sixth Century. In this Council there is a Canon found against those who having received the Sacrament in the Church, did not there eat it, 
T. 4. Conc. p. 684. ult. edit.  If it be proved that any one hath not eaten the Sacrament which he received in the Church, let him be Anathematised for ever; or as Garsias Loaysa hath it, those who receive the Sarrament in the Church, and do not there eat it, let them be Anathema: yet I would not assure that this Canon was made to abolish the custom of carrying home the Sacrament, and keeping it; for I find that the Eleventh Canon of the Council of Toledo, assembled Anno 675. explaining the Fourteenth Canon of the First Council of the same place, which had ordered the same which that of Sarragosa had: I find, I say, that this Council speaks against those who having received the Eucharist, threw it away through Infidelity. After all, the custom of keeping the Sacrament continued till the end of the Sixth Century, and haply to the beginning of the Seventh; for John Moschus, who 'tis thought lived about that time, 
C. 79. Bibl. Pat. t. 13. p. 1089. Continuat. Sigeberti.  relates in his Spiritual Field, That a certain believing Servant, having received the Sacrament on Holy-Thursday, wrapped it in a clean Cloth, and laid it up in his Cupboard. I know not whether what we have already said of the Inhabitants of Antwerp, may not be referred hereunto, where that numerous people did in the Twelfth Century hid the Eucharist in Chests and Holes, for several years together. And as Christians kept the Sacrament, so they also carried it with them in their Voyages, as appears by the History of Satyrus, 
Ambros. de obitu satire. t. 4. p. 315.  Brother to St. Ambrose, for being in great danger in a Storm at Sea, and being not yet Baptised, he desired one of the Company, who was Baptised, and who had the Sacrament along with him, to give him part of it, which he giving unto him, Satyrus took and bound what the Christian had given him of the Sacrament, 
Greg. I. Dialog. l. 3. c. 36.  in a Cloth, and tying it about his Neck, he cast himself into the Sea. Gregory the First, in his Dialogues, testifies almost the same of Maximian, Bishop of Syracuse, and of his Companions, Sailing in the Adriatic Sea, that is to say, that being in danger of Shipwreck, they received (saith he) the Body and Blood of the Redeemer. They must needs then carry along with them the Eucharist, and it must be noted that Maximian was not as yet Bishop, but Abbot of S. Gregory's Monastery Cardinal Baronius, in his Church-Annals, produceth an Example of the same custom in the Twelfth Century, in the time of Alexander the Third, and sheweth that it was practised in some places. He takes what he reports, from the Acts of the life of S. Laurence, Bishop of Dublin, 
Baron. ad an. 57 n. 151.  whence he citys these words, They discovered that four Priests went along with a great company of Men, who publicly carried the Eucharist with them, for a Viaticum, and for a certain Guide of the way, as was then the manner of many to do I will not here stand to examine if those Acts of the life of S. Laurence, Bishop of Dublin, are in their purity: I will only say, That Surius, from whom this famous Annalist hath borrowed what he relates in his Annals, is not wont to represent unto us, without alterations, those many things which he hath taken the pains to collect, although there is no Forgery in the matter now mentioned. 
Arcud. de concord. l. 3. c. 59   
Arcudius, a Greek Romanized, testifies, That the Monks among the Greeks carry the Eucharist with them in their Voyages. At this time, in the Communion of Rome, to carry home the Eucharist, 
De la penit. publs. part. 1. l. 1. c. 7. p. 94.  and keep it, would be an Act punishable (saith the learned Petau) and held for a Profanation of this Sacrament; and I do not see that any one can justly blame this Severity of the Latin Church, seeing they believe Transubstantiation, and that what is received at the Lords Table is the adorable Body of the Son of God, unto which a Sovereign respect is due: the Protestants themselves, who have not the same belief, would not suffer this abuse; and to say the truth, it were to expose this august Sacrament unto many indecencies, which must needs happen, if Communicants should be suffered to carry it home along with them, and keep it.   

CHAP. XV.  
The Sacrament sent unto such as were absent, unto the Sick, and that sometimes by the Laity.  
THE Sacrament of the Eucharist being a Sacrament of Communion, not only with Jesus Christ, but also with Believers, who find in this Divine Mystery a precious Earnest of the strict and intimate Union which they ought to have together: the primitive Christians, which were of one Heart and one Soul, never celebrated the Sacrament, but that they sent it unto such of their Brethren as could not be present in the Assembly at the time of Consecration; to the end that by the participation of the same Bread, it might appear they were but one Body with the rest. St. Justin Martyr teacheth so much when he saith, That the Deacon distributes unto every one of those who are present the consecrated Bread, and Wine mingled with Water, and that they should carry of it unto those that were absent; and accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyr St. 
Just. Mart. Apol. 1.  Lucian, one of the Priests of the Church of Antioch, who glorified God by suffering Death in the 311th year of our Lord, and the last of the Persecution of Dioclesian, That he celebrated the holy Sacrament in Prison, with many other Christians, who were detained for the Gospel sake, making his Breast serve for the mystical Table, the posture he was put in by the cruelty of his Persecutors not admitting him to do otherwise, and that after he had participated himself of the Sacrament, he sent of it unto those who were absent. I have mentioned this passage as it is related by Cardinal Baronius in his Annals, 
Apud Baron. ad ann. 311.9. S.  although neither Philostorgius, nor Nicephorus of Caliste, which mention this business, to the best of my remembrance, say any thing of this circumstance, but only that these Believers did visit him in Prison. Saint Irenaeus in Eusebius, tells us of a custom whereby the Bishops used to send the Eucharist unto each other, in token of peace and Communion, not considering the distance of place, and the Seas over which it was sometimes to pass; This holy man writing a Letter unto Pope Victor, who had Excommunicated the Churches of Asia, for celebrating Easter the fourteenth day of March; in this Letter he speaks thus to the Pope, 
〈…〉.  The Priests (saith he) which have been before you, do send the Sacrament unto Priests of the Churches that used that custom; And it appears, that was commonly done at the Feast of Easter, which the Council of Laodicea, prohibited by one of its Canons; 
Concil. Laod. c. 14.  The holy Sacrament must not be sent unto other Churches at the Feast of Easter, under the name of Eulogies. But so 'tis, that I find great difference betwixt what is said by Justin Martyr, and what is said by Irenaeus; the former speaketh of what was done towards the Members of the same Church, which could not be present in the Assembly with their Brethren, and unto whom was sent their share of the Sacrament at the time when it was celebrated in the Church; and the latter touched what was practised by the conductors of Christian Churches one towards another, but not at the very time of the Celebration of the Sacrament.  
But if the Sacrament was sent unto the absent, it was also sent unto sick Folks; It is true, great care must be taken in distinguishing betwixt sick Believers, and Penitents: by sick Believers is understood Christians Baptised, who had preserved the purity of their Baptism, or at lest who had not committed any of those sins which reduced those which were convict, into a state of Penance: and by Penitents, I mean such as after their Baptism were fallen into some great Sin, which made them liable unto the orders of the hard and painful Penance, which was observed in the first Ages of Christianity. As for the former, I find not, in what remains unto us of the three first Ages of the Christian Religion, any proof, that the Eucharist was given them at the hour of Death, this custom not appearing till afterwards; what Justin Martyr said, not properly regarding the Sick, but those that were absent, as is confessed by the learned Mr. 
In. c. 24. l. 5.  de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History: as for the latter, I mean the Penitents, as they were excluded out of the Communion of the Church, this good and tender Mother, feeling herself touched with compassion towards those of her Children which breathed after reconciliation and peace, used this charitable condescension for their consolation, that she commanded to absolve those of this Order, which were in danger of Death, and at the same time to give them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as a seal of this reconciliation, that they might departed this life full of joy and comfort. So it was practised by Denys Bishop of Alexandria in all the extent of his Diocese, as he testifies in Eusebius, where he saith, 
A●ud. Euseb. hinor. l. 6. c. 44.  That he had commanded to absolve those which were in danger of Death, if they desired it, and especially if they had already desired it before their sickness. There are to be seen in S. Cyprian's Epistles, who lived at the same time, several the like directions touching those which had fallen during the time of persecution: but because many were not mindful of desiring reconciliation with the Church, from whose Communion they had fallen by their Apostasy, until they were taken with some sickness which endangered their life; the first Council of Arles assembled Anno 314. 
Concil. Arclar. 1. c. 22.  forbids giving the Sacrament unto such as did so, unless they recovered their health, and did fruits worthy of repentance: But this itself shows that it was not refused unto any of those which being fallen, endeavoured to rise again by passing through the degrees of Penance, and that without deferring to the end of their life, ardently desired to be admitted into the peace of the Church. The Councils are full of Canons which direct the time and manner of absolving Penitents, which was inseparable from receiving of the Sacrament, which was given them as the last Viaticum, to assure them that they were reconciled unto God in their being so with the Church, which was accustomed to seal this reconciliation and peace in permitting them to participate of this Divine Mystery. But if I am demanded, Whether this practice of administering the Sacrament unto bedrid Penitents, and, after the third Century, unto other sick Folks at the time of death, doth not presuppose that the Eucharist was kept to the end it might be applied in these hasty necessities? to speak sincerely, I do not see there was any necessary consequence of one of these things unto the other; but that also I find no directions thereupon in the first Ages of Christianity, which makes me believe, they contented themselves then, in preparing, I mean in Blessing and Consecrating the Bread and Wine to make them the Body and Blood of the Lord, at such time as there was occasion to communicate any Bedrid dying persons. To allege, for refutation of the keeping the Sacrament, what is written in the XI. Century, by Cardinal Humbert of Blanch-Selva, against the Greeks, who reserved the gifts presanctified in Lent, were not in my Opinion to argue, but trifle; because it is certain that a long time before Humbert wrote against Nicetas, the Sacrament was kept in the Latin Church; it might with more reason be urged against keeping the acrament that the remainder of the Sacrament was in some Churches burnt, and in others it was eaten by little Children: but although this last custom continued a long time in our France, as shall appear in the following. Chapter, nevertheless I find from the time of Charelemain, that is to say, in the VIII. Century, formal directions for keeping the Sacrament; 
Capitul. l. 1. c. 161.  That the Priests (saith this Prince in his Capitularies) have always the Sacrament ready to communicate the Sick, whether Old or Young, to the end they should not die without the Sacrament. Since which time, several Ordinances are seen upon the same Subject; but before that time, I do not remember to have met with any, which nevertheless I do not say to assure positively that there were none before the time which I assign; but only to declare that I have not observed nor found any on the contrary in the Second decretal Epistle, which is attributed unto St. Clement, Disciple of the Apostles; about the same time, it is expressly forbidden, 
Ep. 2. Pseudo-Clem.  To keep till the next day any part of the Sacrament.  
But in fine, seeing it ought to be confessed that in the three first Centuries, the Sacrament was sent unto Bedrid dying Penitents, and afterwards unto Believers, in the same condition, It is requisite to inquire by whom it was sent, there is no doubt but for the most part they were Clergymen that carried it unto these sorts of Persons, yet nevertheless in such a manner, that they made no difficulty to ease themselves sometimes of this care, and to employ Lay Persons, young Boys, Men and Women, to carry it: in fine, Denys Bishop of Alexandria, relates in Eusebius the History of a certain Old Man called Serapion, who having Apostatised in the time of persecution, was excluded from the Communion of the Church, whereunto he could not be restored, notwithstanding his earnest entreaties to that purpose: but some time after being seized with a violent sickness, whereof he died, he sent one of his Daughter's Sons for a Priest, who being sick, sent him the Sacrament by the Child; He gave unto this Youth (saith Denys) some, 
Apud Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 44.  or a little of the Sacrament, commanding that it should be moistened, and to put it in the Old Man's mouth, that he might the easier swallow it down; his grand Child being returned, steeped it, and poured it into the sick Man's mouth, who having by little and little let it down, presently gave up the Ghost. So the Martyrology of Ado Bishop of Vienna, that of Bede, and the Roman, 
Ad. d. 15 Aug. Apud Baron. ad an. 260. §. 5.  as also the Acts of the life of Pope Stephen the First, testify, that during the Persecution of the Emperors Gallian and Valerian, Tharsitius, Acolyth of the Church of Rome, did carry the Sacraments of the Lords Body; and this custom need not seem strange unto us, if we consider the liberty which was for a long time given unto Christians, to carry the Sacrament home with them unto their houses, and keep it. In the life of Luke the younger, Anchoret, 
Combef. auct. Bibl Pat t. 2. Grac. l. p 986. cum 1014.  who lived in the X. Century, and which Father Combefis a Dominican hath published, at least some Copies, part of it; we find this Hermit having demanded of the Bishop of Corinth how such Persons as he was, that lived solitarily in the Deserts, might participate of the Sacrament, having no Priest nor Assemblies made in those places: I say we find, he suffered him and such as he was, to communicate themselves, although they were Lay Persons, and also prescribed after what manner they should do it. And Father Combefis in his Notes observes, 
Ib. p. 1014.  that the Bishop of Corinth was then in the Bishop of Rome's Diocese; is it to be thought any difficulty would have been made of intrusting the Sacrament unto Women, in those places where they were permitted to distribute the Sacraments in the Churches unto the people, as hath been before recited? There is in the VI Tome of the Councils, a Homily in the name of Pope Leo the Fourth, 
T. 6. Concil. p. 431.  who lived in the middle of the IX. Century, where Priests are forbidden to give the Sacrament unto Lay Persons, Men or Women, to be carried unto the sick. It cannot then be questioned, but the thing was practised to that time, and afterwards also; for 'tis certain, this Sermon is neither Leo the Fourth's, nor St. Vlrick's, as Gretser imagined; it is nothing else but a Synodical Letter of Ratherius Bishop of Verona unto his Priests: now this Ratherius died towards the end of the X. Century. Mr. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius, 
P. 138.  saith, That he hath lately been so informed: and we cannot doubt of it, because we have the Book itself by the care and industry of Dom Luke d'Achery, wherein we find this Decree, That no Body presume to give the Sacrament unto a Lay Person, 
T. 2. Spicileg. p. 261.  Man or Woman, to carry it unto the Sick. It must then be necessarily concluded, that it was so practised in sundry places, even in Italy and near Rome, until the end of the X. Century. The same Mr. de Valois observes upon the words of Denys Bishop of Alexandria above mentioned, 
P. 138.  That it was so practised a long time after; And he proves it by the Prohibition which Ratherius was obliged to give unto his Priests, who without scruple, committed the Eucharist into Lay Persons hands to be carried unto sick Folks; but because Ratherius was but a private Bishop, and that his power reached not beyond his Diocese, nothing hinders but it may be believed, it was also practised elsewhere since that time, at least we see the footsteps of that custom in France, very forward in the IX. 
T. 3. Concil. Gall p. 623.  Century, seeing Hincmar Archbishop of Rheimes doth prohibit it in his Capitularies, in the year. 852.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Sundry Customs and Practices touching the Sacrament.  
AMONGST several customs observed by the ancient Church touching the Eucharist, I find in the first place, that they made Plasters of it; for St. Austin makes mention of a Child which being born blind, by reason that the Eyelids were closed, and thereby deprived of sight, although the Eyes were full within; a Physician advising to open the Eyelids with an Iron instrument, 
Aug. Oper. Imperf. contr. Julian. l. 3. c. 164.  His pious Mother (saith he,) would not suffer it; but what the Physician would have done with his Lancet, she affected with a Plaster made of the Sacrament; the Child being then five years old or upwards, said that he remembered it very well.  
Secondly, the ancient Christians buried the Sacrament with their Dead. In the life of S. Basil which is commonly attributed unto Amphilochius Bishop of Iconia, his Contemporary, for they both flourished towards the end of the Fourth Century; there is an evident proof of this custom; the truth is, I would not absolutely engage that Amphilochius was Author of it: on the contrary, I take it to be forged and false, 
De Script. in an. 380.  and I find Cardinal Bellarmain of the same Opinion; but it is not only now it bears the name of Amphilochius, it was attributed unto him a long while since, although 'tis not easy precisely to know the time that he was supposed to be the Author of it. Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, 
Aen. Paris. t. 7. Spicileg. p. 80.  writing against the Greeks in the Ninth Century, allegeth something of this life, and even what relates unto the custom whereof we seek proofs; but he saith not that it was written by Amphilochius; he only saith, that what he doth allege may be read in the life of S. Basil Archbishop of Caesarea, which was faithfully Translated into Latin, word for word, by one called Euciumius: we read then in this life, That St. Basil dividing the Bread into three parts, took one, 
Vita. Basil. c. 8. in Vit. Pat. l. 1.  or as Aeneas reads it, that he communicated with great fear, and that he reserved the other to be buried with him; and that having put the third parcel upon a Golden Pigeon, he waved it upon the Altar, or as 'tis said afterwards, upon the holy Table. A Council of Carthage, assembled in the year 419. 
Cod. can. Eccles. Afric. just. 1. c. 18. T. 1. Concil. Gall. c. 12.  condemned this practice in one of its Canons, which is the Eighteenth in the Code of Canons of the Church of Africa; It hath been resolved, not to give the Eucharist unto dead Bodies; for it is written, Take and Eat; now dead Bodies can neither take nor eat: This custom still continued in our France in the Sixth Century, seeing that a Diocesan Synod of Auxerr, did prohibit it in the year 578. Gregory the first, in his Dialogues, relates the History of a young Youth that was a Friar, and that being gone out of the Monastery to see his Parents, without the Benediction, died the same day that he came home, and after he had been buried, next day the Body was found cast out of the Grave; and having again buried it, the same accident happened again: then the Friars speedily went unto S. Bennet, and prayed him with tears to show favour unto the deceased Party. 
Greg. 1. dialog. l. 2.  Unto whom (saith Gregory,) the Man of God, with his own hands gave the Communion of the Body of the Lord, saying, Go and lay this Body of the Lord with reverence, upon his Breast, and so bury him; which being done, the Earth received and retained his Body, and cast it out no more. Christians had not laid aside this practice at the end of the Eighth Century, which obliged the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in the year 691. to renew the Prohibition of that of Carthage, all which notwithstanding, hindered not the practice of it, as may be gathered from the life of St. Othmar in Surius: for Solomon, Bishop of Constance, having opened his grave above thirty four years after his death, 
Vita S. Othmar. apud Surium, an. 720. 16. Novemb. De off. Eccles. Lib. 4. c. 14.  found under his head and about his Breast, certain little bits of Bread of a round form, which were commonly called Olations, or Wafers, which the Bishop laid again with much veneration near the holy Body. Amalarius Fortunatus reports from Bede, that when St. Cuthbert was buried, they put the Eucharist (Oblata) upon his Breast; And Zonaras and Balsamon observe upon the eighty third Canon of the Council in Trullo, That until that time they interred the Eucharist with the Dead; And the latter doth even judge that it was so practised to drive away Devils, and to conduct the Believer strait unto Heaven.  
In the third place, there were Churches where they burned all that rested of the Communion, it was so practised in the Church of Jerusalem, as Hesychius one of its Priests doth testify, in his Commentaries upon Leviticus; 
Hesych. in Levitic. l. 2. c. 8.  in the Church of Constantinople, these remainders of the Sacrament were made to be eaten by young Scholars sent for on purpose from School, as Evagrius, who wrote his History at the end of the Sixth Century, doth relate; It was (saith he) an ancient custom in the Church of Constantinople, 
Evagr. hist. l. 4. c. 35.  that when several parcels of the immaculate Body of Christ our God remained, young Children were sent for from School, unto whom they were given to eat. In France almost the same thing was practised, but with a little more Ceremony, according to the Decree of the Second Council of Mascon, 
Concil. Matis. 2. c. 6. Epist. 2. Clem.  assembled in the year 585. And the Second Decretal attributed unto S. Clement, commands, that all should be consumed at the very time, without reserving any part until next day. In Spain, the VI Council of Toledo, Anno 693. leaves it unto the Liberty of the Churches, either to keep these remainders, or to eat them; and because if the loaf of the Communion had been too big for the number of Communicants of each Church, the remainder, by reason of the too great quantity, might have oppressed the stomach of those that eat it; the Fathers of the Council, to prevent this inconvenience, commanded to offer, Middling Oblations, 
Concil. Tolet. 16. c. 6.  according to the use of the ancient Ecclesiastical practice, the remainders whereof may be eat without prejudicing the health of them that eat it. But from Spain we must return into our France, there to see the continuation of this practice in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries; and to this end, let us examine witnesses which Dom Luke d'Achery hath given us; those are the ancient customs of the Monastery of Clunie written at the end of the Eleventh Century, although that Congregation was founded at the beginning of the Tenth. It appears by these customs, that there were times wherein they caused to be eaten at the very instant, in this famous Congregation, all that remained after Communion; which its true, was not practised when these customs were written, that is to say, towards the end of the Eleventh Century, although the Author doth confess, that it was generally practised in all other Churches. 
Antiq. consuetud. Cluniac. monast. l. 1. c. 13. t. 4. Spicil. Dach. p. 58.  Heretofore (saith he) so much care was taken, that after all had Communicated, the Priests themselves, or as 'tis in the Margin, the Priors, who had brought whereof to communicate, did with a great deal of precaution and respect, eat all that did remain, without keeping any part of it till next day; And I do not know; that any other custom is used generally in all other Churches, the which is not much here regarded at present, but what remains after the Communion is kept. We might, it may be, have referred unto this custom, what is said in the Eighth Book of Apostolical Constitution, chap. 13. and what is mentioned by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, in his Canonical Letter, in the Seventh Canon; but because these two places may admit of another interpretation, we forbear citing them, the custom now in question being already sufficiently confirmed.  
In the Fourth place, the Ancients made no difficulty sometimes to take consecrated Wine, and mingle it with Ink, afterwards dip their Pens in these two mingled Liquors, the more authentically to sign what they intended to sign; thus it was done by Pope Theodorus in the VII. Century, to sign the condemnation and deposition of Pyrrhus a Monothelite, as is testified by Theophanes in Baronius; Pyrrhus (saith he) having left Rome, 
Apud Baron, an. 648. §. 15.  and being arrived at Ravenna, returned like the Dog unto his Vomit; which Pope Theodorus understanding, he assembled the whole Church, and went unto the Sepulchre of the chief of the Apostles, and ask for the holy Cup, he poured the quickening Blood into the Ink, and so with his own hand, signed the deposition of Pyrrhus, who had been excommunicated. So it was also done by the eighth Council of Constantinople, assembled against Photius, 
In anteact. Synod. t. 6. Concil. p. 896.  in the year 869. For the Bishops subscribed the deposition of Photius, with Pens dipped not in Ink only, but in the Blood of Christ itself. See here two remarkable instances which were usually produced to prove this fourth Observation: but beside these two, we have a third, which is no less considerable, we are obliged for it to Monsieur de Baluze, and he unto Monsieur de Masnau, Counsellor in the Parliament of Tholouse, because he furnished it him, having taken it out of an Historian, called Odo Aribert, who relating the Voyage of Charles the Bald unto Tholouse, in the year 844 observes amongst other things, that being there, he sent for Bernard Count of Barcelona, under a pretence of receiving him into his favour, but indeed with a design to kill him, which he did; but Bernard did not proceed on his Journey till there was a treaty betwixt Charles and him; 
Odo Aribert. edit. in not. Baluz. ad Agobard. p. 129.  And after the peace had been confirmed, and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count, with the Blood of the Sacrament. To conclude, there may be added unto all these customs, the practice of the Greek Church, which mingles hot Water with the Wine of the Sacrament after Consecration, and just at the instant of Communicating; as we find by their Ritual, by Germane Patriarch of Constantinople, Cabasilas, Simon of Thessalonica, Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, and several others; and those who desire to see the Mystical reasons of this mixture, 
Gore in Eucholog. p. 148. n. 166, 167.  may only read what James Goar hath written in his Notes upon the Enchology of the Nation for we may finish this first part, having exactly inquired (if I mistake not,) into all things which relate unto the exterior worship of the Sacrament. But because as the actions of Jesus Celebrating, and those of his Disciples Communicating, have served as a Model unto this Celebration, although in process of time enriched with sundry Ceremonies, which were not practised at the beginning: So also his words, being the foundation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, having given the first part of this work unto the outward form of Celebration, we shall employ the Second, in the examination of the Doctrine; and 'tis what we shall set about with God's permission.   
The end of the first Part.   

THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST.  
PART II. Containing the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers.  
THOSE which travel into strange Countries, if they are any thing curious, fail not taking notice of the Things which they judge most considerable and worthy their Observation: It is true, all are not alike disposed, some regard only their own private Satisfaction, and look no farther; but there be others, which undertaking these long and painful Voyages, make as it were a kind of Journal, wherein they exactly set down all things which deserve to be known; and being returned home, they digest and communicate them unto others; who without stirring out of their Closet, or running any Danger, see what is most curious and remarkable in all Countries and Parts of the World. And certainly all Men are obliged unto those Persons, which are so good and charitable, as to expose themselves unto a thousand Dangers and Inconveniences to inform and instruct us. This is in some sort the case of those, which undertake to travel into the Countries of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, which is of a vast extent, having no other Limits than those of the whole Universe, as well as the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (unto whom the heavenly Father hath given all Nations for his Heritage, and the Earth for his Possession;) there are in this Country a multitude of different Climates, very many considerable Rarities, worthy the Curiosity of Christians: but all which engage in these Voyages, are not of a humour to take pains for the Public; they keep themselves close and private, and aiming only at their own particular Satisfaction, they trouble themselves not much for others; so that were there only such Persons which launched forth to visit this large Empire, we should neither be more learned, nor better instructed. But the Providence of God, which is always vigilant for the good of Mankind, puts it into the Heart of several to undertake this great Voyage, with a Resolution and Design of communicating, what they have observed, unto the Public, that it may serve for the Instruction and Consolation of Christians. It's true some indeed discharge their Duty better than others, thereafter as God is pleased to distribute his Gifts and Graces; but every one should and ought with all diligence and fidelity to contribute his Endeavours, and improve the Talon which our Lord hath committed unto his trust. This is what I have endeavoured to do hitherto, and which I intent to do for the time to come, if it be not with all the Delight and Ornament the Reader could wish, at least it shall be with all the Sincerity which can be expected from one, who believes to have well bestowed his Labour and Pains, if his Endeavours would create in the Minds of Christians, divided by various Opinions in Religion, more tender Inclinations of Love and Charity, and greater Desires unto Peace and Concord. We have already seen all that relates unto the outward Form of the Celebration of the Sacrament, with the Alterations thereunto happened in succession of time: now we must endeavour to discover what hath been believed of this Mystery in this large and spacious Country; but to do it the more orderly, and to show with more ease and clearness the History of the Innovations which have happened as well in the Expressions, as in the Doctrine, we will extend our Proofs; as to the Expressions, but unto the seventh and eighth Centuries, at which time they suffered some Attempt; and as to the Doctrine, unto the ninth, supposing it received some Alteration in the beginning of that Age.  

CHAP. I.  
The Reflections made by the Fathers upon the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament.  
THE holy Fathers had so great a Love for Jesus Christ, and Veneration for all his Institutions, that they took a singular pleasure in meditating upon this great Mystery, and in making divers Reflections upon this divine Institution. Our Lord said of the Bread which he had taken, which he blessed, and which he broke, That it was his Body; and of the Wine, that it was his Blood. The ancient Doctors of the Church considering this Expression of the Son of God, have declared with a common Consent, and as it were united Suffrages, that Jesus Christ called the Bread and Wine, his Body and his Blood: Our Lord, said St. Irenaeus, 
Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Tatian. tom. 7. Bibl. Patr.  has assured that the Bread was his Body. Tatian in his Harmony upon the Evangelists saith: That he testified that the Bread, and the Cup of Wine, were his Body and Blood. Tertullian, 
Tertul. l. 5. contr. Jud. c. 11. & l. 5. Carm. count. Marc. Origen. in Matth. Hom. 35. Cyprian. Ep. 75. ad Magn.  That he called the Bread his Body, and that he said of the Bread, and of the Fruit of the Vine, This is my Body, and my Blood poured out. Origen in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew: That he confessed the Bread was his Body. And the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian: That he called his Body, the Bread which was made of the collection of several Grains. The Author of the Commentaries upon the Evangelists, which go in the Name of Theophilus of Antioch, though 'tis not certain whether they be his, for all they are attributed unto him in the Library of the Fathers, this Author, I say, has expressed his thoughts almost as St. Cyprian had done, saying: That Jesus Christ called his Body, 
Theophil. Antioch. in Matth.  the Bread which is made of the collection of divers Grains; and his Blood, the Wine which is pressed out of several Grapes: and this he saith in explaining the Words of the Institution of the Sacrament, This is my Body, this is the Cup of my Blood. Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestin, had no other meaning I think, when he said: 
Euseb. Dem. lib. 8.  That the Lord commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol of his Body. Nor St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in these Words: 
Cyrill. High of. Mystag. 4.  Our Lord spoke and said of the Bread, This is my Body. Nor the Poet Juvencus, when he declares: 
Juvenc. l. 4. de Evang. Hist.  That our Saviour giving the Bread unto his Disciples, taught them, that he gave them his Body. Nor in fine an unknown Author in the Works of St. Athanasius, which saith: 
De Dict. & Interp. Parab. 9.72.  That our Lord called the Mystical Wine his Blood. St. Epiphanius hindered by the Scruple which the Fathers made of calling the Symbols of the Eucharist Bread and Wine, contented himself to intimate unto us, that Jesus Christ did assimilate his Body unto a Subject round as to its Form, 
Epiphan. in Anchor.  and without sense as to its Power, having no manner of resemblance unto the incarnate Image, nor with the proportion of Members. 
Gaudent. tract. 2. in Exod.  St. Gaudentius observes, that our Lord, in giving the consecrated Bread and Wine unto the Disciples, said: This is my Body, this is my Blood. It is also the Observation of the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who makes Christ say of the Bread which he broke, 
Const. Apost. lib. 8. c. 12.  and gave unto his Disciples, This is the Mystery of the New Testament, Take, eat, this is my Body. St. chrysostom is no less clear: 
Chrysost. in 1 Co. Hom. 24. Hieron. cp. 4 ad Hidib. 92.  What is the Bread? saith he, it is the Body of Jesus Christ. St. Jerome also follows the same way, seeing he assures, That the Bread which our Lord broke, and gave unto his Disciples, was his Body, and the Cup, his Blood; and that he proves it by these Words, This is my Body. St. Austin in the Sermon unto the new baptised, 
August. apud Fulgen. de Baptis. Aeth. cap. vet. Cyril. l. 12. in Joar. 20.26, 27.  saith expressly: That the Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Cup is the Blood of Christ. St. cyril of Alexandria was doubtless of the same mind, for in his Commentary upon St. John he makes Christ say, Of the Bread which he broke and distributed, this is my Body which is given for you in Remission of Sins. We may descend lower, and carry further the Proof of this first Reflection, were we not prevented by the Rule which we prescribed, and of the Resolution taken, of avoiding, as much as possible may be, the repeating of the same Testimonies. It shall then suffice to inform the Reader, that 'tis a certain Truth owned by all Men, both Protestants and Roman Catholics, that when there is a Dispute of two Subjects of a different Nature, it cannot properly be said that the one is the other; when therefore these sorts of Propositions meet in Discourse, of necessity recours must be had unto the Figure, or Metaphor.  
What the Fathers have deposed is considerable; yet I do not think it sufficient, nor that it is all which they have to say unto us. If we examine anew these faithful Witnesses, I doubt not but they will speak again, and that they will inform us of other Truths besides them ; and that they will not leave us ignorant how they understood the Words of the Institution of this angust Sacrament. Those which have diligently applied themselves to the reading of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, have doubtless found by Experience, that sometimes one must travel very far, and search many large Volumes, before one finds what he looks for; and I look upon these dry and barren Places to be like Wildernesses and sad unpleasant Deserts, which Travellers are sometimes forced to pass over with much difficulty and trouble: but they have also observed, that sometimes are found without difficulty, in the Works of the Ancient Fathers, places so rich and abundant, that I use to liken them unto those fat and fertile Soils, which always answer the Husbandman's expectation, and which with Interest restore the pains he with some little cost bestowed upon them. We may in the number of these latter sort place those Passages, where they have pleased themselves in meditating of the Mystery of the holy Sacrament: for not content to have told us that its divine Author called the Bread and Wine, his Body and Blood, I find them ready to tell us, that they were his Body broken, and his Blood poured out; and that as for them, they always considered him at that moment, not as sitting upon his Throne in Heaven, but as hanging upon the Cross on Mount Calvary, expiating the Sins of Mankind, and for the Redemption of the World. This was in all likelihood what St. Cyprian intended, when he said, 
Cypr. ep. 63.  That the Sacrifice which we offer is the Death of our Lord. And what St. Gregory of Nyss, when he testifies, That the Body of the Sacrifice is not fit to be eat, if it be animated, 
Greg Nys. in Resur. Dom. Orat. 1. August. Psal. 11. Hom. 2. Id. Quaest. super Evang. l. 2. § 38. pag. 152. tom. 4. Id. in Psal. 110.  that i●, if it be living. Thence it is that St. Austin speaking of the Disciples of Jesus Christ, saith: That they suffered the same which those things did which they eat: and he gives this Reason, that the Lord gave them his Supper, he gave them his Passion. And again, That now the Gentiles all the World over do very religiously receive the sweetness of the Sufferings of our Lord in the Sacraments of his Body and Blood; and that we are fed with the Cross of our Lord, because we eat his Body. 
Id. de Doctr. Christ. l 3 c. 16  He also makes the eating of the Lord's Body consist in communicating of his Death, and in profitably representing unto our Memories, that his Flesh was broken and crucified for us. St. Chrysostom always represents Christ as dead in the Sacrament: 
* Chrysost● Hom. 51. in Math.  Jesus Christ represented himself sacrificed. 
† Homil. 83.  The Mystery, that is to say the Sacrament, is the Passion and the Cross. And upon the Acts of the holy Apostles: 
‖ Hom. 2.  Whilst, saith he, this Death is celebrated, etc. then is declared a tremendous Sacrament, which is, that God hath given himself for the World. And upon the Epistle to the Romans: 
Hom. 8.  Adore upon this Table whereof we are all Partakers, Jesus Christ, which was crucified for us. And upon the Epistle to the Ephesians: 
Hom. 3.  Whilst the Sacrifice is carnied out, and that the Lamb Christ Jesus our Lord is slain. 
Hom. 14.  And upon the Epistle to the Hebrews: Our Lord Jesus Christ is stretched out slain. And unto the People of Antioch: What do you, O Man? 
Tom. 1. Hom. 15.  you swear by the holy Table where Jesus Christ lieth slain. And in the third Book of Priesthood: When you see our Lord sacrificed and dead, 
Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacerdot.  the Priest sacrificing and praying, and all those which are present died red with this precious Blood. And in the Homily of the Treason of Judas: 
Tom. 5. p. 464.  Have respect for the matter or subject of the Oblation, to Jesus Christ who is held forth slain. And upon the Name of Churchyard: 
Ida. 5. p 486. C  We shall towards Evening see him which like a Lamb was crucified, killed, slain. And again: You forsake him seeing him put to death. And in fine, in the Homily touching the Eucharist, 
Id t. 5 pag. 569 A B.  in the Dedication, or of Penance: O wonderful! you are not afraid, the Mystical Table being made ready, the Lamb of God being slain for you, etc. and the pure Blood being poured out of the Side into the Cup for your Sanctification. We will add unto all this, Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem, who speak after this manner: 
Hes. ch. in Le l. 1 c. 2.  God made the Flesh of Jesus Christ; which was not fit to be eaten before his Death, I say, he made it fit to be our Food after his Death: for who is it that desired to eat the Flesh of God? if he had not been crucified, we should not eat the Sacrifice of his Body; but now we eat the Flesh in taking the Memorial of his Passion. 
Id l. 2. c. 6.  And again: The Cross hath made eatable by Men the Flesh of our Lord, which was nailed upon it: for if it had not been set upon the Cross, we should not have communicated of the Body of Christ. This was also, 
Theodor. t. 3. ep. 130.  I suppose, Theodoret's Meaning, when he said: Our Lord himself promised to give for the Ransom of the World, not an invisible Nature, but his Body: The Bread, saith he, which I will give, is my Flesh, which I will give for the Life of the World. And in the Distribution of the divine Mysteries, in taking the Symbol he said, This is my Body which is given for you: or as the Apostle saith, which is broken. And also in giving the divine Mysteries, after he had broken the Symbol, and that he had divided it, he adds, This is my Body, which is broken for you in Remission of Sins: And again, This is my Blood, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. 
Id. ep. 145. p. 1026. A Tom 4. Dial. 1. Cyril. Hierof. Myslag. 5.  And elsewhere he calls the Eucharist, The Type of the Passion of our Saviour. St. Cyril of Jerusalem considering before him what was done in his Time in the Celebration of the Sacrament, saith among other Things, that we therein offer unto God, Jesus Christ dead for our Sins: that is to say, in as much as we pray him to accept in our discharge, the Death which he suffered for us, and in our room and stead. And St. Fulgentius some time after Theodoret, in one of the Fragments of the ten Books he wrote against Fabian the Arrian, having repeated the Words of Institution of the Sacrament, as St. Paul relates them, he adds: That the Sacrifice is offered to show the Lord's Death, 
ex lib 8. Fragm 28  and to make a Commemoration of him, which laid down his Life for us. Amalarius Fortunatus spoke the same Language in the IX. Century, as shall be showed in its place. In the mean while it is necessary to observe, that all Christians confess, that Jesus Christ cannot be in the Sacrament as dead, but Typically, and Mystically; because he really dies no more.  
But because our Saviour said, after having distributed the Cup to the Disciples, I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine, until the Day that I shall drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom, I find the holy Fathers have taken notice of this Circumstance, se●ing they have been pleased to declare unto us, that Jesus Christ did call that the Fruit of the Vine, that is, Wine, which he drank or gave unto his Disciples to drink in the Celebration of this divine Mystery. This is, as I conceive, what Clement of Alexandria would intimate in these Words: 
Clem. Alex. Paedag. l 2. c. 2.  That what the Lord had blessed was Wine, he would declare himself, in saying to his Disciples, I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine, until I drink it with you in the Kingdom of my Father. Origen in all likelihood had no other meaning, when he observed, 
Origen. Hom. 7. in ●evit.  that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples Wine, which he called the Production of the Vine; and in as much as that he would not drink himself at the Celebration of the Sacrament, it was, that being ready to offer the Sacrifice of his Body, he thought fit to show in his Person the accomplishment of the Type and Figure, which had gone before in Aaron and the Highpriest under the Law, who were forbidden drinking Wine, when they were to draw near the Altar to sacrifice. The Poet Juvencus may also be here admitted, if the Passage which might be alleged of his were in its purity, and had received no alteration; but because in all appearance it hath been altered, I'll pass it over in silence, that no body may have cause of Exception, and instead of Juvencus I'll produce St. Athanasius, which saith: 
Athan. in Synops.  That when the Lord gave the Mystery, or the Sacrament, he said, I will drink no more of this Vine. And St. Hilary: 
Hilar. in Mat. cap. 30.  That having taken the Cup, and broke the Bread, they drank the Fruit of this Vine. And this is the reason wherefore St. Basil, to prove, 
Basil lib. 2. contr. E●nem.  that we call the Product of the Earth Fruit, and not Children, thus alleges the Words of our Lord, I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine, that is to say, of the Production of the Vine. St. Epiphanius disputing against the Encratian Heretics, or the Hydroparastarians, who used only Water in the celebration of the Eucharist, and for that reason were called Hydroparastites, or Aquarians, refutes them by the Words of our Saviour, saying, 
Epiphan. haeres. 47.  Their Sacraments are no Sacraments, but they sergeant them in imitation of the true; therefore they shall therein be condemned by the Words of our Saviour, which said, I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine. St. Chrysostom observes something of the same Nature, when he assures, That Jesus Christ, 
Chrysost. hom. 83. in Math.  to pluck up by the Roots this pernicious Heresy, and to show us that when he distributed the Mysteries, he gave Wine, he said expressly of the Fruit of the Vine, for the Vine (saith he) doth not produce Water but Wine. 
Gennad. lib. 1. Dogm Eccles. cap 75.  And Gennadius Priest of Marseilles, blaming those, which under a pretext of Sobriety, used Water instead of Wine in the celebration of the Sacrament, refutes them by this reason, That there was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption; and he proves it by these Words of Jesus Christ, From henceforth I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine. Amalarius, Florus, and Christian Druthmer spoke no otherwise in the IXth Century; but because we will not change the method prescribed, we will at this time wave their Testimonies, and the proof of this ancient Tradition, by the Testimony of several Witnesses which have been famous in the Church, as St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and many others; although Chiliasts and Millenarians. For St. Jerome informs us, that to prove that our Lord should drink Wine during the Reign of a 1000 years, which they believed he was to reign upon the Earth, they made use of these Words of our Saviour, 
Apud Hieron. Ep. ad Hedib. q. 2.  I say unto you I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom; from this place, saith St. Jerome, some dream of the Fable of a 1000 years, during which they argue Jesus Christ shall reign corporally, and that he will drink Wine, whereof he drank not from that time until the end of the World. What St. Jerome dislikes in them, is the reign of a 1000 years, during which they imagined that Christ should drink Wine upon Earth; whereof he had not tasted any from the moment which he drank in the celebration of the Sacrament, and whereof he was not to drink until this pretended Reign of a 1000 years.  
The first thing to be considered in a Discourse is the Scope and Design of him that speaks, because 'tis the Mind that sets the Tongue a going, and that 'tis with regard to his Intention, when he hath discoursed of a Matter, the Expressions made use of must be considered for representing his Thoughts; without this we must needs stray, or at least fall into one of these Inconveniencies, either not to comprehend the Sense of what is read, or to impute unto him that speaks things which are strange, or even sometimes unjust and unreasonable: For Example, Jesus Christ commands us in the Gospel to imitate the Wisdom of the unjust Steward which had wickedly wasted the Goods committed by his Lord unto his Trust; this Precept, to consider it barely and literally, is very wide of the Mark which our Saviour intends, contains a wicked Practice, and quite different from that which he teacheth us in his Gospel, which being pure and holy, infinitely surpasseth what is best and most commendable in the Heathen Morals: But if we consider his Scope and Intention, there is nothing in this Precept which is not worthy the School of Christ. What he requires of us is not to imitate the ill-dealing of this unjust Steward which wasted his Master's Goods; he only would have us imitate his Wisdom in making Friends, when he saw his Stewardship was like to be taken from him; that is to say, that we also should make good use of those Goods which he is pleased to bestow on us, and whereof he makes us Stewards; that we should employ them to the relief of the Poor, that by means of our Alms-deeds, and Charity, we should make ourselves Friends which may contribute unto the saving our Souls, by the Prayers which they make unto God for us. Nothing can be more reasonable than this Rule which St. Chrysostom lays down; 
Chrysost. Hom. in haec verba Pater si fieri potest. t. 5. p. 125, 6.  We must not (saith he) look only upon the Terms, but the Scope of him that speaks, the cause and occasion of his Discourse, and comparing all together, find out the sense and meaning of what is therein contained. Nevertheless, it must be noted, this Rule hath its particular use when the Expressions are doubtful and difficult, and when by staying at the Terms, and following the rigour of the Letter, a convenient Sense cannot be given unto what is said or heard; except in such a case, nothing hinders but looking unto the scope of him that speaks, stress may be laid on his Words, and much light taken from his Expressions. Thus have the Holy Fathers proceeded in examining the Words used by our Saviour, in instituting the Sacrament, because all they have told us hitherto, are only so many Reflections which they have made upon the Words and Expressions of this Merciful Saviour; but because they were verily persuaded that Jesus Christ, which is Wisdom itself, had an end in instituting this Divine Mystery, they would know the end and design which he proposed in leaving this precious earnest of his Love unto his Church; Do this, saith our Lord, in remembrance of me; for as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink of this Cup, saith St. Paul, you show the Lord's Death till he come. From whence they concluded, that the Intention of Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament, and that of the Church in celebrating it by his Command, was by this means to preserve amongst Christians the remembrance of his Death and Sufferings; but because his Death doth suppose his Incarnation and Birth, and that moreover, his blessed Resurrection and Exaltation into Glory ensued thereupon, I find they have included in this Commemoration commanded us by Christ, the consideration of his Incarnation, bitter Death, of his Resurrection, and of his Ascension into Heaven. According to which some of them join unto the consideration of his Death, that of his Incarnation; as St. Justin Martyr, which saith; 
Just. Martyr contra Tryph. p. 296.  That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist, in remembrance that he made himself Man for those which believe in him, and for whom he made himself Mortal; and the Cup in remembrance of his Blood. But sometimes also, considering the Death of Christ as the end of his Conception, and of his Birth, because he took not our Nature, and was born of a Virgin but to die, they are content to consider the Sacrament as a Memorial of his Death only: 
Id. ibid. p. 259.  In this regard the same St. Justin said; That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in remembrance of the Death which he suffered for the Souls of those which have been cleansed from all Malice. This was also the meaning of Tatian his Disciple, 
Tat. Diates. t. 7. Bibl. Pat.  when he said, The Lord commanded his Disciples to eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Sacrament, because it was the memorial of his approaching Affliction, and of his Death. There were others, who making this Reflection in themselves, that the Death of Christ would be of no benefit unto us without his Resurrection, which assures us of his Victory over the Enemies of our Salvation, and of the Eternal Father's accepting of the Satisfaction he made unto his Justice in our stead, and in consideration whereof he delivers us from the Slavery of Sin, and the Devil, have considered the celebration of the Sacrament as the commemoration of his Death and Resurrection: Such was the Reflection of St. Basil, 
Basil. de Bapt. c. 2. p. 581.  when he observed, that, What we eat and drink, (to wit, of the Bread and Wine) it is to the end we should always remember him who died, and is risen again for us. Others, in fine, considering that Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven, and that he had left us the Sacrament as a pledge of his Presence, to comfort us in expectation of his glorious Return, they thought the consideration of his Death ought not to be separated from that of his Ascension, and that as they should think of his Humiliation and Sufferings, they should also think of his Exaltation and Glory; This was in all likelihood the meaning of St. 
Gaudent. tr. 2. l. 2. Bibl. Patr.  Gaudentius, when he taught, That the Sacrament is our Viaticum, or Provision for our Journey, whereby we are strengthened in the Way, until by departing out of this Life we go to him; that it is an earnest of his Presence, and the portrait of his Passion, until he come again from Heaven; but an earnest and a resemblance which he will have us take in our Hands, and receive with the Mouth and Heart: to the end we may have engraven in our Memories the great Benefit of our Redemption. To thus much also amounts what is said by the Author of the Commentaries, 
In Cap. 11.1 ad Cor.  attributed unto St. Jerome, That Jesus Christ hath left us the last Commemoration, or the last Remembrance, as if one taking a Voyage into a far Country, would leave a Token with his Friend, to the end that  he looked on it, he should be mindful of his Love and Kindness, which he cannot do without shedding Tears if he perfectly loved him; and that he gave us this Sacrament, to the end that by this means we should always remember the Death which he suffered for us. Sedulius hath only transcribed this Testimony in his Commentaries upon the same Epistle, and upon the same Chapter. Primatius, an African Bishop, declares in the VIth Century, that it was his Judgement, and he explained himself almost as the other two had done; and Christian Druthmer will say the same in the IXth Century: as for the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, 
Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 12.  he hath joined all these considerations together; For he will have us to remember his Passion, his Death, Resurrection, Ascension into Heaven, and his second Coming, which will be when he comes with Power and Glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to reward every one according to his Works. The same thing is to be read in the Liturgy of St. Mark, and what is found in that which the Latins use at present comes very near it. But the Father's rest not there, for I have observed that when they speak of the Eucharist, as of a Pledge and Memorial, they set it in opposition not only of the Truth, but even also of the Truth absent; so it hath been understood by Gaudentius, Sedulius, Primasius, the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerome, in the Passages we have alleged, whereunto may be joined these Words of the latter, 
In 1 ad Cor. Cap. 11.  That we have need of this Memorial all the time which shall continue until he be pleased to come again. It is in the same sense Theodoret said, 
Theodoret in 1 ad Cor. c. 11.  After his coming we shall have no need of Signs or Symbols of his Body, because the Body itself shall appear. It was also the meaning of St. Austin, if I mistake not, when he said, 
Aug. Serm. 9 de divers. Id. in Psal. 37.  That we shall not receive the Eucharist when we are come unto Christ himself, and that we have begun to reign Eternally with him; he said also elsewhere, That no Body remembers what is not present: A Maxim grounded upon the Light of Reason, 
De memor. & reminisc. c. 1. De Invent. l. 2.  for 'tis by this Principle the Philosopher said, that the Memory is not of things present; and the Prince of Eloquence, That the Memory is that whereby one remembers things which are past.  
I never think of these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament, This is my Body, but I deplore with grief and sorrow of Heart, the State of Christians, which have made the Sacrament, which our Saviour instituted, to be the Bond of their Love and Union, the occasion of their Hatred, and the sorrowful matter of their sad Divisions; and as I should be overjoyed to contribute any thing to disabuse those which are in Error, by giving the Words the Explication which they ought to have, I thought one of the best means to effect it, was diligently to search in what sense the Holy Fathers have taken them, and in what manner they understood them, for I make no question, but a belief agreed upon by Christians at all times, and universally received at all times in all the Climates of the Christian World, is Catholic, Orthodox, and by consequence worthy to be retained in the Church, as an Apostolical Truth. Therefore, I have applied myself unto this Inquiry, to endeavour to find in their Works their true and real Thoughts; and because, for the most part in their Homilies, and popular Exhortations, they are transported with the fervour of Zeal, and the motions of Piety, which often made them use Hyperbolical Expressions, fit for the Pulpit, and suitable unto Orators, which should be pathetical and feeling, I have not stopped at these sorts of Works, I have chief examined Commentaries, and Expositions, where for the most part they speak Dogmatically, and in cold Blood, and the true and genuine Thoughts of those which writ or expound may be seen. And but that I mean exactly to keep within the Bounds prescribed at the beginning of this second Part, I might continue my Inquiry unto the XIIth Century, which would give us the Testimonies of Zonaras a Greek Canonist, and of Rupert de Duitz, as the IXth doth those of Raban, of Christian Druthmar, and of Bertram. Laying then aside these five Testimonies, not to infringe the Law I willingly imposed on myself, I'll begin with Clement of Alexandria, 
Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. c. 2.  who lived at the end of the second Century; Jesus Christ (said he) blessed Wine, saying, Take, drink, this is my Blood, the Blood of the Vine; the holy Liquor of Joy, represents by Allegory the Word, to wit, with regard to his Blood, which was shed for many for the Remission of Sins. From Clement of Alexandria I will pass unto Theophilus of Antioch, 
Theoph. Anti. och. in Matth.  who wrote in the same Age; When Jesus Christ (saith he) said, This is my Body, he called Bread, which is made of many Grains, his Body, whereby he would represent the People which he hath taken unto himself. 
Tertul. l. 4. contr. Marc. c. 40. Cyprian. ep. 76.  The third shall be Tertullian, which saith, That Jesus Christ having taken Bread and distributed it unto his Disciples, he made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, (that is to say) the Figure of my Body. The fourth is St. Cyprian; When the Lord, saith he, doth call the Bread made of several grains of Wheat, his Body, he signifieth thereby the faithful People whose Sins he bore, inasmuch as it was but one Body. The fifth is St. Jerome, 
Hieron Com. in Matth. c. 26.  who died in the year of our Lord 420; As they were at Supper (saith he) Jesus took Bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body. And taking the Cup he gave Thanks, and gave it unto them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, for the remission of Sins. When the Typical Passover was accomplished, and that Jesus Christ had eaten with the Apostles the Flesh of the Lamb, he took Bread, which strengtheneth Man's Heart, and proceeds on to the true Sacrament of the Passover; to the end, that as Melchisedek, Priest of the most High God, had offered Bread and Wine to represent him, so he also should represent the Truth of his Body and of his Blood. The sixth is St. Austin, contemporary with St. Jerome, and died about eleven years after him; The Lord made no difficulty to say, 
August. contr. Adim. c. 12.  This is my Body, when he gave the Symbol of his Body. The seventh is Theodoret, Our Lord, saith he, made an Exchange of Names, 
Theod Dial. 1.  and gave unto his Body the Name of the Symbol, and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body; and in the same place, tells us in Truth, whereof the Holy Food is the Sign and Figure; Is it of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, or of his Body and Blood? 
Id. ibid.  It is evident 'tis of the things whereof they have their Names; for the Lord having taken the Sign, said not, This is my Divinity, but This is my Body, and afterwards, This is my Blood. The eighth is Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa, who assisted at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, about the middle of the sixth Century; 
Facund. l. 9 p. 404, 405.  We do call (saith he) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; not that the Bread is properly his Body, and the Cup his Blood; but because they contain in them the Mystery, or the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: From whence it is also that the Lord himself called the Bread and the Cup, which he blessed and gave unto his Disciples, his Body and his Blood. The ninth is St. Isidor, Bishop of Sevill in Spain, 
Isid. Hist. origin. l 6. c 19  We call (saith he) by the Command of Christ himself, his Body and Blood, that which being sanctified of the Fruits of the Earth, is consecrated and made a Sacrament. The tenth is Bede, that bright Star of the English Church, which finished his Course, Anno 735. 
Beda Comm●. in Marc. 14.  Jesus Christ (saith he) said unto his Disciples, This is my Body, because Bread strengthens the Heart of Man, and Wine doth increase Blood in the Body; it is for this reason that Bread represents mystically the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine his Blood. The eleventh is a Council of 338 Bishops, 
Concil. Constantinop. in act. Concil. Nicaen. 2 act 6.  assembled at Constantinople against Images, in the year 754. Jesus Christ, say these Fathers, having taken Bread, blessed it, and having given Thanks, he broke it, and giving it to his Disciples, he said, Take, eat, for the Remission of Sins, This is my Body; in like manner having given the Cup, he said, This is my Blood, do this in remembrance of me; there being no other kind of Thing, nor Figure chosen by him, that could so fitly represent his Incarnation. See then the Image of his quickening Body made honourably and gloriously. Here are eleven substantial Witnesses, which being added unto the five others which we passed over, and shall appear in due time, make up the number of sixteen, without touching those which may by evident and necessary Consequences be drawn unto the same Testimony●; for I have made choice only of those which seemed most evident, and of those also some speak in more express Terms than others. The Reader may judge, if all these Witnesses which speak of Bread, Wine, Fruit of the Vine, of Figure, Sign, Type, Symbol, Sacrament, of Representation, of Fruits of the Earth, do not give a figurative sense unto these Words, This is my Body, This is my Blood. And to do it the better, let him exactly see if any of these ancient Commentators have spoken of Reality, of bodily Conversion, and of local Presence in interpreting them: for, say the Protestants, they could not pass over in silence so important a Doctrine as that, in an occasion which indispensably obliged them to say something of it, without rendering themselves guilty of horrid Hypocrisy and Injustice: So that if they have not done it, and that there appears no such thing in what hath been produced and examined, as indeed, say they, whatever Scrutiny we could make, no such thing, nor like it, doth appear; it may be safely and lawfully concluded that all these Fathers have taken these Words not in a proper and literal Sense, but in a figurative and metaphorical Sense. Moreover, all these Reflections of the Ancients, upon these Words of the Institution of the Sacrament, amount just to the manner of understanding them, commanded by the Council of Trent, when it forbids to interpret the holy Scriptures, 
Sess. 4.  contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers: Because, as 'tis explained by Melchior Canus, 
Locor. l 7. c. 3. num. 10.  Bishop of the Canaries, who assisted at the Council; The Sense of all the Saints, is the Sense of the Holy Ghost.   

CHAP. II.  
Of what the Fathers believed, concerning what we receive in the Sacrament, and what they have said of it.  
BEsides the many Reflections made by the ancient Doctors, upon the Words used by our Saviour in the instituting this most august Sacrament, which we have sufficiently enumerated, and set down in the foregoing Chapter; I find they have said many other things which may direct us unto the true understanding of their Belief, which we will inquire into in this second Chapter. In the first place, they have called the Eucharist, Bread and Wine, in the very act of communicating; There is given unto each of these present, 
Just. Mart. Apol. 2. vol. 1. I●en l. 4. c 34.  saith Justin Martyr, the Bread, the Wine, and the Water which have been consecrated. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lions, gives it the same Name, calling it The Bread upon which Prayers and Thanks have been made. And I make no question, 
Contr. Tryph. p. 260. Orig. contr. Cells. l. 8. Id. ibid. Id. Homil. 5. in Levitic. Cyprian Ep. 76. & 63 Apud Euseb. Hist. l. 6 c. 43. prope fin.  but 'tis also for the same reason that our Christian Philosopher, I mean St. Justin, speaks, of the Eucharist of Bread and Wine. Origen against Celsus, The Bread which is called the Eucharist, the Symbol of our Duty towards God. And in the same Book, The Bread offered with Thanksgivings, and Prayers made for the Mercies bestowed on us. And in his Homilies upon Leviticus, The Bread which the Lord gave unto his Disciples. St. Cyprian was of the same Judgement, when he called it, The Bread of the Lord: And in his Treatise of the Cup, or in his Epistle to Cecilius, he very often calls it, Bread and Wine mixed with Water; and saith, That the Body of the Lord is not Flower only, nor Water only, but a composition of these two things kneaded and moulded together, and made into the substance of Bread. And Cornelius Bishop of Rome, writing unto Fabian Bishop of Antioch, of what passed in the undue Ordination of Novatian unto the Episcopacy, and speaking of the Sacrament in the act of distribution and reception, he calls it, That Bread: From hence 'tis that Tertullian disputing against the Marcionites, 
Tertul. contr. Marc. l. 1. c. 23.  who taught, that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not the Creator, he reproaches them, That they were baptised in the name of another God, upon another's Earth, and with another's Water, and that they made Prayers, and gave Thanks unto another God, upon the Bread of another. It is easy to understand that in speaking in that manner to Martion, he presupposed that the Orthodox made their Prayers unto God the Creator, upon this Bread; that is to say, The Bread of the Eucharist. And the Author of the Epistle to the Philadelphians, under Ignatius' Name, 
Ep. ad Philad.  saith, That there is one Bread broken unto all. If we descend lower, 
Conc. Ancyr. c. 2. Conc. Neoces. c. 13.  we shall find that the Council of Ancyrus, in the year 314, forbids Deacons that had sacrificed unto Idols, To present the Bread and the Cup. And that of Neocesarea of the same Year saith, That the Country-Priests cannot offer nor give the Bread in Prayer, nor the Cup in the chief Church in the City, if the Bishop or the Priests of the City are present. 
Euseb. dem. l. 5. c. 3.  Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea wrote about the year 328. That the Ministers of the Christian Church, express darkly by the Bread and Wine, the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ. It was also the opinion of St. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers, 
Bil. in Matth. c. 30.  when he said, That the Passover of our Lord was made, the Lord having taken the Cup and broke the Bread. 
Macar. Hom. 27.  St. Macarius followed the same Steps, in saying, That in the Church one participates of visible Bread to eat spiritually the Flesh of our Lord. 
Concil. Laod. c. 25.  The Council of Laodicea, assembled about the year 360, ordains, That Ministers ought not (that is to say the Deacons, or rather Subdeacons) to administer the Bread, nor bless the Cup. A Council of Carthage made this Decree, 
Concil. Carth. c. 24.  That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord, nothing else should be offered but what the Lord himself had done; to wit, Bread, and Wine mingled with Water. This Decree is the 37th in the Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa, and it is there inserted something different, but yet in such a manner as doth not alter the Sense. 
Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 5.  St. Austin is no less positive, when he declares, That to eat the Bread, is under the New Testament the Sacrifice of Christians. 
Cyril. in Joan. l. 4. c. 14 & l. 12. Hesych. in Levit. l. 6. c. 2●.  And St. Cyril of Alexandria saith, That in the Eucharist Jesus Christ distributed and gave Bread unto his Disciples. For the same Reason Hesychius assures us, that The Oblation of Jesus Christ is performed in Bread and Wine. 
Eudox. Bibl. Patr. t. 14. p. 130.  The Princess Eudoxia, Wife unto the Emperor Theodosius the younger, may take place amongst all these Witnesses which we have alleged, her Deposition being of no less moment than the rest, seeing she speaks according to the Instructions given her in the Church, when she saith, That our Lord having broke Bread, gave it unto his Friends, 
Apud Phot. Bibl. Cod. 115.  that is to say, unto his Disciples. An Anonymous Author in Photius his Library, assures, That Jesus Christ in his Mystical Supper gave unto his Disciples Bread and Wine. The sixteenth Council of Toledo, 
Concil. Tolet. 16. c. 6.  held in the Year 693, saith twice, That the Lord breaking a whole Loaf, gave it to be taken in parcels by his Disciples. And the Council in Trullo Anno 691, 
Council. in Trul. c. 32.  take and apply unto themselves the 24th Canon of the Council of Carthage, where it is forbidden to offer any thing but what Jesus Christ gave; to wit, Bread, and Wine mingled with Water.  
Secondly; The same Fathers testify that the Bread of the Sacrament is Bread which is broken. I will not here make use of the Testimonies of those, which positively affirm that our Lord did break Bread in his Sacrament, as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Juvencus, St. Hilary, St. Austin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Empress Eudoxia, the XVI. Council of Toledo, etc. I will restrain myself at present unto those which say, that we therein break Bread, as the Author of the Epistles under the Name of St. Ignatius, for he speaks of breaking one Bread, and saith, 
Ignat. ep. ad. Ephes. & ad Philad. Recognit. l. 6. ad sin. Pasch. 1.  there is one Bread broken unto all. And the Author of Recognitions observes of St. Peter, that he broke the Eucharist. Theophilus of Alexandria saith, that we break the Bread for our own Sanctification. St. chrysostom, that was the object of his Persecution and Harred, was of the same Mind, when he said, Wherefore did the Apostle, when he spoke of Bread, 
Chrysost. hom. 24. in 1 ad Cor.  say, which we break, for that is seen to be done in the Sacrament. This is also what St. Austin testifies, when he saith: 
Aust. ep. 86. & ep. 59 Id. Serm. 140. de Temp. c. 2. Fulg. de Bapt. Ae●hiop. Isid. Hispal. de Off. Eccl. l. 1. cap. 18. Act. 2. & 20.  That the Bread is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, and that what is upon the Lord's Table, is divided into little Bits, to be distributed; And elsewhere, that the breaking of the Bread should comfort us. St. Fulgentius thus reads the Words of St. Paul, The Loaves which we break. And St. Isidore of Sevil, The Bread, saith he, which we break, is the Body of Jesus Christ. We see also that St. Luke means the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the breaking of Bread: which the Syriac Interpreter hath expressed by the breaking of the Sacrament: and where St. Luke saith, that the Disciples were met together to break Bread, he hath rendered it, We were met together to break the Eucharist. Therefore 'tis that the holy Fathers, which speak of breaking Bread, speak also of dividing it in pieces? As when Clement of Alexandria observes, 
Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. pag. 271. Aug. count. Don post Col. c. 6. Cypr. de laps. Cyril. Ale●. in Joan. l. 4. c. 14.  that the Eucharist being divided, each of the People took part of it. And St. Austin, that Judas and Peter received each of them a Piece. And St. Cyprian speaks of a Woman which had locked in her Chest a Portion of the Eucharist. There's nothing more common in their Writings; whence came the Terms of Parts, Morsels, Portions, which were common so long time in the Church, and which made them say, that Jesus Christ gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples? And that but a little is taken, witness what Eusebius saith of a Priest of Alexandria, that he sent by a young Boy unto Serapion, a little, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 441 Aug. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. cap. 5.  or part of the Eucharist. And St. Austin, that we receive but a little, and are fattened by it inwardly in the Heart. Unto this Consideration may be added the constant Tradition of the Church, whereon we have largely insisted in the VIII: Chapter of the first Part; where we have shown, that the holy Fathers have unanimously deposed, that the Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine.  
In the third place, speaking of the Eucharist, they say, That it is 
a Aug. serm 34 de divers. c. 28.  Corn, 
b Eudox. in § 36. & Arnob. in p. 4.  Wheat, 
c Theod. dial. 1  Fruit of the Vine, 
d Sedul. in op. Pasch. c. 14. l. 4:  the Fruit of the Harvest, and the Joy of the Vine, 
e Isid. Hisp. l. 6. orig. c. 19  the Fruits of the Earth, 
f Tertul. count. Marc. l. 1. c. 14.  the Blessings of the Creator, 
g Iren. l. 4. c. 34 & l. 5. c. 4, 8.  Creatures of this World, 
h Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. z c. 2.  the Blood of the Vine, the Liquor of Joy, 
i Cypr. ep. 76. & 63.  Bread made of several Grains, Wine pressed out of several Grapes, 
k Orig. contra Cells. l. 8.  Breads or Loaves, in the plural number, 
l Just. Mart. contra Tryph.  wet ard dry Food. They say moreover, That it is the Bread of the Eucharist; as St. Basil, 
m Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27.  the Mystery of Bread and Wine; as St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bresscia, 
n Gaud. tract. 2. in Exod. 14.  the Sacrament of Bread and Wine; St. Austin, 
o Aug. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 13  the Sacrament of Bread and of the Cup; as St. Fulgentius, 
p Fulg. ad Monum. c. 11.  the Sacrament of Bread; as Bede, 
q Bed. Hom. 2. Fer. de pasch.  that it is not common Bread; as Justin Martyr in his second Apology, Ireneus l. 4. c. 34. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystag. 3. and Gregory of Nysse in Baptism. Christ. pag. 802. tom. 2. The Father's rest not there, they positively affirm, that it is Bread and Wine. Clement of Alexandria, 
r Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 2.  What our Saviour blessed, saith he, was Wine, he plainly shown his own self, in saying unto his Disciples, I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine, until I drink it with you in my Father's Kingdom. St. Cyprian said the same, for having repeated these same Words of our Saviour, he saith, 
s Cypr. ep. 63.  That we find, that what our Saviour offered was a Cup mingled with Water, and that what he said to be his Blood, was Wine. Nothing can be seen more formal to this purpose, than what is read in 
t Aug. ad Infan. apud Fulg. de Bapt. Aet. c. ult. Theod. Dial. 1. Prosp. de promis. & praed. part. 1. c. 2. Facund. l. 9 c. ult.  St. Austin's Sermon unto the new Baptised, related entirely by St. Fulgentius, where speaking unto them of the Sacrament which they saw upon the holy Table, What you have seen, saith he, is Bread and a Cup, as your Eyes do testify. Theodoret, who was present at the Council of Chalcedon, The Lord, saith he, in distributing the Mysteries, did call the Bread, his Body, and the Wine, his Blood. We may also say the same thing of the counterfeit Prosper, which saith, That the Lord did declare at his Table, that the consecrated Bread was his sacred Body. Of Facundus, which saith, The Lord himself called the Bread which he had blessed, and the Cup which he gave his Disciples, his Body and his Blood. And in fine of Maxentius a Religious Person, and afterwards Priest of the Church of Antioch, in whose Dialogues we read, That the Bread whereof the Universal Church doth participate, 
Maxent. count. Nest. dial. 2.  in remembrance of the Death of our Lord, is his Body.  
But this is not yet all they have to say unto us, there is found in their excellent Works several other things, which lead us as it were by the hand unto the Knowledge of what we search for. In the first place they declare our Bodies are nourished with what we receive at the Lord's Table; as Justin Martyr, who speaks of the Eucharist, 
Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. l. 4 c. 34. & l. 5. c. 2. Aug. serm. 9 de divers. Isid. Hispal. apud Bertram. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. Ibid.  as of a Food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are nourished by Transmutation. St. Irenaeus doth depose, that our Flesh is fed with it, that our Blood, our Body and Flesh are nourished, increased, and do subsist by it. St. Austin saith, that it is Bread which fills the Belly. St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevill, that the Substance of this visible Bread doth nourish the outward Man, and satisfies it. Or as Ratran, who hath transferred to us his Words, (not any more to be found in Isidore's Works now printed) that all that is outwardly received in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, is fit to feed the Body. The Fathers of the sixteenth Council of Toledo, in the Year 693, 
Conc. Tolet. 16. c. 6.  speak of the Remainders of the Sacrament, as of a thing, that a quantity of it may incommode the Stomach. That was also the Belief of Raban Arch bishop of Mayence, in the ninth Century; and of the Taborites in Bohemia, in the fifteenth, as shall be demonstrated in time and place convenient.  
Secondly, there are some of them that positively affirm, that what is distributed at the holy Table, is Bread, the Matter whereof, after we have taken and eat it, doth pass by the common way of our ordinary Food. Origen teacheth so in plain terms, when expounding these Words of the 15th Chap. of St. Matthew, 
Origen. in Math. 15.  That it is not what entereth into the Mouth defileth the Man, he saith, If what enters in the Mouth, goes into the Belly, and is cast into the Draft; the Meat which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer, goeth also into the Belly, according to the gross part of it, and afterwards into the Draft; but by reason of Prayer made over it, it is profitable according to the proportion of Faith, and is the cause that the Understanding is enlightened and attentive unto what is profitable; and 'tis not the Substance of Bread, but the Word pronounced upon it, which is profitable unto him that eateth it not in a way unworthy of the Lord. This Doctrine was also taught in the ninth Century by Raban Archbishop of Mayence, and by Heribold Archbishop of Auxerre, and I think I lately hinted that Amalarius Fortunatus, who lived in the same Century, was of this Judgement, which shall be examined, when we come to inquire into the Belief of the ninth Century. Father Cellot, the Jesuit, attributes the same Doctrine unto the Greeks. 
Append. Miscel. op. 7. p. 564  It is true this Doctrine was not the Opinion of all the ancient Fathers of the Church; therefore I said at the beginning of this Observation, that there were some of them that did believe so: in effect, St. Cyril of Jerusalem saith: 
Cyril. Hieros'. Mystag. 5.  That the Bread of the Sacrament doth not go into the Belly, and is not cast out into the Draft; but that it is dispersed throughout the Substance of the Communicant for the good of his Body and Soul. The Author of the Homily of the Eucharist for the Dedication, in St. Chrysostom's Works saith almost the same with St. Cyril: 
Serm. de Euchar. in Encoen. apud Chrysost. t. 5. pa. 596.  Take no heed that it is Bread, think not that it is Wine, for they are not cast out as other Meat, God forbidden you should once think so; for as when Wax is cast into the Fire, nothing of its Substance doth remain, or there remains no superfluity, or it leaves not behind it neither soot nor cinders; in like manner here, imagine that the Mysteries are consumed with the Substance of the Body. We may add John Damascen unto these two Authors, 
Damasc. l. 4. Orthodox. fid. cap. 14.  who speaks thus: The Shewbread did represent this Bread, and it is this pure Oblation, and without Blood, which the Lord foretell by the Prophet, which should be offered unto him from the East unto the West, to wit, the Body and Blood of Christ, which should pass into the Substance of our Soul and Body, without being consumed, without being corrupted, or passing into the Draft; O God forbidden! but passing into our Substance for our Preservation. These three Testimonies, as every one doth see, differ from Origen, which indeed was also the Opinion of Raban, Heribold and Amalarius; but if they were not of the Opinion of Origen, they were of that of St. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, St. Austin, St. Isidore of Sevil, of the sixteenth Council of Toledo, Ratran, and others: I mean, that if they believed not with Origen, that the Bread of the Eucharist, as to its material Substance, was subject unto the shameful necessity of other common Food, they believed with the others, that it turned itself into our Substance, that our Bodies were nourished by it, and that they were increased and strengthened by it; and so their Difference with Origen was only in the Circumstance, whether or no the holy. Bread went unto the Place of Excrements, Origen holding the Affirmative, the others the Negative: but as to the Ground of the Doctrine, I find them all agreed, and that all of them teach, that what we receive at the Lord's Table, is the Substance of Bread; which some subject to the same fate of our common Food, that goes into the Belly, and from thence into the Draft; others think this Bread doth pass into our Substance, and if it feed our Souls by the virtue wherewith God accompanies it after Consecration and lawful Use of the Sacrament, it also nourisheth and increaseth the Body by its proper Nature, without turning into Excrements. And the latter, as I conceive, are inclined unto this Opinion the rather, because receiving but very little Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, they made no difficulty to believe that it all turns into our Substance.  
In the third place, the holy Fathers testify that this Sacrament is consumed: 
Aug. de Trin. lib. 3. c. 10.  The Bread, saith St. Austin, which is made for that purpose, is consumed in taking the Sacrament: And again, in the same Chapter: What is put upon the Table is consumed, the holy Colebration being ended. Commonly there was no more alleged but this Passage of St. Austin, to prove that the ancient Christians believed, that what was received at the Sacrament, was of such a nature as to be in effect consumed. Wherefore I hope the Reader will not be displeased if I lead him farther, and make it appear, this manner of Speech was used in the Church a long time after St. Austin's Death. These Considerations we make upon the Doctrine of the holy Fathers, are of such importance, that we endeavour to find out in all Ages of the Christian Church what Footsteps they have left us of it in their Writings. Hugh Maynard in his Notes upon the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the first, allegeth, and wholly transcribes a Pontifical Manuscript, which is kept in the Church of Roven, and is, as far as I can guests, near to the eighth Century, and probably of later times; in this Pontifical the whole Ceremony of holy Thursday is represented, and amongst many other Observations, this is to be read: When the Bishop washeth his Hands, 
In Not. Menar. in Sacram. Greg. p. 84.  and the Deacons go unto the Altar to uncover the holy Things, and that the Bishop comes to the Altar, separates the Oblations to break them, that he takes some of the whole ones to keep until next day, the Day of Preparation, and that they communicated without the Blood of the Lord, because the Blood was wholly consumed the same Day. It may be easily seen that the Blood mentioned by the Pontifical, is not the proper Blood of Jesus Christ; for all Christians unanimously confess, that the real Blood of our Lord, which was shed upon the Cross for the Salvation of Mankind, is shed no more, and is not in a state of being consumed in the Celebration of the Sacrament; then, saith the Protestant, he must needs speak of a Typical and Figurative Blood, I mean of the Mystical and Sanctified Wine, which Believers drink at the holy Table, and which is subject unto the fate of being consumed: No other Explication can be given unto the Words of the Pontifical , which doth not ill suit with those of St. Austin; and I promise myself that the tenth Century (however dark and ignorant it be represented by Historians) will furnish us with another Witness, an Abbot of a famous Monastery, which will speak of the other Symbol, what the Pontifical hath said of the Symbol of Wine.  
In the fourth Place; They avow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is an inanimate Subject, as Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria, for refuting the Opinion of Origen, who denied that the holy Ghost exercised any Operation upon Things that have no Soul; he speaks thus: In affirming this, he doth not consider, 
Theop. Alex. Pasch. 1. Bibl. Pat. t. 3. p. 87.  that in Baptism the Mystical Waters are consecrated by the holy Ghost, which descends, and that the Bread of the Lord, whereby the Body of the Lord is shown forth, and which we break for our Sanctification; and the holy Cup, which with the Bread is set upon the Table of the Church, and which are things inanimate, are sanctified by Prayers, and by the coming of the holy Ghost. St. Epiphanius was not far from this Belief, when comparing the Bread after Consecration with the Body itself of our Saviour, he said, 
Epiphan. in Anchor.  That the one is round as to its Form, and insensible as to its Power; but the other hath the Features and Lineaments of a Body, and is all Life, Motion, and Action. To thus much also amounts their Belief, that the Change in the Sacrament concerned not the Nature of the Bread and Wine to change them into another thing, but only to add unto them the Grace which they had not before: that is to say, a quickening and sanctifying virtue in the right use of the Sacrament. 
Theod. dial. 1.  Jesus Christ, saith Theodoret, hath honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their Nature, but in adding the Grace.  
In the fifth place; These same Fathers affirm, that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration: it is the Judgement meant of St. Chrysostom: 
Chrysost. ep. ad Caesar.  The Bread of the Sacrament, saith he, is called Bread before it is sanctified; but Divine Grace having sanctified it by the Ministry of the Priest, it is no longer called Bread, but it is judged worthy to be called the Body of Christ, although the Nature of Bread remains. Monsr. de Marca in his French Treatise of the Eucharist, 
Pag. 12, 13. of the last Edit. pag. 9  doth agree, That until St. Chrysostom, the Fathers believed that the Bread did not change its Nature after Consecration: Moreover, he confesseth for truth the Letter of St. Chrysostom unto Caesarius. As also the Abbot Faggot doth in his Letter unto Monsr. de Marca, Son to that Illustrious Prelate and Precedent of the Parliament of Paris; he therein further informs us, that this Letter of St. Chrysostom is in the custody of Monsr. Bigot, who in his Voyage into Italy found it in the Library, whence Peter Martyr of Florence formerly procured it, I mean in the Library of the Duke of Florence; so that for the future there ought not to be any farther Contest of the validity of this Letter, because the true Author of it cannot be unknown. Theodoret, a great admirer of St. Chrysostom, 
Theod. dial. 2.  tells us: That the Nature of the Symbols is not changed. And in another of his Dialogues, The Mystical Symbols, saith he, after Consecration do not change their proper Nature, for they continue in their former Substance, 
Gelas. de duab. in Christ. nature. ad Nestor. & ●ueych.  in their first Shape, and in their first Form, and are visible and palpable as they were before. Pope Gelasius, at the end of the fifth Century: Certainly, saith he, the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which you receive, are something that is divine, whence also it is that by them we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature, and nevertheless they still retain the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine. It was also the Judgement of Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Age: 
Ephraem. An●t●och. apud Phoc. cod. 229.  The Body of Jesus Christ, saith he, which Believers receive, doth not forsake the outward Substance, and hold inseparably unto the inward Grace. And that it may not be questioned that he spoke of the Sacrament of his Body, he adds the same of Baptism, saying, that it preserves, just as the Eucharist doth, the outward Form, and the inward and spiritual Grace: And Baptism, 
Id. ibid.  saith he, being wholly spiritual, and being but one, keeps the propriety of its sensible Form, that is to say, Water, and loseth not what it was made. A Council of the East assembled at Constantinople Anno 754, declares: 
Concil. Const. in Act. Nicae●. 2. Act. 6.  That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer the Image of his Body, a Thing chosen, to wit, the Substance of Bread. Ahyto Bishop of Basil, Walafridus Straho, Ratran will teach the same Doctrine in the ninth Century, Ratherius Bishop of Verona, in the tenth, and the Taborites of Bohemia in the fifteenth. Yet it must be confessed there is to be found in the Writings of the Ancients, a Passage where the Author, be he who he will, seems to differ from this Belief, universally received by the Church in his Time; it is in an Easter Sermon, attributed unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles, who lived in the sixth Century, although it be not certain whether it be his or not; but so 'tis that in this Sermon amongst other things it is said: 
Cesar. Hom. 1. de Pasch.  That the invisible Priest (he means Jesus Christ) changeth by the secret Power of his Word the visible Creatures into the Substance of his Body and Blood. Some would answer, that the private Opinion of Caesarius should not take place against the many Testimonies above alleged, not being just that one should be preferred before so many, the greater part whereof were nothing inferior unto Caesarius in Dignity and Learning, and some surpassed him both in one and the other, as St. Chrysostom, and Pope Gelasius; others in Dignity at least, as St. Ephraim Patriarch of Antioch, not to mention his Learning, which in all likelihood was nothing short of Caesarius, if he were truly the Author of the Sermon which we examine; and others in fine in Learning, as Theodoret, whose Light and Knowledge was incomparably greater: and they would not fail here to apply that Maxim of Vincentius Lyrinensis, 
Vincent. Lyrinens. common.  already cited in the beginning of this History: If sometimes the different Opinion of one Person, or of some few which are deceived, rise up in opposition against the Consent of all, 
Id. ibid.  or at least of much the greater Number of Catholics. Against the Obstinacy of one, or of a few more, should first be opposed the Decree of an universal Council, if there be any. Secondly, if there are none, let the Opinion of several great Doctors, that do agree amongst themselves, be followed; for, saith he, whatsoever is believed by one particular Person, above or against what is received and allowed by all, be he Saint, Doctor, Bishop, Confessor, or Martyr, let it be reputed a low, peculiar, and close Thing, private and particular to himself, and let it not have the Authority of an Opinion commonly, publicly, and generally received. This is what several might answer unto this Difficulty, and their Answer would not be contemptible: Others think more kindness may be showed unto Caesarius, in reconciling him with the rest rather than reject him; for they conceive this Act of Humanity is due unto an Author to give a favourable Construction to his Words, and not to make him clash with the Opinion generally received, which ought especially take place in things that regard the essential Parts of Piety and Religion; because in those Things, without endangering our Salvation, we cannot separate from the Belief which hath been always received in the Church of God. Let us see then how they would reconcile Caesarius with those other glorious Witnesses : It may easily be done, say they, if you consider, that the Fathers often speak as Caesarius did, although they only understand a Change of Quality, which befalls the Substance wherein this change is made, 
Tertul. count. Marc. l. 3. & l. 1. ad Uxor.  though nevertheless it is not changed itself; for instance, Tertullian said, That we shall be changed into an Angelical Substance; instead of saying, that we shall be changed into an Angelical Quality, as he elsewhere explains himself. So Eusebius said of the Soul of Helen Mother of Constantin the great, 
Euseb de vita Constant. l. 3. cap. 46.  that she was transformed into an incorruptible and Angelical Substance; to signify, that she had acquired Angelical Qualities, in respect whereof she might assume the Name of Angelical Substance. So St. Austin, 
Aug. in Psal. 68 Hom. 1.  By Sin Man fell from the Substance wherein he was made; nevertheless Man continues to be Man, but because he lost the Righteousness and Holiness which beautified and adorned his Nature, he made no difficulty of saying so. And St. Peter Chrysologus, speaking of the change happened in the human Nature of Christ by the Resurrection, 
Chrysolog. Hom. 82.  saith, that our Lord changed Substance, which is not true but in regard of Qualities. But to come nearer the Sacraments, all Christians generally confess, that the Water of Baptism doth not lose its Substance, 
Tertull. de Baptism.  yet that hinders not but Tertullian calls Baptism, a divine Substance, because the Waters of Baptism receiving by Consecration the Holiness which they had not, they are said in some fort to pass into the divine Substance, it being reasonable, that the Subject should derive its Name from its best and most noble part. What then may hinder, but Caesarius might say in a good sense of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, That Jesus Christ doth change them into the Substance of his Body and Blood, although the Bread and Wine keep their Substance, because he makes them pass into the efficacy of his own Flesh, as St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks. Certainly it ought not to be thought strange, if they consider that Pope Gelasius, who wrote about 50 Years before Caesarius, 
Gelaf. de duab. nat. Christ.  that the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine still remains, as we but now heard, for all that saith, that the Bread and Wine pass into a divine Substance, because the Consecration gives them a heavenly and divine virtue, by reason whereof in some sort they may bear the Name of a divine Substance; whereas before Consecration they had only a Substance whose Qualities seemed but to nourish the Body, and they find nothing therein more harsh than what is said by Ratran, 
Bertram. de corp. & fang. Dom. Aug. annot. in Job t. 4 ex. c. 5. p. 394. Prosper ad Demetr.  That our Saviour did formerly in the Wilderness change the Manna and the Water of the Rock into his Flesh and Blood. And St. Austin, that Jesus Christ changeth us into his Body. And in fine, St. Prosper his Disciple, speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Body of Sin is converted or changed into his Body. Caesarius himself, say they, deserves that Right, and invites us thus to understand him; for in the first place, he teacheth in the same Sermon, that Jesus Christ intending to transport his Body into Heaven, left us his Sacrament, to have always his holy Sacrifice in Remembrance, who suffered Death for the Expiation of our Sins, Because, saith he, 
Id. ibid.  he was to remove from our Sight the Body which he had taken, and place it in Heaven, it was requisite he should in that Day consecrate the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, to the end that by the Mystery (that is, by the Sacrament) should be honoured what was once offered for the price of our Redemption; and that because the Redemption for the Salvation of Mankind had a continual Progress, the Oblation also of the Redemption should be perpetual, and that this everlasting Sacrifice should always live and be remembered in the State of Grace. Secondly, he compares the Change which comes to the Sacramental Symbols, unto that which befalls Men in Baptism, to show us that both the one and the other, being of the same nature, it can be only a change of Virtue and Quality; The Man renewed (saith he) by the saving Mysteries, 
Id. ibid.  passeth into the Body of the Church by the Water of Baptism, and by the Fire of the Holy Ghost, he is made the Bread of the Eternal Body. After which he adds, Let no Body then doubt but the Original Creatures may pass into the Nature of the Body of our Lord; seeing he perceives Man by the Art of heavenly Mercy, is made the Body of Jesus Christ. As they say, the honour of Caesarius is no way to be saved, nor any good sense be given his Words; but in saying that he intends to show, that as Man regenerated by Baptism, is not made the Body of Christ, but Mystically and Morally, so also the Bread of the Sacrament doth not pass into the Nature of his Body, but Sacramentally and Virtually, using also the Word Nature for Quality; In the same sense as St. Macarius used it, 
Macar Hom. 44. Greg. Nyss. in Cant. Hom. 9 Id. Orat. 1. in Christ. Resur. Id. de Virgin. c. ult.  when he said, That the truly Faithful Soul must be changed from this vile Nature, unto a Divine Nature, to intimate a Divine Quality. Gregory of Nyss, That we are changed into a spiritual Nature, that is to say, into a spiritual Quality. And again, That the Humanity of Jesus Christ is passed into the Divine Nature, to signify that it hath been made to participate of the virtue of the Divinity: And in fine, That we may pass from the Nature and Dignity of Men, into the Nature and Dignity of Angels. There's nothing more frequent than these kind of Expressions, in all the Monuments of Antiquity. I will add unto all these Considerations, that I could not find the Homily of Easter now in question amongst many Homilies of Caesarius, 
In Mr. Colbets, And St. Victors.  which I have lately seen in two Libraries, which may make it be suspected that it is of some Author much younger than Caesarius.  
In the sixth place, the holy Fathers teach that Church Fasts are broken, 
Tertul. de Orat. c. 14.  by participating of the Eucharist, as Tertullian teacheth, Many do think (saith he) that on Station-days, (they stayed there till three a Clock without eating) we should not attend Prayers and Sacrifices (that is to say, the celebration of the Eucharist) because that in receiving the Lord's Body, the Fast of the Station should be broke. I cannot conceive, saith the Protestant, that those who believed that this Body whereof they speak, and which is received at the holy Table, was the true and natural Body of Jesus Christ, could have this strange Fancy, that the Fast should be broken, in taking into their Mouths, and Stomaches, the holy and incorruptible Body of our Lord and Saviour: And I cannot imagine those People could be so ignorant to believe it, nor Tertullian so patiented to suffer such an Indignity without sharply reproving it, as it deserved; he was too vehement not to do it: and if one were much less so than him, it would be very hard not to be concerned that People that made Profession of Christian Religion, should so outrageously treat the glorified Body of Jesus Christ. 
Id. ibid.  Let the Reader judge with an  Mind, if he please, and he must agree with me, that the Latins act very well according to their Hypothesis, when they say, that they believe, the true Body of Christ doth not break the Fast. What we say of these first Christians, will appear yet more plainly, if we consider the Council given them by Tertullian in the same place; which is to receive the Sacrament and keep it, to take it at Evening when the Station is ended; In receiving, saith he, the Body of the Lord, and keeping it, you will save both, you will partake of the Sacrifice, and do the Duty of the Day. I conceive I have discovered Marks of this Belief, in our France in the VIth Century, and to the end those which read this Work, may the better judge if I am deceived, I'll here insert the Passage at large, it is taken out of the Life of St. Melain Bishop of Phemes, and is also found in the Supplement of the Councils of France, where we have an Account of an Assembly of Bishops, held at Angers, Anno 530. 
In supplem. Concil. Gallic. p. 49, 50.  Almost at the same time (saith the Author) the Man of God St. Milan, and the Elect of God, Albin, and St. Victor, Launus, and St. Marsus, assembled in the City of Anger's, in the Basilisk of St. Marry Mother of God; St. Milan, by common consent of the rest, celebrated Mass at the beginning of the Fast of Lent, and having ended, before they went away, the blessed Priest gave them in Charity the holy Eucharist with God's Grace, and his Benediction. But Marsus preferring the Fast of the Day before his Charity, and neglecting the Eucharist whereof he should have communicated, let fall the Portion he had received of St. Milan into his Bosom. Being then permitted to return to their Church, and having saluted each other, they by the Grace of God began their Journey; they had s●●●●ce gone ten Miles, but St. Marsus felt the Eucharist was turned into a Scrpent, which rolled about him, and as he found by the pain he suffered, that he was severely punished for his Disobedience, and Neglect he had committed at the Communion. He cast himself at the Feet of St. Milan, and told him what was happened; the holy Bishop wept for him all Night, Watching and Praying, and next Day gave him Absolution, and the Blessing, and presently after the Serpent took again the Form of the Eucharist, and St. Marsus taking it, he communicated with Joy, which he neglected to do to his Damage. It is plain that the Eucharist, here mentioned, is nothing else but the Bread of the Eucharist, which St. Cyril of Alexandria, commonly calls by that Name: In short, this Eucharist was intended for the Communion, as appears by the whole Story. Therefore St. Milan gave unto each of them a Portion; it also appears that Marsus had received some Tincture, that the receiving the Sacrament broke the Fast, and I find not but the other Bishops were of the same Mind. All that is blamed in Marsus, is the having preferred the Fast of the Day before the Communion, whereas he ought to have preferred the Communion before the Fast; that is to say, that it was better to have communicated with the others, and broke his Fast as they had done, than to deprive himself of the Sacrament to keep the Fast of the Day; 
Theodoret. Hist. Relig. p. 791.  because the Sacrament is a Bond of Charity which is infinitely greater than Fasting. Therefore the Anchorit Martion, said to Avitus, who went to visit him in his Solitude, and who made some scruple of breaking his fast to eat with him, We know that Charity is more excellent than Fasting. But, in fine, it was believed in our France in the VIth Century, as 'twas in Tertullian's time, that the receiving the Eucharist broke the Fast; and it shall appear in the Course of this History, that the Greeks believed so, in the XIth Century, and that they still believe it at present as Father Cellot informs us. To conclude, if any desire to know the Dioceses of these five French Bishops abovementioned, he may understand St. Milan was Bishop of Rennes, Albin of Angers, Launus of Constance in Normandy, 
Ap●d. Eus. b. Hist. l. 6. c. 49. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. c. 5. Contr. Donat. post Collat. c. 6. Clem. Alexand. S●romat. l. 1. p. 271. Cyril. Alex. in Joan. l. 4. c. 14.  Victor of Man's, and Marsus of Nantes.  
In the seventh place, I observe, that the Fathers speak of the Eucharist, as of a thing whereof but a little is received, a Bit, a Piece, a Portion: So the Priest of Alexandria in Eusebius sent unto Seraphion, A little of the Sacrament: So St. Austin speaks of receiving a little; and again, That Peter and Judas received each of them a Morsel: So Clement of Alexandria said, That each of the People took a little: And St. Cyril of Alexandria, That Jesus gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples: And so in a number of other places, which is not necessary here to mention in a thing not contested, and that is owned by every Body. In fine, having endeavoured with some labour to find if the ancient Doctors of the Church have affirmed, as the Latins at this time do, that several Miracles are done by the Sacrament, 
August. l. 3. de Trinit. c. 10.  I can find nothing of that Nature; on the contrary, they have informed me, That these things might have been honoured, or receive respect, as religious; but not cause astonishment, as things strange, or miraculous.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Use and Office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament.  
HAving seen what was believed and said in this spacious and vast Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, of the things received in the Sacrament; and having examined the Reflections which the Doctors of that Empire have made upon the Words of Institution of this Divine and August Sacrament; we are obliged to inquire what they have taught of the Use, Office, and employ of these sacred Symbols, I mean of the Bread and Wine. If we will search into their Records, wherein the Laws and Maxims of this Kingdom may be found, we shall see that those which have had the Government and Direction of it, have conceived that the Eucharist is the Sacrament, the Sign, the Figure, the Type, the Anti-type, the Symbol, the Image, the Similitude, and the Resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: It's true, 'tis not enough to say so, the Reader must moreover see the Testimonies where the holy Fathers say so, for 'tis their Opinions are now in question, and not ours. Let us then take all these Titles in Order, and show what the ancient Doctors of the Church have said unto each of them, at least as far as may be necessary unto our purpose.  
They say, in the first place, That it is a Sacrament; 
Hil. in Matth. cap. 9 Ibid. c. 30.  as when St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, speaks Of receiving the Sacrament of the Bread of Life, in Faith of the Resurrection, and that he saith of Judas, 
Ambros. de iis qui init. c. 9 Aug. Ep. 163. Id. l. 3. de Trinitat. c. 4. Id. Serm. ad Infant. Facund. l. 9 p. 404, 405. Isid. Hisp. d● Offic. Eccles. l. 1. c. 18.  that he was not worthy of the Communion of Eternal Sacraments. St. Ambrose calls it, The Sacrament of the true Flesh of our Lord. St. Austin, The Sacrament of his Body, and of his Blood: Again, he saith, That it is a great Sacrament: And again, These things (saith he) are called Sacraments. Facundus said the same, when he saith, That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, is called his Body and Blood, and that Believers do receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. St. Isidore of Sevil, in the VIIth Century, saith positively, That the Bread and Wine are made the Sacraments of the Divine Body, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. But being there is nothing more frequent amongst the Latin Fathers than this manner of Speech, which continued in the Latin Church until these late times; we shall not insist on gathering more Testimonies, to prove, that the holy Fathers believed, that the Eucharist was the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. It shall suffice to warn the Reader, 
Aug. de Civit. D●i l. 10. c. 5. comr. advers. leg. l. 2. c. 9 & a●●i.  that St. Austin teacheth us in sundry parts of his Works, that the word Sacrament signifies a holy Sign; and that those which desire more proofs of this Expression, may see what is said by the Author of the Commentaries, attributed unto St. Jerom, on the 11th of the 1st Epist. to the Corinthians. Charlemagne in his 4th Book of Images, chap. 14. Christian Druthmar upon St. Matth. in the Library of the Fathers, Tom 16. p. 361.  
The second Title we have set down, 
August. cont●. Adim. c. 12.  is that of Sign. St. Austin saith, That our Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my Body, when he gave the Sign of his Body.  
The third is that of Figure, 
Tertul. contr. Marc. l. 4. c. 40.  according to which Tertullian said, That Jesus Christ made the Bread his Body, in saying, This is my Body, (that is to say) the Figure of my Body; 
Id. l. 3. c. 19  and in the foregoing Book, he said, That our Lord gave unto the Bread the Figure of his Body. St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bress, 
Gaud. tract. 2. in Exod. Aug. in Psal. 3.  said, That the Wine is offered in Figure of the Passion of our Lord, that is to say, of his Blood. And St. Austin declares, that Jesus Christ in his first Sacrament, recommended, and gave unto his Apostles the Figure of his Body and Blood. It was also the Opinion of the Author of the Treatise of the Sacraments, 
L. 4. de Sacram. ap●d Ambros.  falsely attributed unto St. Ambrose, when he calls the Oblation of the Eucharist, The Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This Passage also is alleged by Paschas Rathbert, 
●ede in Luc. c. 22.  in his Book of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Venerable Bede, who died Anno 735, spoke the same Language, for in his Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke, he saith, That instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Jews Passover, Our Lord substituted the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine: 
Id. in Psal. 3.  And upon the 3d Psalms he repeats the Words of St. Austin, and saith, That our Lord in his Sacrament, gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood. This Expression continued longer in the Latin Church, seeing Charlemagne, who lived until the Year 814, used it in one of his Letters unto Alcuin, 
De Ration. Sep●●uzg. ad Alcuin.  wherein he treats of the Reason of the Septuagesima, Our Lord, saith he, Supping with his Disciples, broke Bread, and also gave them the Cup for the Figure of his Body and Blood, and left them a great Sacrament for our Benefit. Christian Druthmar will employ the same Word in the IXth Century.  
The fourth is that of Type, 
E●●r. de nature. Dei non serut.  in this sense Ephrem the Syrian saith, in the IVth Century, That our Lord taking Bread into his Hands, broke it, and blessed it, for a Type of his immaculate Body; and that he blessed the Cup, and gave it to his Disciples, for a Type of his Blood. 
Cyril. Hi●ros. Mystag. 4.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem, In the Type of the Bread, is the Body given unto you, and the Blood in the Type of Wine. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, 
Greg. Nazian. Orat. 42. vol. 2. de Pasch.  We are made Partakers of the Passover, and nevertheless typically, although this Passover is more manifest than the old one; for the legal Passover, I dare affirm, was an obscure Type of another Type, (that is to say, of the Eucharist.) And again, 
Id. Orat. 17. p. 273. Hieron. in Jerem. c. 31. Id. l 2. contr. Jovin. Ibid. Theod Dialog. 3. Id. Dialog. 1.  he calls the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, The Types of his Salvation. St. Jerome in his Commentary upon Jeremiah, The Type of the Blood (of Jesus Christ) is made with Wine. And again, Jesus Christ offered not Water, but Wine, for a Type of his Blood. And again, The Mystery which our Lord expressed in Type of his Passion. Theodoret speaking of the Holy Bread, calls it, The venerable and saving Type of the Body of Jesus Christ. And in another place, he said, That the Eucharist is the Type of the Passion of our Lord, and that the Holy Food is the Type of his Body, and of his Blood.  
The fifth is that of Anti-type, 
Const. Apost. l. 5. c. 13.  the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions saith, That our Lord gave unto his Disciples the Mysteries, Antitypes of his Body and precious Blood, Judas not being there present. And again, He calls the Eucharist, 
Ibid. l. 6. c. 29. Ibid. l. 7. c. 26.  the Anti-type of the Royal Body of Jesus Christ. And again, he affirms, That we celebrate the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of our Lord. St. Macarius, 
Macar. Hom. 27.  There is offered in the Church Bread and Wine, the Anti-type of his Flesh and of his Blood. Eustatius Bishop of Antioch, 
Act. 6. Cenc. Nicaen. 2.  expounding these Words of the 9th Chapter of Proverbs, Eat of my Bread, and drink the Wine which I have mingled: by the Bread and Wine (saith he) he meaneth the Antitypes of the bodily Members of Jesus Christ. 
Basil. Liturg.  St. Basil in his Liturgy, We beseech thee, presenting the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of thy Christ. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, 
Greg. Nazian. de obi●u Gorgon. vel Orat. 11. Id. Orat. 1. Cyril. Hierosol Mystag. 5. Theod. Dial. 2. Id. Dial. 3. extr.  his intimate Friend, to express both parts of the Eucharist, saith, The Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood. And in his Apologetic, he considers the Sacrament as The Anti-type of great Mysteries. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, saith, That we eat the Anti-type of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Theodoret, The Divine Mysteries (saith he) are the Antitypes of the true Body. And elsewhere, He speaks of participating of the Antitypes of the Body. Now the words Types, and Antitypes, are nothing else but the Form, the Expression, and a Representation, and they signify almost the same as the word Figure doth.  
The sixth is that of Symbol, which signifies, a Sign, Signal or Mark, as Grammarians say; so in the Apostolical Constitutions, 
Cons●●t. Apost l. 6. c. 23.  there is mention of a Sacrifice which is celebrated in memorial of the Death of Jesus Christ, and which was instituted to be the Symbol of his Body and of his Blood. 
Dionus. Hier. Eccles. l. 9  The Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, under the Name of Dennis the Areopagite, declares, That Jesus Christ is signified, and that we partake of him by the venerable Symbols. 
Ibid.  And again, he observes, That the Bishop that officiates washeth his Hands before the sacred Symbols, and that this washing is done before the most holy Symbols, as in the Presence of Christ himself, 
Euseb. demonst l. 1. c. 10.  who knows our most secret Thoughts. Eusebius saith, we have received, or learned to make the Memorial of this Sacrifice (of our Lord) upon the Table, with the Symbols of his saving Body and Blood. 
Ib. l. 8. a Gen.  And in the same Treatise, he saith, That Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to make use of Bread for a Symbol of his Body, and accordingly he calleth the Wine the Symbol of his Blood, 
Ibid.  and testifies, that our Lord himself gave unto his Disciples, the Symbols of the Divine Oeconomy, that is to say, 
Chrys. Hom. 83. in Matth. Palled. in vita Chrysost.  of his Incarnation. St. Chrysostom: If Jesus Christ be not dead, of whom are the consecrated things Symbols? Palladius in the Life of St. Chrysostom, often useth this term, speaking of pouring out the Symbols, of communicating of the Symbols of our Lord, 
Theod. 1 Cor. 11.  and of burning the Symbols of Mysteries. Theodoret, After the coming of our Lord, we shall have no more need of the Symbols of his Body. 
Id. in Psal. 109.  And in another Treatise, The Church offers the Symbols of his Body and Blood. And in his Dialogues he often speaketh thus, 
Id. Dial. 1.  Our Lord, saith he, hath made an exchange of these Names, and hath given unto his Body the Name of Symbol, and to the Symbol the name of his Body, (that is to say, giving unto his Body the name of Bread, and the name of Bread unto his Body) calling himself a Vine, and his Blood that which is the Symbol of it. 
Ibid.  He saith again, That our Lord honoured the visible Symbols, with the Name of his Body and Blood, that the Holy Food is the Symbol and Type of the Body and Blood of our Lord. 
Id. Dialog. 2.  And in the following Dialogue he speaks of the Mystical Symbols, which after their Sanctification do not change their first Nature. 
Maxim. in c. 3. Hier. Eccles.  And Maximius Scholiast of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite, speaking of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, said, These things are Symbols, and not the Truth itself. 
Vict. An ioch. in c. 14. M●rc.  Victor of Antioch, in his Commentary upon St. Mark, calls the Bread of the Eucharist, The Symbol of the Body of Jesus Christ.  
The seventh is that of Image; but because Image, Similitude and Likeness, signify the same thing, we will comprehend all three under the Name of Image. 
Euseb. dem. l. 8 a Genes.  Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea saith: That Jesus-Christ commanded his Disciples to make the Image of his Body. 
Trocop in Ge●es. c. 49. Gelaf. de duab. Christ. Nat.  Procopius of Gaza upon Genesis: He gave, saith he, unto his Disciples the Image of his Body. Pope Gelasius said the same at the end of the fifth Century: Certainly, saith he, the Image or Similitude of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is celebrated in the Mysteries, that showeth us plainly, what we are to believe touching Jesus Christ our Lord, even what we profess, what we celebrate, and what we receive in his Image. The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites in the Works of Origen keeps the same language, when he calls the Bread and the Cup, the Images of his Flesh and Blood. 
Orig. Dial. 3. contra Marc.  And 338 Bishops assembled at Constantinople Anno 754, say, that Jesus Christ hath commanded us to offer the Image of his Body; and all along in their Discourse, which is very large, they constantly and divers times call the Bread of the Eucharist, the Image of the Body of our Lord.  
We may add unto these Testimonies of the ancient Doctors of the Church, those which say, that the Body and Blood of our Lord are signified, shown, represented in the Eucharist, as having clearly the same force and meaning as the former; as when Tertullian saith of the Bread of the Sacrament, 
Tert. l. 1. c. 14.  that it is a Bread by which Jesus Christ represents his Body. St. Cyprian, 
Cypr. ep. 63.  that the Blood of Jesus Christ is exhibited by the Wine: the which is repeated by the Council of Braga in the second Canon, Anno 675. 
Dion. Areop. Hier. Eccl. ●. 3. Theoph. ep. Pasch. Ambros. de iis qui init. c. 9 Apud Bed. in 1 Cor. 11.  The pretended Denis the Areopagite, that by the Symbols Jesus Christ is signified. Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, that by the Bread of our Lord, his Body is represented unto us. St. Ambrose, that before the Words of divine Benediction, another thing is named, after Consecration the Body of Jesus Christ is signified. St. Austin, that the Infant is not frustrated of the participation of this Sacrament (he means that of the Eucharist) when he finds what the Sacrament doth signify. The Commentary upon St. Paul's Epistles under the Name of St. Ambrose, that in eating and drinking (in the holy Communion) we signify the Flesh and Blood. In fine, the true St. Jerome imitating Tertullian's Expression, 
Hieron. in Mat. c. 26.  that Jesus Christ took Bread and Wine, that he might also represent (that is as Melchisedek had done before) the truth of his Body and of his Blood.  
But the more easily to penetrate into the meaning of these Expressions, and the better to understand their Force, we must relate two things which we have observed in the Writings of the holy Fathers. First when they speak of the Eucharist, as of a Sign, a Symbol, a Figure, an Image; It is in opposition unto the Reality, which they consider as absent. In this sense they say, 
Maxim. 〈…〉 Dionus. Areop. p. 68 & 75. & 6●  that these things are Symbols, and not the Truth, That the sacred Oblations, to wit (the Bread and the Cup) are Signs of Things from above, which are more certain; That the things in the Old Testament were the Shadow; that those of the New are the Image; but that the Substance shall be in the World to come: That the Shadow was under the Law, the Image under the Gospel, and the Truth in Heaven. And I believe it was in this sense that the old Latin Liturgies said, Lord, 
Ambros. l. 1. de Offic. c. 48. Vetus Liturgia apud Bettram.  in receiving the Earnest of Life Everlasting, we humbly beseech thee that we may receive by a manifest Participation what we now have in a Sacramental Image. And sometimes after, That thy Sacraments, O Lord, may accomplish in us what they contain, to the end we may receive in reality, what we now celebrate in show and appearance.  
The second thing I have observed is, that the Holy Fathers unanimously avow that the Image and Figure cannot be the Thing itself whereof they be the Image and Figure: As when Tertullian saith, 
Tert contra Marc. l. 1. c 9  That the Image will not be entirely equal unto the Substance; for (saith he) it is one thing to be according to Truth, and another thing to be the Truth itself. And elsewhere, 
Id. contra Prax. c. 26. Athan. contra Hipocr. Melet. Contr. Marcel. l. 1. c. 4. Hilar. de Syn.  that which is of a Thing, is not the Thing itself whereof it is. And St. Athanasius, that which is like unto a Thing, is not the Thing itself whereunto it is like. Marcellus of Ancyras, if it be not Eusebius himself who disputes against him: Never was the Image of a Thing, and the Thing whereof 'tis an Image, one and the same. And St. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers, No Body is the Image of himself. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan observed almost the same language, when he said, 
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, spoke the same: 
Greg. N●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 itself? And Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel: The Image hath the Features and not the Things themselves. Claudian 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 itself. 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, etc. 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 Maxims in its Records? Is it possible that the wise and prudent Councillors, 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 considered 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 Knowledge as the ancient 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. ●. 16.  and who have considered 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 Enlargement 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 Eulogies 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 forbidden 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 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 pity 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 Cae●●●. t. 6.  and the quickening 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. 
I●d. Hispal. orig. 1.6.  And St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevil, That th●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 Archbishop 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 Virtue which God bestows on them for the Salvation of Men. And it is in relation to this Efficacy and Virtue 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 virtue; but Signs and Sacraments replenished (as may be said) with all the Virtue, 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 quickening and saving Virtue: 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 knowledge of the belief of the ancient Church upon this Article of our Salvation. Those who are any thing versed 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, although 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 'twould 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, etc. They fail not to make certain Observations which suffer us not to be ignorant after what manner they understand it to be so: 
Aug. Serm 53. de verb. Dom.  For in the first place, they make this Observation, Almost all (saith St. Austin) call the Sacrament the Body of Christ. And again, 
Id. l. 3. de Tri●it. c. 4.  We call nothing the Body and Blood of Christ, but that which being taken from the Fruits of the Earth, and consecrated by mystical Prayer, is received by us for the Salvation of our Souls. 
Isid. H●sual. Orig. 6. c. 19  And St. Isidore of Sevil, By the command of Jesus Christ himself we call his Body and Blood, that which being taken out of the Fruits of the Earth, is sanctified and made a Sacrament. We may also allege upon this Subject, those amongst them who have declared in the first Chapter of this second Part, that Jesus Christ in instituting his Eucharist called the Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood, and those who in the second affirmed, that the Sacrament was Bread and Wine; but to avoid repeating the same Testimonies, we remit the Reader unto those two Chapters, where he may consult those two Observations; whilst we shall only say that this Observation being so express and positive, gives very much Light and Strength unto the silence we hinted at, although it appears plain enough to be understood by several; but yet farther, they give us notice in the second place, that the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ: The Bread, saith St. Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. ep. ad Caes●r. Theod. Dial. 1.  is esteemed worthy to he called the Body of cur Lord. And Theodoret in one of his Dialogues, He that called Wheat, and Bread, that which is his Body by Nature, hath honoured the visible Symhols with the Name of his Body and of his Blood. Having a long while meditated (saith the Protestant) upon these sorts of Testimonies of the Holy Fathers, I have been forced to conclude, that because one thing which is honoured with the Name of another, cannot be truly that same by whose Name it is honoured; or that these Holy Doctors which affirm, That the Bread of the Sacrament is honoured with the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ, knew not how to reason, which cannot be said without slandering them; or that they believed not that this Bread was really the Body of Jesus Christ. He adds, that he doth not examine what they should have said, but what they did say, and he infers, that none can dispense themselves from approving what is contained in the second Branch of his Dilemma. For my part, I leave it to others to judge the Inductions which are made from the Passages of these Holy Doctors, because it is properly the Interest of Roman Catholics or Protestants, whose Arguments I only allege. But this is not all which the Holy Fathers say for the clearing up of their Intentions. They tell us for a third Advertisement, that if the Sacrament be the Body of Jesus Christ, it is but after a manner, and in some sort. So St. Austin doth declare, 
Aug. Ep 23 ad. Bonif. Id. in Psal. 33, Conc. 2.  The Sacrament (saith he) of the Body of Jesus Christ, is the Body of Jesus Christ after a manner; And elsewhere, Jesus Christ accommodated himself after a certain sort, when he said, This is my Body. I have not yet observed that these kinds of Corrections and Restrictions were used when things were spoken of, which were truly what they were called; but only when the Discourse was of those which were only so improperly, and by reason of certain relations which they have unto the Subjects whose Names they bear, and in whose consideration there's no scruple made to say, that they are the Subjects themselves, not really in the strictness of the Expression, but after a sort; 
Quintil. inst. Orat. l. 8.3. p. 404.  so the most excellent Orators, whom we may term the Masters of the Science, put this Term, after some sort, for one of the Tempers which may be used for modifying of Metaphors, and figurative Expressions, which may be too bold. But let us continue our design, and hear the famous Theodoret, who will furnish us with such pregnant and clear Lights, that we shall have no difficulty to comprehend in what sense the Holy Fathers called the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, 
Theod. dial. 1.  the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; see here how he speaks, The Lord (saith he) made a change of Names, giving unto his Body the Name of the Symbol, and unto the Symbol the Name of his Body; which he said upon the occasion that our Saviour had called his Body Bread, in the 6th Chapter of St. John, and the Bread his Body in the Institution of the Sacrament: So that his design is to show that the Sacrament is the Body of Christ, as the Body of Christ is Bread, seeing he puts no difference in this exchange of Names, and that he observes that the Name of the Body of Jesus Christ belongs no more to the Sacrament, than that of Bread belongs to the Body of Jesus Christ. Tertullian, if I mistake not, had an opinion much like this, long before Theodoret, when he said, 
Tertul. coner. Marc. l. 3. c. 19 Chrysost. i● c. 5. Galat.  That Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body, to interpret the ancient Prophecy of Jeremiah, which had called the Bread his Body. St. Chrysostom will not a little contribute to the clearing of what we examine, for explaining these Words of the 5th to the Galatians, The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh; He observes that this Word Flesh hath divers improper and figurative Significations, and amongst these sundry significations, he puts this, that sometimes it is taken for the Mysteries, or for the Sacraments; The Scriptures (saith he) is wont to call the Mysteries by the Name of Flesh, and the whole Church, saying, that it is the Body of Jesus Christ; but nothing can be seen plainer, nor more intelligible than these Words of Facundus, 
Facund. l. 9 c. ult.  We call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is in the Bread and consecrated Cup, his Body and Blood, not that the Bread is truly his Body, nor the Cup his Blood.  
Hitherto these Holy Fathers have not ill informed us of the Nature of this manner of Speech, that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but nevertheless they intent not to rest there, they will moreover inform us wherefore it is so used in the Church. They tell us then, in the first place, that the Bread and Wine is called the Body and Blood of our Lord, by reason of their resemblance: It is the Lesson St. Austin teacheth us in one of his Letters, 
Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif.  If the Sacraments (saith he) had not some resemblance unto the things whereof they be Sacraments, they would be no Sacraments; and it is because of this likeness, that they often take the Names of the things themselves; as then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Sacrament of his Blood, are after some sort, his Body and Blood, so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. He means, that the Eucharist should be the Body and Blood of Christ, by reason of the resemblance which there is betwixt them, as the Sacrament of Faith (that is to say Baptism) is called Faith; and as the Fridays before Easter are called the Passion of our Lord; and the representation of his Death, which is made in the celebration of the Sacrament, his Death itself: He instanced these two Examples of this kind of Speech in what preceded that which hath been cited. I will not here stand to show that the Father's ground this resemblance, some in the composition of Bread and Wine, and others in their Effects, because we have done it in the first Chapter of the first part. Secondly, they say, that they are so called, because They are the Sacraments, the Signs, and the Figures, which do contain the Mystery; I find it was formerly the reason of the Learned Tertullian, 
Tertul. contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 19  God (saith he) hath called the Bread his Body, that you might know that he whom the Prophet had anciently represented by the Bread, hath now given unto Bread the Figure of his Body. And I cannot see that any other meaning can be given unto these Words of St. Austin, Our Saviour made no difficulty to say, this is my Body, 
August. contr. Adim. c. 12.  when he gave the Figure of his Body: It is necessary to observe, that this Holy Doctor having alleged the Words of Jesus Christ, This is my Body, at the end of the Chapter he citys these Words of the Apostle, The Rock was Christ; to show that what is said in the Old Testament, that the Blood is the Life of Beasts, aught to be understood significatively, to signify that it is the Sign; as the Bread is called the Body of Christ, because it is the Figure, and the Rock Christ, because it was the Symbol of Christ. The same St. Austin speaks thus elsewhere, How is the Bread his Body, and the Cup, 
Id. ad Infant. apud Fulgent. & Bed.  or that which is in the Cup, his Blood? Brethren, these things are called Sacraments, because one thing is seen, and another thing is understood; that which is seen is of a bodily Substance, that which is understood hath a spiritual Fruit. I judge, it was also the sense of Theodoret when he wrote, 
Theod. dial. 1.  that our Lord, who called his natural Body Wheat and Bread, and who also called himself a Vine, hath also called the visible Symbols, by the Name of his Body and Blood, not by changing their Nature, but adding Grace unto their Nature. 
Fac. l. 9 ● ult.  It is in the same sense Facundus said, The Bread is not really his Body, nor the Cup his Blood, but they be so called, because they contain the Mystery, and for this reason our Lord called them his Body and Blood. This is the Explication which St. Ireneus gives unto the Names of Body and Blood, wherewith Jesus Christ honoured the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, 
Iren. l. 5 adver. haeres. c. 4.  It is (saith he) the Eucharist of the Body and Blood. And I know not, but St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon, 
Eligii vit. l. 2. c. 15. t. 5. Spicileg.  borrowed this kind of Expression from St. Iraeneus, for he makes use of it in the VIIth Century. Let him (saith he) that is sick trust in the sole Mercy of God; and let him receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. 
Orig. in Matth. c. 15. Chrysost. t. 5. Homil. 33.  It is also in this sense that Origen calls the Bread, the symbolical and typical Body; Also St. Chrysostom, the mystical Body and Blood. Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria doth positively make a difference betwixt the Mystical Body of our Lord, be it what it will, and his true Body; when going to explain what Jesus Christ saith, in the 6th Chapter of St. John, 
●useb. de Eccles. Theol. l. 3. c. 12. Hi●ron. in Ezech. c. 41. Bed. in c. 14. Mar. & 2●. Luc.  of the eating his Flesh and Blood; he observes, That he spoke not of the Flesh which he had taken, but of his Mystical Body and Blood. St. Jerom calls it, the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And Venerable Bede thus explains himself, The Bread and Wine do Mystically relate unto the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In the third place, they give us for a Reason of this Denomination, that the Sacrament is a memorial of Jesus Christ, and of his Death; but for this third Reason, we refer the Reader unto what we have said in the first Chapter of this second Part; where we have examined the Reflection which the Holy Fathers have made upon these Words of the Institution, Do this in remembrance of me. We must then pass unto their fourth Reason, which consists, as they tell us, in that the Bread and Wine are in the place and stead of the Body and Blood of Christ: It is very likely Tertullian thought so, when he said, The Body of Jesus Christ is reputed to be in the Bread, 
Tertul. de Orat. c. 6.  This is my Body, Corpus ejus in pane c●nsetur, hot est corpus meum. Mr. Rigaut is not far from this Opinion, when he makes this Observation upon the Words of Tertullian, It appears that they may be thus explained: by the Sacrament of Bread, he recommends his Body, as St. Austin, lib. 1. quaest. Evang. 43. hath said, by the Sacrament of Wine he recommends his Blood; But whatever Mr. 
Aug. in Joan. Tract. 45.  Rigaut's Explication may be, St. Austin speaks, as I think, cleanly enough in one of his Treatises upon St. John, where he makes this difference, 
Id. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 45.  betwixt the ancient People which lived under the Law, and those now, who live under the Gospel; See how the Faith continuing the same Faith, the Signs have been changed; the Rock was Christ; unto us, what is put upon God's Table is Jesus Christ. He also elsewhere establisheth this Maxim, That all those things which do signify, seem in some sort to hold the place of the things signified; as when the Apostle saith, that the Rock was Christ, because, without doubt, it signified Jesus Christ. It is in the same sense St. 
Cyril. Hierosol Mystag. 4.  Cyril of Jerusalem said, Let us receive these things with full assurance, as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, for in the Type of Bread, the Body is given unto you, and the Blood in the Type of Wine. Bullinger writing against Casaubon, alleges a Greek Text out of a Passage of Victor of Antioch, taken out of his Commentary upon St. Mark, wherein we find the same Doctrine, 
Victor. 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 'tis 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 Archbishop 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 strengthens 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. de● 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 Virtue 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 Virtue. 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 Virtue, 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 Virtue. 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 ourselves this Law to avoid Confusion; therefore it shall suffice to observe, That from all these Considerations of the Holy Fathers which we have alleged, there results two Doctrines from their Writings, both which have been their Foundation for the Virtue 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. ●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 show 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 Judgement 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 expressly unto the Subject in hand, The participation itself (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 die 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, etc. 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 virtue of sanctifying and quickening 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 although 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 virtue to vivify us; which is that influence of Life mentioned by St. Cyril.   

CHAP. IU.  
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 quickening Virtue 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 Virtue: 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 inquire 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 Pedagogue, 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 Mystery! 
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 'tis to drink the Blood of Christ, to be Partaker of the Incorruption of our Lord; which he attributes to the entering 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 must be understood according to the Subject of the Discourse; for because they imagined his Discourse was hard and unsupportable, as if he intended to have given them his very Flesh to eat; to dispose Matters into a spiritual Sense, he said in the first place, It is the Spirit that quickeneth: then he adds, The Flesh profiteth nothing, that is, to vivify. He also showeth what he will have us understand by the Spirit, the Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life; as before, Whosoever heareth my Words, and believeth in him that sent me, hath eternal Life, etc. Therefore to obtain Life, there must be an Appetite for this Word; we must devour it by the Ear, meditate of it by the Understanding, and digest it by Faith. Also a little before he called his Flesh heavenly Bread, pressing in, and above all by the Allegory of necessary Meats, the Memory of the Fathers, which had preferred the fleshpots of the Egyptians before the heavenly Vocation. And elsewhere he teacheth us the Reasons wherefore these Kind's of Expressions must be taken figuratively, when he gives us this general Rule for the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures: If the natural Sense will not admit (to wit, 
Id. contra Marc. l. 3. c. 23. Rigalt. in unum locum. August l. 11. de Gem. ad Litt. c. 1.  what the Letter of the Scripture bears) it follows, that the Expression should pass for a Figure or Metaphor. The late Mr. Rigaut, very pertinent to this Matter, reports the Maxims of St. Augustin: If (saith he) in the Words of God, or of any one sent to be a Prophet, there is found any Expression, which cannot be understood by the Letter, without Absurdity, it is out of doubt, that it should be understood as spoken figuratively, to signify something. 
Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7. f. 2.  Therefore Origen also understands the Words of Christ in the 6th. of St. John, figuratively, saying particularly of these, If you eat not my Flesh, and drink my Blood, that it is a kill Letter, if it be taken in a literal Sense; whereas if we understand them spiritually, they kill not, but there is in them a quickening Spirit. And elsewhere explaining these Words, He sleeps not until he hath eat and drank the Blood of the slain. He seeks under the Law and the Gospel, amongst the Jews and Christians, the literal Accomplishment of this Prophecy; and not finding it amongst the Jews, who were expressly forbidden to eat the Blood; nor amongst the Christians, which for a long time made a Scruple of eating it, particularly in Origen's time, he saith, 
Id Homil. 6. in Numb.  That of necessity we must departed from the Harshness of the Letter unto the Sweetness of the Allegory. And having observed that what our Saviour said in the 6th. of St. John, That to eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, had so displeased the carnal Disciples which were with him, and forsook him, he adds, That it is said of the Christian People, of the faithful People, That they drink the Blood of Christ, not only by the Ceremony of Sacraments, but also when we receive his Words, wherein is Life; as he saith himself, The Words which I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. It is he then, saith he, that is broken, whose Blood we drink; that is, That we receive the Words of his Doctrine. He saith almost the same in the 35th. Treatise upon St. Matthew. 
Euseb de Theol. Eccles. contra Marc. l. l. 3. c. 12.  Eusebius thus makes our Saviour speak to explain what he saith in the 6th. of St. John, of the eating of his Flesh; Do not think, that I speak of the Flesh wherewith I am environed, as if you should eat it, and think not that I command you to drink sensible and corporal Blood, but know, that the Words I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life: For it is my Words and my Discourse, which are this Flesh and Blood, whereof whosoever eateth always, he shall be Partaker of Life eternal, as being nourished with heavenly Bread. Let not then what I have said unto you touching the eating my Flesh, and drinking my Blood, offend you (saith he) and let not an unadvised Understanding of what I said unto you of Flesh and Blood, trouble you; for these Things profit nothing, being understood carnally; it is the Spirit that quickens those which can underderstand it spiritually. 
Athan. in illud quicunque dixerit verb. contra fill. homin.  St. Athanasius speaks no less clear for explaining these Words of Jesus Christ; Doth this offend you? what and if you see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? it is the Spirit that quickens, the Flesh profiteth nothing, the Words which I speak unto you, are Spirit and Life. Our Saviour, saith he, spoke of the one, and the other; that is, of his Flesh and Spirit; and he distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh, to the end, that not only believing what was visible of him, but also that which was invisible, they might learn that the Things which he said were not carnal, but spiritual; for unto how many Persons could his Body have sufficed for Meat, to become Food for all the World? Therefore for that Reason he speaks of the Ascending of the Son of Man into Heaven, to withdraw them from carnal Thoughts, and to teach them, that the Flesh of which he had spoken unto them, was heavenly Food and spiritual Nourishment, which he was to send them from on high: For the Words, saith he, which I have spoke unto you, are Spirit and Life: as if he should have said unto them, This Body which appears, and which is given for the World, shall be given as Meat, to be distributed as Meat unto each one, and to be made unto all a Preservative in the Resurrection to eternal Life. 
Macar Homil. 27.  And can it be thought St. Macarius was of another Mind, when, speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist (he said) That those which should partake of this visible Bread, should spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ. 
Cyril. Hierosol. Mystag. 4.  Nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem, when he observed, that the Jews which did not spiritually understand the Things which Jesus Christ had said, were offended, and forsook him, thinking that he commanded them to eat Flesh. Nor St. Basil, observing that the Faculties of the Soul are called by the same Names as the external Members, 
Basil in Ps. 33.  and that because our Lord is the true Bread, and that his Flesh is Meat indeed, it is necessary that the Contentment and Pleasure which is taken in eating Bread, should be created in us by a spiritual Appetite. Nor the incomparable St. Chrysostom in that excellent Discourse, which one of his Homilies upon St. 
Chrysost. Hom. 46. in Joan.  John doth furnish us: It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. See here what he would say: You must understand spiritually these Things which I have spoke of myself; he which understands 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 stayed 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'll begin with the famous Testimony which is seen in the third Book of Christian Doctrine. 
Aug. de Doctrine. 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. D●m. Serm. 33. & tr. 25. in Joan. Id. in. Joan. tract. 26. Id. tract. 1. ●n Ep. Joan.  Unto this excellent Passage I'll 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 fattened, 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 Virtue 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 than 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. Psalms, 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 crucify 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 entire. 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 awe by the Authority of their good Master, and that in them he might give us a wholesome Example of Humility and Piety, that where Knowledge 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 departed because he understood the Mystery, but because that itself 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 departed, 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. E●●●. 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 inquire 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 itself, which was made Flesh; for if it were possible for him that continues wicked to eat the Word made Flesh, which is the living Word and Bread, it would not have been written, whosoever eateth of this Bread shall live for ever. 
Id. Homil. 3. in Matth.  And again; The Good eat the Bread which came down from Heaven, but the Wicked eat a dead Bread, which is Death. Ratherus Bishop of Verona hath transmitted unto us a Passage of Zeno Bishop of the same Place, and one of his Predecessors, which some make Contemporary with Origen, and Martyr of Jesus Christ, 
Zeno Veronens. apud. Rath. t. 2. Spici●eg. Dach. p. 181.  under the Emperor Gallienus; he citys it out of Zeno's Sermon touching the Patriarch Juda and his Daughter-in-law Thamar. The Sermon is indeed Printed, but the Passage whereof wespeak, is not now to be seen in it; it shall be here inserted, and the Reader may see that he was of Origen's Opinion. The Devil (saith he) is the Father of all wicked Livers; and 'tis much to be feared, that he in whom the Devil inhabits by these three Sins, Pride, Hypocrisy, and Luxury, doth not eat the Body of Jesus Christ, nor drink his Blood, although he seems to communicate with Believers: Our Saviour saying, He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him: which may be thus construed; he that dwelleth in me, and I in him, eateth my Flesh, and drinks my Blood; for I cannot see how the Devil can reside in him in whom God liveth, 
Higher in cap. 66. Esa.  and which liveth in God, but he dwelleth in him that is empty and darkened by Hypocrisy or Pride, and defiled by Luxury. St. Jerom also speaks the same Language. All those (saith he) which love their Pleasures more than God, sanctified outwardly in Gardens and Doors, but not in Body nor Mind, do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ, nor drink his Blood; of which himself saith, Whosoever eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Life eternal; because they cannot enter into the Mysteries of Truth, and at the same time eat the Meats of Impiety. It is the constant Doctrine of St. 
August. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Id. ibid.  Augustin which he establisheth in several Places. It must not be imagined (saith he) that a Man which doth not belong to the Body of Jesus Christ, should eat the Body of Christ. And again; Let it not be said, that those do eat the Body of Jesus Christ, because they are not numbered amongst the Members of Christ: For, not to say any thing else, they cannot at once be the Members of Jesus Christ, and the Members of an Harlot. And in fine, himself saying, Whosoever eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; doth show what it is to eat the Body of Christ, and to drink his Blood, not in Sacrament only, but in Truth; for it is to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwell in him: It is as if he had said, Let not him which dwelleth not in me, and in whom I do not dwell, think or imagine, that he eateth my Flesh, or drinketh my Blood. 
Id. Tract. 26. in Joan. p. 94. 6.  And elsewhere speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; It is received (saith he) at the Lord's Table by some unto Life, and by some others unto Death; but the thing itself, whereof it is a Sacrament, is Life unto all Men, and is not unto Destruction unto any which participate of him. 
Id. ibid.  And a little after; He that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, eateth not spiritually his Flesh, and drinketh not his Blood, although he grindeth visibly with his Teeth, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but rather he eateth and drinketh unto his Damnation the Sacrament of so great a Thing, 
Prosper sent. 339. August. de verb. Apost. serm. 2. c. 1.  by presuming to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, being unclean. St. Prosper allegeth this Passage in stronger Terms, and such, that in his Time it was read without the Word spiritually; for he saith only of the Wicked, That he eateth not the Flesh of Jesus Christ. But let us again hear the same St. Austin saying, 
Id. Tract. 27. in Joan.  That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ shall be Life unto every one, if what be received visibly in Sacrament, is eaten and drank spiritually in the Truth itself; therefore he exhorteth Believers not to eat the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Sacrament only as the Wicked do. 
Philo Carp. t. ●1. Bibl. Pat. p. 228. in Cant.  Let us then conclude the Examination of this second Tradition, by the Words of Philo of Carpace; That it is only unto those which are pure of Heart, that this pleasant Food, this heavenly Bread, that this supersubstantial Drink is given; until we arrive at the Place where it shall be shown, that it was also the Belief of the Greek Church in the XIth. Century.  
What remains to be treated of in this Chapter, is the Question of Jesus Christ's Presence upon Earth; to wit, if besides the Presence of his Divinity, whereby he is always present with the Church Militant, he is also really and effectually present by his Humanity. Having applied myself with some diligence in enquiring into the Belief of the Holy Fathers, upon this Article of our Faith, I have found, that when they explain how our Saviour is present and absent unto his Church, they always touch the presence of his Divinity, but they never say any thing of the Presence of his Humanity; or if they do, it is but absolutely to exclude it, when at the same Time they establish the other for the Comfort of Believers; 
Origen in Mat. tract 33.  according to which Origen endeavouring to reconcile the Passages of Scripture, which say, That Jesus Christ shall be always with us, with others which say, that he will go and departed, he teacheth us, that he is with us, and will not departed as to the Nature of his Divinity, but that he will departed, and retire himself from us, 
Id. ibid.  according to the Oeconomy and Dispensation of the Body which he had taken; that he departeth from us as Man, but that he is every where present according to the Nature of his Divinity. And a little under, It is not the Man, (that is to say, the human Nature) which is every where, where two or three are gathered together in his Name; neither is it the Man (that is to say, the human Nature) neither, which is with us until the end of the World; nor it is not the human Nature that is present with Believers wheresoever they are assembled, but it is the Divine Virtue which was in Jesus Christ. And St. 
Cyril Hierosol. catech. illum 14. extr.  Cyril of Jerusalem; he (saith he) who is sitting there above, is also here present with us; he beholdeth the Strength and Order of the Faith of each one; for because he is now absent after the Flesh, do not think but that he is present here in the midst of you in Spirit, knowing what is said of him, seeing our Thoughts, trying the Reins and the Heart. I pass by St. Chrysostom in silence; 
In Joan. Homil. 71, 74, 77.  for although in several of his Homilies upon St. John, he establisheth the Absence of our Saviour as to his human Nature, yet because he doth not express himself in so strong and clear Terms as others, I will omit alleging his Testimonies, to go on unto St. Austin, 
August. de ve●l●. Dom. serm. 60. Id. tract. 50. in Joan.  which leaves us no ground of Suspicion. He indeed is with us (saith he) by his Divinity, but if he had not departed from us corporally, we should always see his fleshly Body, and should never have believed spiritually. And elsewhere what he said, Behold I am with you always unto the end of the World; that (saith he) is accomplished according to his Majesty, his Providence, his ineffable and invisible Grace; but according to the Flesh, which the Word had taken; according to which he was born of the Virgin, etc. 
Id. in Joan. tract. 78.  You shall not have me always with you; for why? because he conversed forty Days with his Disciples in his bodily Presence, than he ascended up into Heaven, they conducting him in seeing, not following of him; and he is not here, for he is there at the right Hand of his Father; and he is here, for he is not departed as to the Presence of his Majesty. Besides, we have Jesus Christ always by the Presence of his Majesty, but after his bodily Presence, it was very well said unto his Disciples, Ye shall not have me always; for the Church had him a few days in his bodily Presence, now she embraceth him by Faith, and seeth him not with corporal Eyes. And again in another Place he affirms, that according to his Godhead, he forsook not those which he left as Man; that he departed, as to what regarded his Manhood, in that whereby he was but in one Place; but that he stayed as to that whereby he is God, 
August. in Joan. tract. 92. Id. ib. tract. 102. Ibid. tract. 107. Id. S●rm. 120. de divers. c 7.  in regard of that whereby he is every where. The same St. Austin again, He was (saith he) to go and leave his Apostles according to his bodily Presence; but he was to be with all his to the End of the World by the Presence of his Spirit. And elsewhere, He left the World by the Departure of the Body, he went unto the Father by the Ascension of his human Nature; but he hath not left the World in regard of the Presence of his Providence. And in another Treatise, He recommended (saith he) unto his Father those which he was about to leave as to his bodily Presence. In fine, he assures us, That in regard of the Presence of his Divinity, he is always with the Father; but in regard of his bodily Presence, he is now above the Heavens at the right Hand of the Father, 
Cyril. Alex. in Joan. 13.33. p. 747. Ib. in c. 16. 16. l. 11. & in c. 17. 12. p. 933, 973. Id. ib. in c. 16.6. l. 10. p. 916.  although that he is in the Heart of Christians by the presence of Faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria, doth he not say, That although he be absent from us, as to the Flesh, nevertheless he governs all Things by his Divine Virtue, and is present with those which love him? And elsewhere in the same Treatise, That although he be absent corporally, yet he dwelleth in the Saints by his Spirit; that he is not gone, but after the flesh, but that he is always present by the Virtue of his Divinity. And again having laid it as a certain Truth, That Jesus Christ going to his Father, yet stayed with the Apostles by the effectual Operation, the Grace and Power of the Spirit: He saith besides all that, 
I eo 1. Serm. 2. de Ascens. c. 2.  It is not to be doubted, but that he departed and absented himself as to his Flesh, and the Presence of his Body. Pope Leo the first: Our Lord Jesus Christ (saith he) being gone up to Heaven in the Presence of his Disciples, forty Days after his Resurrection, he put an end to his bodily Presence, to remain at the right Hand of his Father, 
Ib. c. 4.  until the Time divinely appointed for the gathering the Children of the Church was accomplished, and until he comes to judge the quick and the dead in the same Body wherein he ascended. And again; Jesus Christ entered into the Glory of the Majesty of his Father, 
Id. Serm. de Nativit. sua. M●●im. Taurin. Hom. 4. de Sepult. Dom.  and began to be more present by his Divinity in a more ineffable manner, being departed according to his Humanity. And again; He is absent in regard of his Flesh whereby he may be seen, but is present as to his Divinity, whereby he is always entirely every where. St. Maximus Bishop of Turin; We should not now (saith he) any●more seek the Saviour in, or upon the Earth, if we could touch or find him, 
Fulgent. l. z. ad Trasim. c. 17. Id. de Baptis. Aethiop. c. 3. Id. de Incarn. & Grat. Christ● c. 10.  but according to the Glory of his Majesty, to say with the Apostle St. Paul, Now we know Jesus Christ no more after the Flesh. St. Fulgentius Bishop of Rusp in Africa, declares, That according to his bodily Substance he left the Earth when he went up into Heaven; but according to his Divinity and immense Substance, he never left the Earth nor Heaven. And elsewhere, As to his Body he is gone up to Heaven, but as to his Divinity, he stayed with his upon Earth; that he ascended into Heaven, as to his Body, in his Disciples Sight, but that he forsakes not his upon Earth, 
Vigil. Taps. l. 1. contra Eutych. c. 6. Ibid.  in regard of his Deity. Vigilius of Tapsus, an African Bishop also; The Son of God (saith he) hath left us as to his human Nature, but as to his Divine Nature, he said, Behold, I am with you always unto the End of the World. And two Lines after, He is with us, and he is not with us, because those which he hath left, and from whom he departed, in regard of his bodily Presence, he hath not left nor forsaken them as to his Divine Nature: as to the Form of a Servant which he removed away from us, carrying it into Heaven, 
Id. contra Eutych. l. 4. cap. 14.  he is absent from us; but he is present in Earth by the Form of God, which departeth not from us. And elsewhere in the same Work, Whilst his Body was on Earth, certainly it was not in Heaven, and now that it is in Heaven, certainly it is no longer on Earth; and it is so true, that it is not there, that it is according to it, that we look for Jesus Christ's coming from Heaven; whereas according to the Word, 
Id. contra Arr. etc. l. 2. c. 17.  we believe that he is present with us on Earth. And again, explaining these Words of Jesus Christ unto his Apostles; I go unto my Father: He spoke certainly (saith he) of the human Nature which he had taken, in regard whereof he was to go to his Father, from whence he was to come to judge the quick and the dead; but as for his Divinity, which filleth all things, and which is comprehended in no space, as it leaves no Place, so neither goeth it to any Place. 
Bed. Hemil. 3. aestiv. de temp. feria 6. Pas●h. Id. in Joan. cap. 9  Venerable Bede in the eighth Century is no less positive herein than others, for he assures, That Jesus Christ was received into Heaven as to his Humanity which he took from the Earth, and that he remaineth with the Saints upon Earth by his Divinity, which equally filleth Heaven and Earth. And upon these Words. Behold, I am with you always until the End of the World: 
Id. in Marc. c. 13. & Hom. 4. de Confess.  Him (saith he) that was then in the World by his bodily Presence, is now every where present by his Divity. And elsewhere he saith, That Jesus Christ ascending triumphantly unto his Father after his Resurrection, 
Id. Homil. aestiv. de temp. Dem. Jubilit.  hath left the Church, in regard of his bodily Presence, the which nevertheless he never for sook as to the Protection of his Divine Presence, continuing with her unto the End of the World. And explaining these Words of Jesus Christ unto his Apostles; You shall see me a little while, because I go to my Father, etc. It is (saith he) as if he had plainly said, the Reason that you see me a little while after I am risen from the dead, 
Id. Domin. cantate.  is, because I am not to tarry always upon Earth, in respect of my Body, but I must go into Heaven in regard of the human Nature which I have taken. And again, When I am ascended into Heaven, 
Id. Dom vocem jucunditatis.  you shall not see me such as you were wont to see me now, environed with mortal and corruptible Flesh, but you shall see me coming with Glory to judge the World, and appearing to the Saints after Judgement with greater Majesty. 
Id. Hom. hyem. de temp. Dom. 3. post Epiphan. Id. in Festiv. Pentecostes. Id. ibid.  He himself again testifies, That he hath left the World, and is gone to the Father, because he hath withdrawn from the sight of those which loved the World, that which they had seen, and had carried by his Ascension unto the invisible things, the human Nature which he had assumed. He saith farther, We amongst the Gentiles which have believed, cannot ourselves go unto the Lord, whom we cannot now see in the Flesh, but those amongst us which confess the Frailties of our Servitude; we should now draw near by Faith unto him which is sat down on the right Hand of the Father. 
In St. Matth. c. 28.  In fine, he declares, That the Lord ascending into Heaven after his Resurrection, hath left the Apostles as to the Presence of his Body, but that he never left them as to the Presence of his Divine Majesty; that we have for a Comforter Jesus Christ our Lord, whom, though we cannot see bodily, yet we have contained in the Evangelists all that he did, and said during the Time that he was in the Flesh. This same Language was used in the IXth Century, as shall be seen afterwards, and we shall also make one of the Prelates of the Gallican Church despose in the XIIth Century, to learn from his Mouth, that it wa● not then forgotten in our France; but in the mean while it will not be amiss to observe, that according to the Belief which we have established, the holy Fathers have only taken notice of two come of Jesus Christ, the one attended with Shame and Ignominy, the other with Glory and Majesty; but both visible, without ever telling us, that there was a third, which holds the middle betwixt both, whereby Christ descends daily upon the Earth. On the contrary, the Protestants affirm, That Tertullian declares the Nature of a true Descent in a manner, which showeth, as they say, That neither him, nor the Church in his Time believed, that a Body could descend from one Place to another without being seen; 
Phantom Tertull. contra Marc. l. 4. c. 7.  For, saith he, writing against the Ghost of Martion, when 'tis made, it is seen, the Eyes perceive it, it is done gradually, and so it requires to ask, in what Posture, with what Retinue? Is it with Violence, or moderately? Or also in what Hour of the Day or Night it came down? Moreover, who see it come down? who gave an account of it? who affirmed it? And again saith he, Is it a thing which is not easily to be believed when it is affirmed? I declare, saith the Protestant, that I could never adjust this Declaration of Tertullian's with the invisible Descent of the Body of Jesus Christ, in an infinite number of Places; and that I should be obliged unto those which would help me to the means to do it. For if what the Latins teach, be true, that the Body of Christ descends every Day upon the Communion-Table in an invisible manner, I must be obliged to accuse Tertullian, not only of Negligence, but also of Stupidity, to have spoken so absolutely, and without excepting what happens in the Eucharist, although I have otherwise a singular Esteem for his great Wisdom and Learning. But on the other Hand, seeing Tertullian is agreed with the other Doctors of the Church, and that he saith nothing contrary to their Testimonies, wherein they constantly oppose the Presence of the Divine Nature of our Lord unto that of his human Nature, the Presence whereof they formally deny upon Earth; I cannot forbear, saith he, to conclude, that they have owned but one sole Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ, I mean one visible Presence; and that the Invisible Presence of that holy Body never entered into their Thoughts. In fine, say they, it is, whereunto amounts all the Declarations which hitherto have been made, and whereunto we may also add these excellent Words of St. Austin; 
Aug. in Joan. tract. 50. I●. in Ps. 46.  He is gone, and he is present; he is returned, and he departed not from us; for he carried his Body unto Heaven, but he withdrew not his Majesty from the Earth; and these, he took away his Body from our Sight, but as God he departed not from your Hearts; contemplate him ascending, believe in him absent, expect him as to come, but feel him always present by his secret Mercy. From hence doth proceed sundry Doctrines, that if I mistake not, deserve to be considered. In the first place, when the holy Fathers make a Difference betwixt the corporal Presence of our Lord, with his spiritual Presence: They teach, that this latter is common unto him with the Father and the Holy Ghost. When the Son, saith St. Austin, 
August. tract. 107. in Jo●●. Id. ibid. ●act. 106.  removed from his Apostles his corporal Presence, he with his Father kept them spiritually. And elsewhere, He kept his Children by a bodily Presence, and he was to departed from them by a bodily Absence, to keep them with his Father by a spiritual Presence. Secondly; although they every where establish the Absence of our Lord, as to his Body, yet they teach, that he is present with the believing Soul; but they make this Presence depend upon the Intercourse of their Faith and Devotion, which lifts itself up unto Heaven, where he dwells, which goes and meditates on him, at the right hand of his Father, and that goes to take him upon the Throne of his Glory; and so it is this excellent Passage of St. 
August. tract. ●0. in Joan.  Austin is to be understood: Let the Jews hear, let them take him; but they answer, How shall I take him, seeing he is absent? How shall I reach with my Hands unto Heaven to embrace him upon his Throne? Send up thither thy Faith, and you have already embraced him; your Fathers have embraced him in the Flesh, but you receive him in your Heart; for Jesus Christ is absent as he is also present. 
Id. Serm. 74. de divers. c. 4.  And again, We now believe in him that sitteth on the right Hand of the Father, yet nevertheless whilst we are in this Body, we are absent from him: If any make any doubt of it, or deny it, and that he saith, Where is your God? we cannot show him unto him. In fine, I believe, that from this same Fountain proceeds also this other Stream, I mean the sursum Corda, which was famous in the ancient Church, which they made to echo out aloud in the Christian Assemblies at the very Time when they disposed themselves to receive the Communion, and which still remains in all their Liturgies; for by these Words they were warned not to look barely or only upon the Bread and the Cup, as the great Council of Nice doth speak, by the Relation of Gelatius of Cyzika, but to lift up all their Thoughts into Heaven toward the only Object of their Devotion, which is Jesus Christ our Saviour; therefore the holy Fathers often exhort their Flocks not to seek Jesus Christ upon Earth, 
Chrysost. Hom. 24. in 1 ad Cor.  but in Heaven; witness St. Chrysostom, who saith, that to draw near him, we must be like an Eagle, and fly unto Heaven itself, mount on high, and have nothing common with the Earth, not grovel nor be drawn downwards, but fly continually upwards; look towards the Sun of Righteousness, having the Eye of the Understanding opened. And elsewhere, 
Id. Hom. 11. ad Pop. Antiochen.  If you would see my Wing, I have one swifter than the Eagles to fly not ten or twenty Degrees, nor unto Heaven only, but even beyond the Heavens, and above the Heaven of Heavens, where Jesus Christ sitteth at the right Hand of God. And again, the reason wherefore Christ called us Eagles, 
Id. de Baptism. Christi.  saying, Where the Body is, there will the Eagles be gathered together; it is, that we should ascend up into Heaven, and that we should fly upwards, supported by the Wings of the Spirit. But on the contrary, saith he, we grovel on the Earth like Serpents, 
Id. Hom. 4. de incomp. Dei Nat.  and eat Dust. And elsewhere, Let no Body have at that time Thoughts concerning the Affairs of this Life, but banishing from his Mind all worldly Thoughts, transport himself wholly into Heaven, as it were, assisting at the Throne of Glory, and flying with the Seraphims, offer the most holy Hymn unto the God of Majesty and Glory. 
Id. Hom. in Seraph.  And again elsewhere, Consider these Things, O Man, and representing unto yourself the Greatness of the Gift; raise yourself up, 
Cyril. Hierosol. Mystag. 5.  and forsaking the Ear-pike your Flight towards Heaven. St. Cyril of Jerusalem said also ●●fore St. Chrysostom, The Priest cries, Lift up your Hearts on High; for in truth, in that terrible moment we should have our Hearts lifted up unto God, and not down towards the World and earthly Thing. The Priest than commands with Authority, that every one forsakes the Thoughts of this Life and household Cares, and that he should lift up his Heart unto Heaven, where God the Lover of Mankind is. St. Austin said the same, 
August. de bono persev. c. 13. Psal. 39 & serm. 44. de tempore, & de Verb. Dom. 53. & in Ps. 148. Serm. 4, 29. & 38. a Sirmund. edit, & 82. de divers. Germ. Const. in contempl. Job l. 6. de verb incarn. c 24, 25. apud Phot. Cod. 222.  What is said in the Sacraments of Believers, That we should lift up our Hearts on high unto the Lord, is a Gift of God; for which Gift the Priest warns those to whom it is said, to give thanks unto the Lord; and they answer, That 'tis just, and that the Thing deserveth it well: For, seeing our Heart is not in our Power, but that it is raised by the help of God, to the end it should rise, and think on Things which are above, where Jesus Christ sitteth on the right Hand of God, and not on the Things of the Earth; unto whom should Thanks be given for so great a Benefit, but unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Author of it? German Patriarch of Constantinople saith, That the Believers which are to communicate, are warned to lift up their Hearts, and that they answer, We have unto the Lord; to the end they should lift up their Thoughts from Earth unto the King of Heaven. The Friar Jovius in the Library of the Patriarch Photius, When the Body of the Lord (saith he) is shown upon the holy Table, those which attend on both sides, representing the Cherubins with six Wings, fan the Things which are there offered, with Wings which serve for Fans, as it were to hinder the Communicants from staying on the Things which are seen, but lifting them up with the Eyes of the Understanding above all there is of Shadow, raising them up by means of these visible Things to the Contemplation of Things invisible. And unto this ineffable Beauty, in all likelihood it was, that the Collect of Ascension-Eve, 
Apud Cassand. in Vigil. Ascens.  was conceived in these Terms in some Coppie's; We beseech thee, O Lord, that by these holy things which we have received, the Effect of our Devotion may tend where is with thee our Substance Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord.   

CHAP. V.  
Continuation of the Consequences of the Doctrine of the Fathers.  
ALthough what we have examined in the foregoing Chapter, doth fully justify that the Holy Fathers have been constant in their Doctrine, and that the Consequences which depend upon it are absolutely conformable unto the Principles which they have set down; Nevertheless, because there be several others which we have not touched, we find ourselves absolutely obliged to handle them in this Chapter, the better to clear the Truth which we seek for, and if in what remains to be examined, they have said any thing which might favour the Hypothesis of the real Conversion, which the Latins have made an Article of their Faith, it is certain, that what they have said hitherto will not be of so much moment, and will lose of its worth and virtue; whereas if nothing can be found, in what is yet to be seen, contrary unto what hath been already examined, it must then be necessarily concluded, say the Protestants, that there is nothing in all their Writings that agrees with the Hypothesis of the Latin Church: In fine, if these Holy Doctors have believed the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, than they must also have admitted of these following Maxims; First, That a Body may be in several Places at once; but far from admitting this Maxim to be true, they directly oppose it. Tertullian disputing against the Heretic Hermogenes, which made the Creature coeternal unto God, 
Tertul. advers. Hermog. c. 38.  If it be in a place (saith he) it is then within the place; if it be within the place, it is then bounded by the place within which it is; if it be bounded, it hath a remote Line; and being a Painter as you are, your own Profession must needs inform you, that the furthest Line is the end of any thing whereof it is the remotest Line. And elsewhere, 
Id. de anim. c. 9  he establisheth the same Doctrine, when he places the Extent and the three Dimensions, that is the length, breadth, and height amongst the most essential Properties of a Body, and which necessarily and absolutely belong to their Bulk and Mass. Arnobius was so strongly of Tertullian's Opinion, that he uses it as a Principle universally received, to refute the Evasion of Pagans, who taught that their Gods were in all the Images which were consecrated unto them; 
Arnob. l. 6. p. 89. ult. edit.  It is not possible (saith he) that one God should be at one and the same time in several different Images; suppose that Vulcan hath ten thousand Statues consecrated unto him in all the World, can he be present, as I have said, in all the ten thousand at one time? I think not. Why not? Because that which is of a particular and singular Nature, cannot multiply itself into several Subjects, and yet preserve its singleness entire and whole: From whence he concludes a little after, That it must be said or confessed, that there must be an infinite number of Vulcan's, if there be one in each of these Images, or that he is in neither of them, if there be but one Vulcan, because being but one, Nature cannot admit that he should be divided to be in several. If the Christians of those times had believed, that the Body of Jesus Christ their Saviour and God, had been in a Million of places at once, without being therefore multiplied nor divided, it must indeed be granted that they had chosen a miserable Advocate to defend their cause, because instead of defending he betrayed it, and exposed it to the scorn of Infidels, in reproaching them with that to be impossible, which they themselves held to be possible, and which said, happened daily unto the Body of their God; but we intent not to do this Injury unto the memory of this Christian Orator, that would be Injustice and Ingratitude so to serve him, seeing he hath said nothing but what is conformable unto the Opinions of other Doctors of the Church; For when a Man (saith St. 
Hilar. de Trin. l 8. p. 41. l. & in Psal. ●24. p. 211. ●.  Hilary) or his Resemblance, is in a place, he cannot be elsewhere at the same instant, because that which is, is contained where it is, the Nature of him which is in any place where he is sustained, being infirm and incapable of being every where. Hence it is that the Fathers commonly prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, by his being present in sundry places at once, in opposition unto Creatures which can be but in one place at a time; I will not here allege all their Testimonies, it shall suffice to produce some upon a matter that admits of no difficulty, 
Amb de spirit. l. 1. c. 7. t. 4.  Seeing that every Creature (saith St. Ambrose) is circumscribed by its Nature, by certain bounds and limits, and that the Creatures, even invisible Creatures, are limited by the Propriety of their Substance, who dares call the Holy Spirit a Creature, which hath not a limited and bounded Power, for he is over all, and in all, which is certainly the property of the Deity? Didymus who flourished at Alexandria, at the same time when Ephrem did at Edessa, 
Didym. de Spir. S. l. 1.  If the Holy Ghost (saith he) were a Creature, he should have a circumscribed Substance, as all things which have been created, for although the invisible Creatures are not circumscribed by place and bounds, yet they are bounded by the propriety of their Substance; but as for the Holy Ghost, seeing he is in many places, he hath not a limited Nature. And a little under, he saith, The Angel which was present with the Apostle when he prayed in Asia, could not be present at the same time with others which were in other parts of the World. 
Pasch. de Spir. S. l. 1. c. 12. ●. 9. Bibl. Patr.  Paschas, Deacon of the Church of Rome, As all Creatures (saith he) are subject unto the beginning of time, it is known also that they be local and bounded by certain Limits and Spaces; but as for the Holy Ghost, he is not enclosed within Bounds or Limits like a Creature. I could add unto all these Witnesses, the Depositions of several others, but because it is a matter the Truth whereof is known unto those which are any thing versed in the Writings of the Ancients, it is needless to insist any longer upon it, but only to observe that the Holy Fathers do never except the Body of Jesus Christ from these general Maxims, as if his Glorification had acquired him the propriety of being in several places at once; their silence upon occasions of such weight, and where they could not possibly dispense with themselves from making this Exception, if their belief had admitted of it, doth evidently prove that they constantly believed that when the Body of Christ was in one place, it could not be in another, no more than other Creatures, his Glorification having indeed given him a Glory which he had not before, but without taking away from him the qualities or properties of a true Body, besides they are not content to inform us of their Belief by their Silence, they also inform us by their Words; for besides what they have already told us of the local presence of Christ in Heaven, and his absence from Earth, in regard of his Body and his Human Nature, the presence whereof they have constantly opposed unto the Presence of his Divine Nature, they have formally declared themselves against the Polutopie of his Divine Body, I mean, against his presence in divers places at one and the same time; 
Fulgent. ad Trasim. l. 2. c. 17.  for they positively say, That the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is local, absent from Heaven when he is upon Earth, leaving Earth when it goes up to Heaven; that he is every where as God, but that he is in Heaven as Man, and that he is in a certain place in Heaven, 
Aug. Fp. 57 & sub finem Ep. Id de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 29. Id. tract. 31. in Joan. Vigil. contr. Eutyck. l. 4. c. 14.  after the manner of being of a true Body; That there is no corporal Nature that can be wholly and entirely in Heaven, and wholly upon Earth at once: That Jesus Christ as Man, according to the Body is in one place, and that he so departs from a place, that he is no longer in the place from whence he parted, when he is gone to another place; That when the Body of the Lord was upon Earth, it was not in Heaven, and in like manner being now in Heaven, doubtless it is not upon Earth, and that 'tis so certain it is not there, that in regard of it we look that Christ shall come from Heaven; 
Bertram. de Nativ. Christ. c. 3. t. 1. Spicileg. Dacher. p. 323.  That although Jesus Christ is every where present according to the property of his Divinity, he is but in one place according to the dimensions of his Body, because that which is local, is not in all places, but it goes unto some other place, when it hath left the place where it was before. 
Just. Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 82.  Therefore St. Justin Martyr proved it as an Article of the Faith of Christians in his time, That the Father Creator of the World, having raised the Christ from the Dead, was to raise him up to Heaven, and there to keep or retain him until he had slain the Devils his Enemies, and that the number of the good and virtuous which he foreknew, should be accomplished; that is to say, until the day of the general Resurrection: this is what the Protestants say. Secondly, according to the Doctrine of the Latins, the Body of Jesus Christ must exist in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit, invisibly, and without occupying any space; if the Fathers were of this Opinion, they would not have failed to have left us proofs in their Writings, or if they were obliged to say the contrary of Bodies in general, and when they considered them in the Order of Nature, they would doubtless have brought some exception touching the glorious Body of our Lord Jesus: they were too prudent and too wise to forget so considerable a Circumstance, the silence whereof might have been of very dangerous consequence, and have done notable prejudice unto their Doctrine; so that having exactly considered what they have said of Bodies in general, and in regarding what they be naturally, it appears they have made no Exception for the Body of Christ; it follows then of necessity, as the Protestants say, that they believed not that it could exist after the manner of a Spirit, that is to say, invisibly and without filling a space, according to the measure of its dimensions; this is what I could discover in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, which we have remaining, touching this Question, which is that the Holy Fathers testify, That 'tis impossible, that that which hath neither Bounds, 
Cyril. Alexan. de Trinit c. 3. t. 6. Aug. l. 83. quaest. q. 51. t. 4. & alibi. Fulgent. de● de ad Pet. c. 3.  nor Limits, nor Figure, and which cannot be handled, nor seen, can be a Body: That all Bodies, be they what they will, take up space and place, by its compass; And that every thing continues in the state wherein God put it when he made it, it not being the property of a Body to exist after the manner of Spirits. The Protestants think it was in these kinds of Occasions, that the ancient Doctors of the Church ought to have 〈◊〉, if they had any other Opinion of the Body of Christ, and that although they so determined the manner of existing of Bodies, yet that they acknowledged another wholly peculiar unto the Body of Christ after the Resurrection, after the which he may be in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit, invisibly, and without taking up of any space, and without that each part of this Divine Body should answer unto each part of the place which should be proportioned unto its greatness and compass: Nevertheless, the Truth is, say they, that no such thing hath ever been found in their Writings, and that no exception can be found for the Body of our glorious Redeemer. Shall we say that they have therein wanted Wisdom and Conduct, but they think this would be to stop the course of their Glory, and to slander the great Reputation they have acquired in the Church of God, that it would render them useless in the Controversies which divide Christians in the West, because upon each point in dispute, some of either side may tax them with the like thing and make them Parties. It were much better, say they, to confess sincerely that they believed not that the Body of Jesus Christ could exist after the manner of a Spirit, nor any other manner than as Bodies are wont to exist, because that after his Resurrection, he would have his Apostles know by seeing and feeling, that he had a true Body. In the third place, it is another Consequence of the Belief of the Latin Church, that the Body of Jesus Christ, which was form so long ago in the Womb of the Virgin, by the Power of the Holy Ghost, is made every day by pronouncing these Words unto which the Latins attribute the Consecration of the Sacrament. I will not here examine the divers Means by which it is pretended to be done, my design not permitting it, because I compose an Historical Treatise, as far as the Subject will permit me, and do endeavour, as much as possible may be, to avoid any thing that savours of Dispute and Controversy; I will then only say, that if the Holy Fathers were of the belief of the Latin Church, touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist, they could not avoid allowing as true, this third Consequence which necessarily depends of it: Yet nevertheless, having read their Works, I find they held for an undoubted Maxim, 
Athenag. legate pro Christ. Tertul. contr. Hermog c. 19 Just. Martyr sect. 17.23.43.59. p. 44. Orig. in Exod. Hom 6. Hilar. l. 12. de Trin. & in Psal. 138. Athanas. contr. A●riau. orat. 3.  That what is made was not before it was made. That which is, is not made, saith Athenagoras, but that which is not. Tertullian, Nothing that is to be made, is not without beginning, but rather it gins to be, when it gins to be made: And before him, St. Justin Martyr said in his Treatise against the Positions of Aristotle, That that which is made, and is to be, was not yet before it was made, and that all Motion is made by the change of that which was not before, but which was to be: Origen, Nothing (saith he) could be made, but what was not: And St. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers, All that is made, (saith he) was not before it was made: The famous St. Athanasius, It is the property of Works and of Creatures, that they are said to be of the number of things which were not, and which existed not before they were made: Phaebadius, or as Severus Sulpitius calls him, Foegadius, 
Phoebad. contr Arrian. Ambros. de incar. Domin. c. 3. t. 4. Greg. Nyss. contr. Eunom. l. 11. August. contr. advers. leg. l. 1. c. 23. Vigil contr. Eutich l 3. c. 3.  Bishop of Again in Guienne, If he was made (saith he) he was not: St. Ambrose, What is made (saith he) gins, that which was had no beginning, but he foresaw it: And the Brother of St. Basil, Gregory of Nyss," If he was made, he was not. St. Austin in one of the two Books he wrote against the Adversary of the Law, To make (saith he) is to produce what was not before. In fine, for 'twere endless to cite all the Passages of the Fathers, Vigilius an African Bishop in his Books against Eutiches, How is it (saith he) that he that was, is made, seeing that to be made, is wont to be the property of him that had not subsisted before, if it were not, that he was made what he was not? He speaks of Jesus Christ that was made Man for our sakes in the fullness of time. Let the Reader judge now, if these good and wise Doctors could speak so absolutely and without any restriction, and receive into the Articles of their Belief, the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion. I will add unto this Consideration, what Origen saith in his Commentaries upon Genesis, 
Orig. apud Euseb. de praeparat. l. 6. & in Philocal. c. 23.  related by Eusebius in his Book of Evangelical Preparation, and in the Philocalie of St. Basil, and of Gregory Nazianzen, That which maketh a thing, is elder than the thing made. For a Man so Learned as Origen, one of the clearest and transcendent Wits of his time, in the Church, or the whole World, could not (say some) have spoke so weakly, and at the same time have believed, that Men every day make the true Body of Jesus Christ, because by this reckoning, the Cause should be after the Effect, and those which make the Body of Jesus Christ, much younger than this Divine Body, contrary unto the Maxim of Origen, which is grounded upon the Light of natural Reason; or at least it should have been his Duty to have given us notice, that although this Maxim be undoubtedly true, and that it takes place generally in all things that are made; nevertheless, there is one particular occasion wherein it is quite otherwise, I mean, the Subject of the Eucharist, because then by an inconceivable Mystery, the thing made is incomparably elder than those that make it; yet nevertheless (say they) we do not find in any part of his Writings, the least sign of any such Advertisement: It must then be said, that Origen was a Sot, or that he believed not of the Eucharist, what the Latins believe at this time; I leave it to the liberty of those, which will be pleased to take the pains to read this Treatise, to decide the which of these two Opinions they think most agreeable unto Truth. In the fourth place, the Fathers have constantly believed, That what contains, is greater than what is contained; Nevertheless (say some) if their belief upon the point of the Sacrament were the same with that of the Latin Church, they ought to have excepted the Body of Jesus Christ from this Rule, and teach with the Latins, that although for the most part, the continent is greater than the thing contained, and that in effect it is so: Nevertheless, it happens by a Miracle of the Almighty Power of God, that the Body of Jesus Christ having all the dimensions of a true Body, as well as ours, yet doth subsist entirely in a little crumb of Bread, and in a drop of Wine; if in advancing this fourth Maxim, they made this exception in respect of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, they say it must be freely confessed, and without being preoccupied by a false Interest of any side, that if they have not taught the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion, as formally as the Latins, they have at least owned and admitted one of its Consequences, and that in that case cannot be drawn from the Testimony of the Holy Fathers, the same advantage against the Belief of the Latin Church, as otherwise might be done; but also say they, if these zealous and wise Conductors of the Christian Churches have spoken simply and without exception, the Latins must needs confess, that they knew not, or rather refuted and opposed all the Consequences of their Doctrines which have been examined: Let us see then, how they have governed themselves in relation unto this, and let us faithfully receive their Depositions. 
Theophil. Antioch. ad Antolyc. l. 2, p. 81.  I will begin with Theophilus' Bishop of Antioch, a Writer of the second Century, This (saith he) is a property of the true God, not only to be every where, etc. But also not to be contained in one place; otherwise the place which contained him would be greater than him, for what containeth, is greater than what is contained. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lions in our France, 
Iren. contr. heres. l. 2 c. 1.  despising the extravagancy of Martion, which had invented two Gods, one good, the other bad, Marcion's good God (saith he) is hid or locked up in some place, and environed about with some other Strength, which should in all likelihood be the greatest, because what containeth is greater than what is contained. 
Tertul. contr. Marc. l. 1. c. 15.  It was also the Language of Tertullian, who also lays it down for infallible, That nothing contains any thing, which is not greater than the thing contained: According to which teaching elsewhere, that the Soul of Man is Corporal, He saith, that it cannot subsist but in a Body, which may be fit and proportionable to its greatness, and that it cannot be there, if it be greater or less than it, 
Id. de anim. cap. 32. Greg Nyss. de vit. Mos. p. 238.  How (saith he) can the Soul of a Man either fit an Elephant, or be contained in a Flea? St. Gregory of Nyss followed the same Steps when he said, If it be thought that the Divinity is enclosed within Bounds, it is necessary that it should naturally be contained in something that may be of another kind, for what doth contain, is greater than what is contained: Which he also repeats in the following Page. St. Epiphanius disputing against the Marcionites, and combating the multiplicity of imaginary Gods, which these Wretches did make, 
Epiphan. haeres. 47.  If each one of the Gods of Martion (saith he) is bounded within its proper place, these three Principles being circumscribed in certain places which contain them, will not be found perfect; but that which containeth will be found greater than what is contained, and so, that which is contained cannot be called a God, but rather the place which containeth it. It was also the Language of our France, in the IXth Century, as we shall learn by Bertram, or Ratramn, who tells us, That the things which contain, 
Bertram. contr. Graec. l. 1. c. 7. t. 2. Spicil. D●ch.  are greater than the things contained. All these Testimonies are conceived in general Terms, there is not to be seen any restriction or exception whatever, and there is not to be discovered any thing which should oblige us to lay apart the Subject of the Eucharist, as if the contrary of what is intended by this Maxim, may therein happen; which fully justifies (as 'tis said) that the Holy Fathers had no thoughts of it, when they taught this Position, which is infallibly true, for it is believed they were too wise and too wary, not to except the Sacrament of the Eucharist, if they had believed that there happened in the celebration of this Divine Mystery any thing directly contrary unto the Declarations which they but now made. In the fifth place, the existing of Accidents without their Subject, is another inevitable Consequence of the belief of the Latins, it not being possible to admit the one without the other, by the natural Consequence of things; it is not then to be questioned, but if the Fathers were of the same Belief, but that they also believed the other Doctrine which follows it inseparably; I mean, that the Protestants will conclude that the Fathers believed that there might be roundness, whiteness, redness, without having any thing that is round, white, or red: or if they believed with all the Disciples of Nature, and the Law, with the Pagan Philosophers and Jewish Doctors, that naturally that could not be; they would not have failed to declare, that what cannot be done in the order of Nature, is nevertheless miraculously effected in the Sacrament, either by a Miracle that imposeth silence unto the testimonies of our natural Senses, and the purest light of Reason; that there are Savours without any thing savoured, Colours without any thing coloured, Whiteness without any thing white, Redness and nothing red, Length and nothing long, Figures and nothing figured, Appearances and nothing apparent, a Liquor and nothing liquid, a Weight and nothing weighty, and the like; but if on the contrary, they have not thought of making any such Declaration in the place where they were particularly obliged to do it, it may be concluded, say they, that as they have not admitted this necessary Consequence of the substantial Conversion, they have not also believed this Conversion. Let us then examine what they have said upon this Subject, and report their Testimonies, not all, for we should be too tedious, the number is so great; but as many only as may suffice for a full and sufficient Proof and Evidence. Eusebius in the Evangelical Preparation, and Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen, in their Philocalie of Origen, relate a Passage of Maximius a Man of great Reputation in the second Century, 
Apud Euseb. de praepar. Evang. l. 7. c. ult. & in Philoc. Orig. c. 24. Apud Phot. cod. 232. p. 927. ult. edit.  where he speaks thus; It is impossible that Art should subsist of itself, because it is an Accident, and one of those things which receives its being when it is in a Substance; for a Man may subsist without Architecture, but this cannot be, if Man be not first. Methodius in the Library of Photius saith, That the Quality cannot be separated from the Matter, in regard of its Substance, and that it is only by Imagination, that Qualities are separated from the Matter, and the Matter from the Qualities. 
Greg. Nyss. in Hexam. p. 13. Epiphan. haer. 73.  Gregory of Nyss, That the Figure is not without a Body. St. Epiphanius, That by the word Substance, is showed the difference which is betwixt that which subsists of itself, and that which doth not subsist of itself. Isidore of Damieta, 
Isidor. Pelus. l. 2. Ep. 7.  That the Substance is the Vehicle of the Quality, which cannot exist if the Substance doth not exist. The Author of the Exposition of Faith, in the Works of St. Justin Martyr, 
Just. Mart. in expo. fid. p. 386. Aug. ep. 57 Id. ibid. Id. l. 2. Solil. c. 13. & 19  That the Accident cannot subsist of itself, but that it exists in things which were before. St. Austin, That if the Quality of Bodies be taken from the Bodies themselves, they will be nothing, and so of necessity they fail; and if the Mass itself of the Body, whether it be great or little, is quite taken away, its Qualities will have no Being, although they are not to be equalled to the whole; if what is in a Subject subsists, its necessary also that the Subject should subsist, and the Subject being destroyed, 
Cyril. Alex. Dial. 2. de Trin. p. 451. Ib. p. 421.  that which is in the Subject cannot subsist. St. Cyril of Alexandria, If whiteness and blackness are not inherent in the Subject whereof they are Accidents, they cannot exist of themselves, and that the Accidents which are naturally in Substances, have not of themselves any proper or determinated Existence. 
Isid. Hispal. Orig. l. 2. c. 26. I●en. l. ●. c. 14. & Method. apud Phot. cod. 234. Basil. ep. 43. Aug. Sol. l. l. 2. c. 12.  St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevil, That the Quantity, the Quality, and the Situation, cannot be without the Substance. In fine, to conclude, I find that these Holy Doctors denying the existence of Accidents without Subjects, do positively declare, That it is inconceiveable, and impossible, that Nature will not suffer it; that it is a thing monstrous and quite contrary to Truth, that this separation may be made by thought, but not really, so that the Accident should subsist alone; 
Cyril. Alex. in Joan. Ibid. Athan. Orat. 5. contr. Arrian. p. 520. Bertram. contr. Graec. l. 2. c. 7. t. 2. Spicil.  that the Accident and its Subject, are in the main, but one thing; and that if God himself had Accidents, they should exist in his Substance. And therefore it was that Bertram writing for the Latin Church against the Greek Church, said, that the Holy Ghost was not in Jesus Christ as in his Subject; Because (saith he) the Holy Ghost is not an Accident that cannot exist without his Subject; if there were but one or two Doctors that spoke after this manner, it may be said that they did not remember to except the Sacrament of the Eucharist, wherein the Accidents of Bread and Wine exist miraculously without their Subjects, for though this Reason was not very strong, there being question of a Maxim equally received both by Jews and Gentiles, at Athens and Jerusalem, as well as by all Christians universally, excepting those of the Latin Church, which admit not of it in the point of the Sacrament; Nevertheless with more appearance, this neglect might be charged upon one or two Doctors, rather than unto a Cloud of Witnesses, which have testified without touching a great many others, whose Testimonies we have omitted, not to burden the Reader with too long a chain of Passages: What likelihood, saith the Protestant, that so many learned, illuminated, prudent Persons, should so universally, positively, and constantly teach, That Accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects, and that not one of them have excepted the Sacrament, if they believed with the Latin Church, that they did subsist in effect, without their Subject? I freely confess, saith he, that this proceeding surpriseth me, and that I see no other reason of this obstinate silence, but this, it is, that they owned the truth of this Maxim, That Accidents cannot exist without their Subject in its full extent, and without any Restriction; which being so, saith he, it must be ingeniously confessed, that they take not the course to favour with their Suffrages, the Doctrine of a substantial Conversion, seeing they have so absolutely and unanimously rejected one of its most important and necessary Consequences. But besides all these Consequences which we have examined, there is yet a sixth, against which it is said the Holy Fathers have no less absolutely declared themselves: It regards the deposition of our Senses, against which the Latin Church doth oppose itself, commanding not to believe them, when they tell us that what we see upon the Holy Table, and that what we receive there for the Comfort and Salvation of our Souls, is Bread and Wine, because it is not in effect neither the one or the other, but appearances destitute of the Truth, and that the Senses are deceived when they make us this false Report. If the Holy Fathers were of this Opinion, doubtless they would have had the same foresight, I say they would have undervalved their Testimony, as suspicious and deceitful, at least in the subject of the Sacrament: Let us then set about discovering what they have said, the matter is well worth the pains, and it well deserves the care of this Inquiry; I have done it, and very far from finding in their Writings any opposition against the report of the Senses: I have observed that they have established their Testimony as certain and infallible, and that they assure us by the Mouth of Tertullian, That otherwise it would be to overthrow the whole state of Nature, 
Te ●●de anim. s. 17.  and disturb the course of our Life, and even darken the Providence of God itself, which by this reckoning, should have given the oversight, the knowledge, the dispensation and enjoyment of all his Works, unto lying and deceitful Masters; that is, unto our Senses. And having chastised the Impudence of the new Academy, which condemned the belief of the Senses, he passeth from Philosophers unto Christians, saying, As for us, we are not permitted, no, we are not suffered to question the truth of our Senses, fearing lest that in the things of Jesus Christ, we should not take the liberty to question our Faith: which he treateth at large, and he proves the Faith and truth of their Testimony, especially what regards this Subject; he saith, That the sight and hearing of the Apostles were faithful in what they reported of the Glory of our Lord, when he was transfigured upon the Mount; that the taste of Wine at the Marriage of Cana, although it was Water before, was no less faithful, as also the touching which Thomas made. He alleges the Testimony of St. John, saying, That they declared of the Word of Life, what they had heard, and seen with their Eyes, and their Hands had handled; their Testimony (saith he) should then be false, if the sentiment of the Eyes, the Ears, the Hands, is of a Nature capable of Lying; that is to say, if these three Senses can be deceived in the Report which they make: 
Tertul. contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 8, 10, 11. & l. 4. c. 18. & alibi. ● Iren. l. 3. c. 20. & l. 5. c, 1. Epiphan. hae●●l. 42.  Thence also it is, that the same Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius disputing either against Martion in particular, or in general against the Heretics Docetes, and Putatives, of which number Martion was, and all denied the truth of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and of his Death and Sufferings, attributing unto him only a Shadow and Resemblance of a Body; Thence it is, I say, that they often call to their aid, the Testimony and deposition of the Senses, to prove against these Heretics, the truth of our Saviour's Human Nature, and the certainty of his Sacrifice and Death; which makes Protestants say, Is it possible, that Men which do so powerfully establish the inviolable Fidelity of the deposition of the Senses, and that clear their Testimony from any suspicion of Fraud or Deceit, not to trouble the order of Nature, nor to ruin the commerce and society amongst Men, but above all, not to shake the solid Foundation of the Religion of Jesus Christ; Is it possible, that those People could have been of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament? for every one knows, this Church declares itself against the simplicity of their Testimony, that they accuse of Infidelity these faithful Witnesses, and endeavour to deprive them of being believed amongst Christians, because that being persuaded of their Verity, and the Truth of their Deposition, it will have much ado to support and defend itself, and yet more difficulty of insinuating into the Minds of those which do not question the belief of them. But it may be, some will say, probably the Fathers have excepted in this Dispute of the Testimony of the Senses, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as a particular thing, and which ought not to be reckoned along with the rest; if it be so, it is not fit to keep it secret, nor to argue against the Faith of the Latins of what they have said in behalf of the Senses; this difficulty which may easily be fancied in the minds of many, hath obliged me exactly to inquire into their Writings, if they have not said any thing which may inform us of their Intentions; and having made a strict search into all parts, I find they have established the Fidelity of this same Testimony of the Senses in what relates to the Sacrament. 
August. Serm. ad Insent.  What you see (saith St. Austin) is Bread, as also your Eyes do report and testify. And Tertullian in the same place, which gives us the Testimony but now alleged, amongst the things whereof he fears that Truth may be endangered, if the Faith of the Senses are mistrusted, he mentions expressly the Wine of the Sacrament; 
Tert. de anim.  Christians (saith he) are not permitted to call the Testimony of their Senses in question, fearing lest they should say that Jesus Christ tasted some other savour than that of Wine, which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood: He alleges to defend the Fidelity of the Senses, the Savour of the Wine of the Sacrament; but say they, it cannot be imagined that he could have reasoned after that manner, if he had believed what the Latins now believe, because according to their Hypothesis, our Senses are grossly deceived, in taking that to be Wine which is nothing less than Wine, but another substance infinitely different; Shall we then conclude, say they, that he indiscreetly betrayed his Cause, and that he ignorantly chose for a convincing Proof, that which was an unsurmountable Difficulty? but should we say so, we should undoubtedly draw upon us all the Learned, who looked upon him as one of the greatest Wits of his Time, whose Mind being so enlightened, and his Judgement so solid, could not be charged with such a Mistake; and not to call his great Reputation in question, they had rather conclude according to all appearance, that he was not of the belief of the present Latin Church, which I refer unto the Reader's Discretion; but that nothing may be wanting to the clearing the question we now treat of, and not to make the Holy Fathers contradict one another, it must be observed that they considered two things (as some say) in the Sacrament of Christians, I mean the sign, and the thing signified: As for the thing signified, all the World agree that it falls not under the Senses, and that so we should not expect that they should render us any Testimony: It is Faith that must instruct and give us a Testimony, it is of Faith to direct and apply to us the Efficacy and Virtue. As to the Signs and Symbols, they also say, that they have therein also distinguished two things, the Substance and their Nature, and their Use and Employment; that is to say, the quality of the Sacraments wherewith they are qualified by favour of the Benediction: For example, in Baptism they pretend that Water which is the Symbol, hath two Relations, one of the bare Element, of the Nature which keeps its Substance, and the other of the Sacrament of Religion, which Consecration gives it. It is the same in the Eucharist, for besides the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine, which are the Signs and Symbols, they bear the quality of Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and it is Grace which God adds unto Nature: Now to apply this unto our Subject, they say, that the Senses being Organs purely Natural, they cannot lift themselves above Nature, nor make us a true report of what doth not depend upon their Laws, but whilst they keep within the bounds of their Nature, and that they undertake nothing beyond their Strength, and the Privileges granted unto them, their Testimony is infallible, and their Deposition true and certain; therefore, when they show us that the Water in Baptism is truly Water, according to its Substance, and the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, but Bread and Wine also in regard of their Substance; they judge, that we ought to believe them, after what the Fathers have told us, because than they do not pass the limits that God hath set them; but when they will pass further, and tell us that the Water of Baptism is but bare Water, and the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but bare Bread and Wine, we should command their silence, because they pass beyond their Bounds, and passing beyond the Limits of Nature, they take upon them to penetrate into the Mysteries of Grace, which have been only given unto Faith to dispose of; they also observe, that 'tis in these occasions that the same Fathers forbidden us to hearken unto them, or receive their Testimony, and that 'tis so must be understood, the Author of the Book of them which are initiated, in St. Ambrose, What have you seen? 
Ambros. l. 3. de init. c. 3. l. 4.  (saith he) I have seen Water indeed, but not Water only, I also see the Deacons saying Service, and the Bishop examining and consecrating; for the Apostle hath taught you, that before all things you should look, not to the things seen which are temporary, 
Ibid.  but unto those which are invisible, which be eternal; and again, believe not the Eyes of the Body only, what is not seen is most seen, because the one is Temporal and the other Eternal, and that which is Eternal is not perceived by the Eyes, but is seen by the Spirit and by the Understanding. And the Author of the Book of Sacraments, 
Apud Ambros. l. 1. de Sacram. c. 3.  You have seen what may be seen with the Eyes of the Body, and human Perception; but you have not seen the things which operate, because they are invisible; those which are not seen are much more considerable than those which are seen; because the things which are visible are Temporal, and the things invisible are Eternal. And because there is this difference betwixt the Believer and the Unbeliever, that the Unbeliever hath only the Eyes of the Body and of Nature, whereas the Believer hath, besides the Eyes of the Body and of Nature, those of the Spirit and of Faith. St. Chrysostom saith, that the Infidel seethe only the substance of the Symbols, staying at the exterior of the Sacraments; but as for the Believer he understands the Excellency, the Virtue, and the Meaning, that is to say, with the Eyes of Faith; when he seethe, as well as the Unbeliever, the matter and substance of the Symbols with the Eyes of Nature and of the Body; 
C●rysost. Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. p. 378.  The Unbeliever (saith he) hearing mention made of Baptism, thinks that it is but Water; but as for me, I do not only look upon what is seen, I consider also the cleansing of the Soul which is done by the Holy Ghost; he thinks that my Body only is washed, and I do believe my Soul is also purified and sanctified; for I do not judge by the bodily Eyes of what is seen, but by those of the Understanding; I hear the Body of Christ named, I conceive it after one manner, and the Unbeliever understands it after another: Which he illustrates by this excellent Comparison; An illiterate Person (saith he) receiving a Letter, takes it only for Paper and Ink; but a Person that understands Letters finds quite another thing, he hears a Voice, and speaks with a Person absent, and will in his time say what he lists, and will make himself to be understood by means of Letters. It is the same with the Mysteries; for Unbelievers understand nothing of what they hear spoken, so that they seem not to have heard it, although they have heard it; whereas Believers, having the experience made by the Spirit, see and understand the virtue of the things which are therein contained. This Similitude, say they, is just and conducts us unto the true knowledge of what we search for; for it is unto our Senses in regard of the Sacraments, as it was unto this ignorant Man in regard of a Letter; for as this Man receiving a Letter, said it was Paper and Ink, which is very true; so also our Senses contemplating the Sacraments, assure us that it is Water, Bread, and Wine, so far their Testimony is faithful: but as this same Man is deceived, when he says that 'tis nothing but Paper and Ink, because he hath not the Gift necessary to penetrate the sense and meaning: Even so also, our Senses go astray, when they say that 'tis but mere Water, and Bread, and Wine; because they keep not within the Limits of their own Sphere, and that they rashly undertake to know that which is not at all within the nature of their Object, we must then, say they, to end this Difficulty, receive their Testimony in the Affirmative, and reject their Testimony in the Negative, that is to say, they must be heard when their report toucheth only the matter and substance of the Symbols, to affirm that there is Water in Baptism, and Bread and Wine in the Eucharist; but not when they say, that it is but only Water, Bread and Wine; for they do not understand the reason of the Mystery, nor the quality of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, wherewith Consecration hath invested them. I cannot pass over in silence two Observations of the same St. Chrysostom, because they may both serve to the illustrating the matter in hand; by the first he teacheth us, that to make a Sacrament, something visible must be established, that may be truly what it appears to be, and which besides must lift up our Faith to the meditation of something else that we do not see, 
Chrysost. Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor.  That is called a Sacrament (saith he) when we stay not at what we see, but that we see one thing, and believe another. By the second he gives us notice that the fraud consists in the setting a thing which hides from our Eyes the true form, and is nothing less in effect than what it appears to be outwardly, 
Id. Homil. 13. in ep. ad Ephes.  The fraud (saith he) is when a thing doth not appear to be what it is, but on the contrary, it appears to be what it is not. There may be added unto all that we have said, some other Maxims of the Holy Fathers, for instance, that all Bodies should be visible and palpable, whence it is, that St. Cyril of Alexandria told us already, 
Cyril Alex. de Trin c. 3. t. 1. Greg. Nyss. in Hexa. p. 13. t. 1.  That which cannot be seen nor touched, is not a Body; and before him Gregory of Nyss, If the Earth (saith he) were invisible, it were wholly without colour, now what is without colour is also without form, and that which is without figure and form, 
Id. de Hom. apific. c. 24. p. 107. t. 1.  hath not a Body: And elsewhere, If you take colour from a subject, or the solidity, and quantity, you destroy the symmetry of the Body; for as he saith afterwards, 
Ibid.  that is not a Body, where there is neither colour, nor form, nor solidity, nor distance, nor the other Properties. And Vigilius an Afrïcan, treating of the two Natures of Jesus Christ, 
Vigil. advers. Eutych. l. 4. c. 14.  If the Flesh (saith he) be of the same Nature with the Word, it must of necessity be, that it was increated, invisible, and impalpable, but 'tis impossible the Body should be subject to these conditions. Father Chifflet the Jesuit, which hath given us the last Impression of Vigilius of Tapsus, thus relates these latter Words, It must not be doubted but the Flesh is subject to these Conditions; whereas in all the other Editions is read, according to the Copies of the Manuscripts, That it is impossible the Flesh should be subject to these Conditions; so it hath been read by Josias Simler, Cassander, and those which have furnished us with the Library of the Holy Fathers; and in truth if Vigilius had spoken otherwise, he had very ill defended the Catholic Cause, and had made the Heresy of Eutyches victorious, as may be easily seen by consulting the Passage; it must needs be then, that Father Chifflet had but ill Manuscripts, or that he unawares let drop from his Pen these Words, It must not be doubted, instead of these, It is impossible; it is all I can charitably say to excuse him, without hindering others from the Liberty of thinking what they please. The Patriarch Nicephoras, disputing with the Emperor Leo the Armenian, 
In Manip●l. var. author. Combefis. p. 176.  touching Images, declares, That the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is visible, palpable, and bounded. They say also that two Bodies cannot be in one place, and that there can be no penetration of Dimension: therefore the Divine of the ancient Church, 
Greg. Naziarz Orat. 2. de Theol. p. 541.  Gregory Nazianzen, amongst the many Absurdities which would follow if God were a Body, observes this, That there would be a Body in a Body, which is impossible, that he would cut some Body, or would be cut himself. And elsewhere, he declares positively, 
Id. Ep. 1. ●d. Cledon. p. 741.  that the place of one Body, cannot contain two or more, as a Vessel of one Bushel cannot contain two. And St. Cyril of Alexandria, It is impossible (saith he) that one Body can penetrate others, without cutting and being cut, without yielding and without being resisted; as liquid things do mingle together. They further testify, That a Body ought to have its parts so distinguished one from another, that each part should correspond unto every part of the place. St. Austin explains himself thus, in a great many places, 
Aug. count E●. fund. c 16. t. 6.  it shall suffice to instance some, Any thing (saith he) that is stretched out by any manner of bigness, becomes less by parts, having one here another there, for a Finger is less than the Hand, and less also than two Fingers, and one is the place of this Finger, another of that, another that of the whole Hand. And again, 
Ibid.  It is absolutely impossible that there is any Body but is less in its part than in its whole, and that can possibly have in the place of one sole part, another part both together, but one here, another there, in spaces, and distinguished one from another. 
Id. de Orig. an●●●. 4 c. 12.  And elsewhere, He desines the Body by what is composed of parts, greater or less; which fill spaces greater or smaller, 
Ib. c. 21.  thereafter as they be also greater or lesser. And in the same Treatise, he saith, That the Learned do call a Body, that which by distance of the length, breadth, and depth, takes up space and places, to wit, the lesser by less parts, and the greater by greater parts. 
Id. l. 10. de Trin. c. 7. & alibi passim.  He testifies also elsewhere, That which is not a bodily Substance, doth not take up the least space of place, by its least part, 
Claud. Mam. de stat. anim. l. 1. c. 17.  and the greater by the greatest. And Claudian Mammert, If (saith he) the Soul be corporal, it must then in that regard be extended in the Body, as Water in a Vessel fills up the least parts of it, by the least parts of itself, and the greatest by the greatest. 
Id. c. 18.  And again, No Body (saith he) can be touched all at once, and how little soever it be, it cannot be wholly in one place. And I cannot tell, but St. Chrysostom had the same thought, 
Chryso. Hom. 11 in Ep. ad Ephes.  when he said, That the Body ought not to be placed at hazard, but with a great deal of heed because if it be out of his place, it is not in its proper situation; and he makes the harmony and true composition of a whole, 
Ibid.  to consist, in that each part keeps in its place. They teach, that no Body can dwell in itself, nor participate of itself: Him (saith St. 
Chryso. Hom. 10 in John.  Chrysostom, that dwells in the Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle, are not one and the same thing, but the one lodgeth in the other, for no Body inhabiteth in himself. St. Cyril of Alexandria speaketh the same thing when he saith, 
Cyril. Alex. in Joan. 1.14.  That of necessity these two things must be distinguished, him that inhabiteth, 
Id. Scholior. c. 25. t. 5. p 794.  and that in which he dwelleth; for as he saith elsewhere, that which inhabiteth, is not the thing itself wherein he inhabiteth, but rather one conceives, that one is in the other. And as to what regards the participation of himself, 
Id. in Joan. l. 1. c. 7 S. p. 58, 66. Id in Joan. ●. 2. c. 1. p. 119. Vide l. 9 c. 1. p. 792. Id. dial. 5. de Trin. p. 560.1.5.  he saith in several places, that it is impossible, there is nothing (saith he) that is a participater of itself, and that which partaketh, cannot be one and the same thing with that whereof it doth participate. And again, That which participateth, doth naturally differ from that of which it participates, all manner of reason will force us to confess; for if that were not true, there would be no difference betwixt one and another, but they would be all one, and that which would be a partaker of something, would be a partaker of himself, which cannot so much as be imagined without Absurdity; for how can it be conceived that one can be a participant of himself? And elsewhere, It is not necessary (saith he) that that which one thinks to be partaker of a thing, should be of another nature than the thing whereof he partakes, to the end it might be said, and that it should not be thought that one and the same subject should be partaker of himself; for he is of the same Nature. B. It is necessary, 
Id. Dial. 6. p. 594, 598. Id. dial. 7. p. 643. Vid. Thesauri ass●r. 19 p. 193. t. 5.  which he repeats twice in the following Dialogue, if not in the same Words, to the same purpose and effect. And in fine, in the VIIth Dialogue, seeing there is nothing that is partaker of itself, but that is done by relation of some other, it must of necessity be said, that which participates is of another Nature than that which is participated of. Salonius, one of our Bishops of France, 
Salon. in Eccl. s. t. 1. Bl1. Pat. p. 152. E. & 153. A Vid. Hieron. in h●nc loc●m,  expounding these Words of the 4th of Ecclesiastes, The Fool foldeth his Arms, and eateth his Flesh, makes this Observation, Who is such a Fool as to eat his own Flesh? And he observes in the same place, That 'tis said by a Hyperbole, because that it is incredible, that any Man should eat his own Flesh. All Christians confess that Jesus Christ did participate of the Eucharist, how then could the Fathers hold for constant and undoubted, that no Body can partake of himself, so as to treat the contrary opinion of Absurdness and Extravagancy, if they believed what the Latin Church believed of the Sacrament; for methinks they could not choose but tell us that it is undoubtedly so, excepting only what happened in the first Sacrament, where Jesus Christ eat his own Flesh and participated of himself: Nevertheless, it is most certain that they have said no such matter, and that they have made no exception; judge then of the force of their Silence, after having judged of the strength of their Expressions. For as for me, I must end what I have begun, in saying, that the Holy Fathers observe yet further, that a Body cannot be entire in one of its parts, which nevertheless is done according to the Hypothesis of the Latins, when our Saviour did participate of the Eucharist. Every Body (saith St. Austin) which occupieth a place, 
August. de immo●talit. anim● c. 16. t. 1.  is not quite whole in every one of its parts, but in all of them, therefore one of these parts is in one place, and the other in another. I will add unto all these Considerations, to conclude the Chapter, that these Holy Doctors have deposed, that any thing which can be seen or touched, and that comes within the Senses, is a Body. 
Tert. de resur. car●. Ed. Rhen. p. 68 Id. advers. Marc. l. 4. c ●  Tertullian assures, That what may be seen or held is a Body. And elsewhere, he justifies the truth of the Body of Christ against Martion, in showing that he suffered himself to be touched; It cannot be thought (saith he) that he was a Spirit, because he admitted himself to be touched strongly and violently. Whereupon he allegeth this famous Verse of Lucretius, That nothing besides a Body, can touch, nor be touched. Lactantius Firmianus, Tutor unto Crispus, Son of Constantine the Great, 
Lactant. instit. l. 3. c. 17. Tit. Bostren. contr. Manich. l. 2. Amb of. in c 1. ad Coloss. Chrysost. Hom. 26. in Joan. Theod. dial. 2.  speaking of Epicurus his▪ Atoms, saith, That if they are little Bodies and solid, they may be seen. Titus' Bishop of Bostria in Arabia doth witness, That any thing that can be seen is a Body. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, That what may be touched and handled is a Body. Hillary Deacon of Rome, in the works of the same St. Ambrose, What one sees is a Body. St. Chrysostom, What is submitted to the Senses is a Body. And Theodoret in one of his Dialogues, What may be seen is a Body. Let the Reader, if he please, apply all these Testimonies unto the subject of the Sacrament, and consider with himself, with what Doctrine they best agree, either with that which teacheth, that what is therein seen and touched, are mere 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 Public 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 ●p. 76.  When (saith he) the Lord called his Body, Bread, which is made of several Grains of Wheat, he would show 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 rendered 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 pressed 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 mixed 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 signify. 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 Virtue unto the Wine to signify 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, signify 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 myself from inserting here, because 'tis to be seen at large in the Place abovementioned. 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 Heretics disputing formerly against the Catholics and Orthodox, would oblige the Catholics to prove their Doctrine and Belief in so many express Words. In the Dialogue against Arrius, Sabellius, and Photinus, under the Name of St. Athanasius, 
Vigil. l. 1. contra Arr. etc. l. 1. c. 23. ult. E●it. p. 140.  but whose true. Author is Vigilius of Tapsus, an African Bishop; The Arrian demands of the Orthodox, that he will show him in the Scriptures the Word Homoousion, which signifies of one Substance; or that he may read it properly, that is to say, in so many Syllables, or that he should cease making use of it. It is also the Proceed of the Arrians against the true Athanasius in his Treatise of the Synods of Arimini and Seleutia. 
Athanas. de Synod. Arim. & pag. 911. Id. ibid. p. 913. Id. de decret. Syn. Nicaen. p. 270.  But the Holy Fathers laughed at this ridiculous and impertinent Method: It matters not, said St. Athanasius, if any make use of Terms not contained in the Holy Scriptures, provided his Thoughts are Orthodox. And elsewhere he saith, That although these Words are not found in the Scriptures, it sufficeth they contain a Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures. And Vigilius, 
Homoousion Vigil. ubi supra cap. 26. p. 143.  That it must be collected from the Authority of Scripture by a reasonable consequence; and that it is not just to quarrel about a Name which may be firmly established by a great many Testimonies. It is so several other Doctors have done, and indeed they did wisely; for there is nothing more unreasonable, than to reduce Man to the Degree of Beasts, in depriving him of the Use of Reasoning, whereby he draws certain Conclusions from necessary Principles. No body than ought to wonder, if, besides the direct Doctrine of the Fathers upon the Point of the Eucharist, I here insert the indirect, which consists in necessary Inductions; because the Part of an Historian, which I assume in this Work, doth oblige me faithfully to represent unto the Reader the Inductions which others are wont to draw from their Testimonies for the better understanding their Doctrine, leaving it unto the Liberty of every one to judge of their Value or Weakness. I will therefore continue these Sorts of Proofs already begun, in this Chapter; What hath been already said containing the direct Proofs of their Belief, with the Consequences which are inseparable from it. 
Athenag. de Resurrect. mort. ad ealcem oper. Just. p. 46.  Athenagoras in his Treatise of the Resurrection of the Dead, saith something, if I mistake not, worthy of Consideration: Neither the Blood, nor Phlegm, nor Choler, nor Spirits, that is to say, as well Vital as Animal, shall be raised with our Bodies in the blessed Resurrection, being no longer necessary unto the Life which we shall then live. If the quickened Body of Jesus Christ be the Model and Pattern of the Resurrection of Believers, as all Christians. Universally agree; Athenagoras, say they, could not believe, that the Bodies of Believers after the Resurrection should have no Blood, but that he believed also, that the glorified Body of Christ had none also; and if he believed it had none, how could it be thought that he believed that it should be drank in the Eucharist but figuratively, because we there make a Commemoration of that Blood which he shed upon the Cross for the Expiation of our Sins. A Commemoration which we could not make, as St. Paul commands us, unless we participate of the Fruits and Benefits of his bitter Death: A Participation, which, as the Protestants say, is the Effect of the spiritual and mystical Eating, or if you will, Drinking; 
Hieron. Ep. 61. c. 8, 9, etc. 1.2.  but also at the same time a real and true Eating, which is done by our Faith. The same may be said by Origen, as appears by St. Jerom's sixty first Letter unto Pammachius touching the Errors of John, Bishop of Jerusalem; and it may be, he proceeded farther, at least, he was not only suspected, but taxed with it. Moreover, in the fifth Century it was not fully determined, if the Body of our Lord in the State of Glory wherein it is, 
Aug. Epist. 146. ad Cons. init.  had Blood? For we find by one of the Letters of St. Austin, which one Consentius wrote unto him to be informed, if the Body of Christ now hath Blood and Bones. This Consentius was not an Ordinary Believer, or common Christian, he seems to be a Bishop, or at least a Priest worthy of St. Austin's Respect and Friendship; for in the Beginning of the Letter he gives him the Title of most dear, or most beloved: And elsewhere he saith unto him, That he is beloved in the Bowels of Jesus Christ. I freely confess, 
Ep. 222.  saith the Protestant, I cannot read these Words, without thinking of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament; for it is not to be conceived, that one of the Conductors of the Christian Churches, should propose unto the great St. Austin so ridiculous and impertinent a Question, if it was believed in his Time of the Sacrament, as is now believed by the Roman Catholics. In fine, if it was the Belief of the fifth Century, I cannot see how that Man can be excused of Folly and Extravagance. Nevertheless on the other hand, St. Austin deals by him in such a manner, which suffers us not to judge so disadvantagiously of him. What shall we then say, Continues he, to excuse the Simplicity of this Man, and to give some Colour to his Demand? Had he never participated of the Eucharist, had he never approached unto the holy Table, and had he never drank of the Cup of our Redemption? Wherefore then doth he ask of St. Austin to know, if the glorified Body of our Lord hath Blood, if it were true, that the Church at that time held for an Article of Faith, That it was drank really and truly every time as they communicated of the holy Cup? Or, wherefore doth not St. Austin refer him back unto the Sacrament? the only Consideration whereof might have satisfied Consentius, if the Belief of the Latins had been the Belief of that Age. Let us proceed; St. Austin proves unto his Friend by the Words of the Scriptures, That the Body of Jesus Christ hath yet now Flesh and Bones; but because in the Scripture he citys, there is no mention of Blood, he leaves this Point in the Terms Consentius left it; that is to say, in suspense; saying, That because Jesus Christ only said, That he had Flesh and Bones, without adding Blood, we should not also extend our Question any farther, nor add that of his Blood unto the other of his Flesh and Bones; Fearing, saith he, there should come some other more inquisitive Disputer, which, taking occasion from the Blood, should press us, in saying, If he hath Blood, why not then Spleen? why not Choler and Melancholy, the four Humours which compose the Nature of the Body, as the Science of Physic itself doth testify? Let the Reader be pleased to consider the Demand of Consentius, and the modest Answer of St. Austin, to infer what he shall judge convenient: For methinks, saith the Protestant, that there is but two Sides to hold; the one is to say, That the Question of Consentius was extravagant; and the Answer wholly unworthy the great St. Austin; which cannot be said without want of Charity towards the one, and abusing the Memory of the other. The other is to own, That neither St. Austin, nor Consentius could have spoken as they did, and believe what is now believed by the Latin Church. There is scattered here and there in the Writings of the Ancients, several Things of this Nature, from whence may be drawn Evidences for the Knowledge of what they believed. In this Rank may be placed the Reproach made against the Orthodox in St. Austin, 
August. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 13.  which we touched in Chap. III. Part 1. That they served Ceres and Bacchus, under a Pretext of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament; but because the Accusations of Enemies are not always certain Proofs of the Truth of what they charge, Ignorance and Malice having for the most part a great Share in these Sorts of Reproaches and Accusations, I would lay no great Stress upon this Reproach but now mentioned, if St. Austin's Answer did not thereunto engage me: For instead of returning back this Accusation as a bitter Slander and Calumny, and to say unto these Enemies of Catholics, that they were deceived in thinking that their Eucharist was Bread and Wine, and in building this erroneous Opinion on this wrong Foundation, that they served these false Gods of the Heathens: He contents himself with telling them, that it is true, that the Catholics did celebrate their Eucharist with Bread and Wine; 
Id. ibid.  but that this Bread and Wine did not regard, nor relate unto Ceres and Bacchus. Although (saith he) it is Bread and Wine, yet they have no Relation unto those Heathen Idols. I add unto this Reproach the Accusation of Rabbi Benjamin in St. Isidor of Damieta, mentioned by us in the same Place; 
Isid. Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401.  for he accuseth the Christians to have invented a new and strange Oblation, in consecrating Bread unto God, whereas the Law commanded bloody Sacrifices. Some think St. Isidore ought to have answered this Accusation with the Lie, in plainly denying the Thing. If the Oblation of the Church had been not an Oblation of Bread, but an Oblation of the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ; that it was the only Way this ancient Doctor could take to stop the Mouth of this insolent Jew, if the Belief of Christians of his Time had been truly so, there needs only common Sense to conclude thus. But St. Isidore very far from so doing, he agrees with Rabbi Benjamin, 
Id. ibid.  that the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread. He only tells him, That he doth ill to call it New; because it was practised even under the Dispensation of the Law, during which they offered the Shewbread; and he reproaches him of not knowing, That the Law itself did consecrate the Shewbread. 
Hieron Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. cap. 5.  St. Jerom relates of several religious Persons of his Time in that they excused themselves for drinking Wine; and with the more plausible Pretext to cloak this Liberty of drinking many Times unto excess, they were wont to say, in adding Sacrilege to their Drunkenness; Ah! God forbidden that I should abstain from the Blood of Jesus Christ. This Excuse is, as they think, as weak and ridiculous as could be, if these religious Persons, and the Christians of that Time had not believed, that what was contained in the Holy Cup, and which they called the Blood of Jesus Christ, was truly Wine. For to what purpose, say they, was it to insist upon what the Communicants drank at the Holy Table, to authorize the Liberty they took of drinking Wine, if it had not been Wine in effect? So that they believed no other Explication could be given to these Words; which I submit to the Judgement of those which shall read this History. Moreover, the Protestants say, That the same St. Jerom furnisheth them again in his Dispute against Jovinian, with a Proof of the Belief of the ancient Church. It was about Wine, 
Hi. ron. advers. J●vin. l. 2. c. 4.  which St. Jerom would have forbidden, especially unto Maids and young People. Jovinian on the contrary proves, That we should use it; and one of the Reasons he alleges, is, That Jesus Christ offered Wine, and not Water in the Type and Figure of his Blood. This Reason of Jovinian's is of no Force, if it be not supposed, that what is in the Chalice, is Wine; it may be, Jovinian was mistaken, some may say, and not knowing the Belief of the Church in his Time, he reasoned on a wrong Ground. But what appearance is there, that although he was not so Eminent as his Adversary, yet he had his Talents and Gifts? How could he be ignorant of what was not hidden from the most Simple and Ignorant amongst the People? Besides, St. Jerom's Answer gives us sufficiently to understand, that Jovinian's Reasoning was well and solidly grounded, and that he supposed a Principle universally received by all Christians. In fine, however considerable a Man St. Jerom was, and whatever Respect we own unto his Memory, yet we may say, without wronging him, that he had his Failings; seeing there's no Man without his Faults, and happy is he that hath fewest, as saith the Poet. The most remarkable Fault in St. Jerom, was his Passion against his Adversaries, and too great Earnestness in disputing, which sometimes transporting him beyond the Bounds of Reason, inspired him with very injurious and outrageous Expressions. 
Id. ibid. c. 11.  It is then very likely he would not have spared Jovinian, if his Opinion had been contrary unto that of the Church; and but that he would presently have cried, Ah the Heretic! Nevertheless, he doth not do so. On the contrary, he answers after a manner, which plainly shows, that in this Point he was of the same Opinion with Jovinian. Although that Jesus Christ (saith he) was hungry and thirsty, and that he was many times at Feasts, yet it is not written, that he pleased his Mouth, nor his Belly, if you except the Mystery which he shown in Type of his Passion. We have spoken in the second Chapter of our first Part, of two sorts of Christians which used only Water in the Eucharist, besides the Encratites, of whom we will say nothing in this Place. The former in the Morning Assemblies abstained from the Use of Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament, because they feared least the Smell of it should discover them to be Christians, and People which came from participating of the Eucharist; and that discovering them to be such, 
Cyprian Ep. 63.  it might expose them to the Persecution of the Heathens. It may be (saith St. Cyprian) that some may fear at the Morning Oblation to make known by the Scent of the Wine, that he hath participated of the Blood of Jesus Christ. Was ever any Fear so ill grounded, or any panic Fear like this? If it had then been believed, that what was drank in communicating, was the real Blood of Christ, where was the Sense of those People, to be afraid of a Shadow, and to tremble where there was no Cause of Danger? Seeing it could not be said, that the Blood of Jesus Christ had the same Smell that Wine had; and that moreover it is expressly spoken of the Smell of Wine, and not of the Odour of the Blood of Christ. And what surpriseth them yet more, is, that those of whom we speak, were not private ordinary Persons, but Conductors also; for St. Cyprian designs such, at the Beginning of his Treatise, by those which consecrate the Cup of the Lord, and distribute it unto the People. To say that the Smell of Wine should rest in the Sacrament, although there had been no Wine, that could not be; because the Holy Fathers before declared, That Accidents could not exist without their Subjects, without ever excepting the Sacrament. Moreover, when St. Cyprian condemned this Abuse, as doubtless he had reason to condemn it; wherefore had he not said, That those People were the most to blame that could be, to take for Wine, the proper Blood of Jesus Christ, and to think, that the Sacrament had the Scent of Wine, seeing there was no Wine in it? Wherefore had he not alleged against them the Belief of the Universal Church, if it held for an Article of Faith, that what is contained in the mystical Cup, is not Wine after Consecration, but the very Substance of the Blood of the Son of God. It was, say they, the only Means that could have been used to have made them ashamed, and to have reclaimed them from their Error; yet nevertheless St. Cyprian doth not make use of it: He contents himself to pity their Ignorance and their Timidity, and to blame them, that they had not followed the Example of Jesus Christ, who had not used Water alone in his Eucharist, nor Wine alone, but of both. The other Christians which celebrated the Sacrament with Water, did it by another Motive, as Gennadius hath informed us, when he told us, 
De dogm. Eccles. c. 75.  That they did so under a Pretext of Sobriety. Is it possble that this Thought could ever come into the Mind of a Christian, that to drink the Blood of the Lord Jesus, was to want Sobriety? What were Men made of in those Times, say the Protestants? Had they common Sense and Reason as we have? For we cannot conceive their Proceed; it must be freely confessed, if participating of the Holy Cup, they believe they drink the pure Blood of the Son of God, and not Wine; how they could think, that under a Pretext of Sobriety, that they ought to use only Water therein? But wherefore had not the Holy Fathers taken Care better to instruct and inform them herein? it had been their Duty and Charity to have cured these Souls from this mistaken Niceness which caused them to err: they also did it; for they were too zealous and charitable to let themly in Error: But how have they done it? was it in saying unto them, That the holy Liquor in the Sacramental Cup is no longer Wine, but the proper Blood of Jesus Christ; no, at least not such Thing is seen in their Writings, to think so. On the contrary, you would think they take Delight in showing that it is Wine: 
Id. ibid.  For see here all the Answer that Gennadius makes to combat this Abuse; There was Wine in the Mystery of our Redemption, our Saviour having said. I will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine. Prudence is very necessary in the Conduct of Life; but I think it is more in matters of Religion, especially unto Pastors and Conductors, which lead the Way unto others, they should take care not to make any wrong Steps, I mean not to teach any thing, either by Preaching or Writing, but what they carefully digest; particularly, not to urge any Thing against Unbelievers or Heretics, that may reflect upon any of the Mysteries of our holy Religion. No body that I know, hath accused St. Chrysostom of want of Prudence, and to say the Truth for what is known of him, great heed ought to be taken of laying any such thing to his Charge: Nevertheless it is observed in one Part of his excellent Works, one thnig which would certainly be ill relished, had he been in the Opinion of the Latins. It is a Reproach which he makes unto Laban upon his complaining that he was rob of his Gods: 
Chrysost. Homil. 57 in Gen. ad c. 30, 31. t 2.  O Excess of Folly (saith he unto him) thy Gods, saith he, are they capable of being stolen? Art thou not ashamed to say, Wherefore have ye stolen away my Gods? For if this holy Doctor believed, that the Bread of the Sacrament, after Consecration, were no longer Bread, but the true Body of Jesus Christ his Saviour, and his God; it may be said, that the Reproach he made unto Laban was neither prudent nor judicious, because he might have been answered, That the same might befall his God. And indeed others before me have observed, 
Alex. Gerald. itiner. Romae I dit. extr.  that Alexander Geraldin Bishop of St. Domingo in that Spanish Island, complained formerly unto the Emperor Charles the fifth That the Temple of his Bishopric not being well covered, all therein was exposed unto Thiefs; insomuch (saith he) that the Body of God itself is not there secure against Robbers, against Witches, and Sorcerers, nor against the Rage of wicked Men. But when we should not have the Complaint of this Bishop, all the World knows, that what St. Chrysostom saith of the Gods of Laban, may befall the consecrated Host. One cannot then forbear either to accuse this holy Doctor of want of Wisdom, or to say, that he did not believe the substantial Conversion of the Latin Church, which I will refer to the Readers Judgement, whilst I say, 
Theodoret. in Genes. Quest. 55.  that Theodoret, a great Admirer of St. Chrysostom, should not avoid the same Censure, however discreet he was otherwise. If he had believed, that the proper Body of Jesus Christ, which all Christians adore, and unto whom they address the Sovereign Worship of their Religion, were truly and properly eaten with the Mouth of the Body: 
Id. in Levit. Quest. 11. p. 124.  For if that were so, say they, with what Face could he say, That it is the highest Folly to adore what we eat? And again when he asks this Question, Where is there any Man of good Sense, that can call that his God, which he eateth himself after having offered it unto the true God? Had it not been to have exposed himself to the Scorn of the Enemies of Christianity, and have given them Occasion to have derided the Holiness of our Mysteries? I could add unto all that we have said, in the first place, the Simplicity with which the primitive Christians celebrated the Sacrament, as we shall perceive by Justin Martyr, and the Liturgy of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite; for it is very like, if they had believed that the Sacrament is the real Body of Jesus Christ, they would have used more Ceremony in the Celebration. Secondly, The Form of Consecration used in the ancient Church, as well in the East as the West, by Prayers, Invocations, and giving Thanks, as hath been shown in the seventh Chapter of the first Part, doth show in all likelihood, that the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion was not believed, because this Conversion could not be made without the abolishing the Substances of Bread and Wine; and that Prayers and Benedictions never destroy the Creatures. Moreover, if what was consecrated were not Holy before Consecration, as the Holy Fathers informed us in the same Chapter, this Consecration could not happen unto Jesus Christ, neither as God, nor as Man; not as God, for in this regard he is Holiness itself; not as Man, because in this Regard he was ever Holy. Besides, if this Consecration only retired the Elements of Bread and Wine from their common natural Use, to employ them in a religious and holy Use, as they have also declared unto us, it cannot be seen, that this Effect of Consecration can subsist with the Ruin and Abolishment of these Elements: For the Use of any Thing, be it Profane or Holy, doth always presuppose its Truth and Existency, otherwise it were useless in Religion and Nature. The Latin Church hath also laid aside this Form of Consecration, which she attributed, some Ages past, unto these Words, This is my Body; wisely foreseeing, that whilst Consecration was made to depend upon Prayers, and giving Thanks, the substantial Conversion would scarcely be believed.  
I will end this Chapter by another Consideration drawn from the Reasons and Motives which obliged the Holy Fathers to give unto the Sacrament the Name of Sacrifice, according to the Enquiry we made in Chap. VIII. of the first Part, where we have at large proved by their proper Testimonies, that they have given it this Title by reason of the Bread and Wine which Communicants presented upon the Holy Table of the Church for the Celebration of the Sacrament, and by reason of the Oblation which was made unto God of this Bread and Wine at the instant of Consecration and afterwards. Moreover, they also called it so, because we there render Thanks unto God for bestowing upon us his well beloved Son; so that it is an Act of our Thankfulness unto the Father and the Son, for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death; because the Sacrament serves us now instead of the Legal Sacrifices, being our external Worship under the Dispensation of the Gospel, as Sacrifices was that of the Jews under the Oeconomy of the Law. And in sine, because it is the Memorial of the truly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross. These are the Reasons and Motives of this Name of Sacrifice, which the ancient Doctors have given to the Sacrament, and which we have largely insisted upon in the  Chapter. The Protestants hence infer two Things; first, That all these Reasons and Motives remove from the Minds of Christians the Idea of a real Sacrifice, and makes them conceive that of a Sacrifice improperly so called. Thence it is, that when the Jews and Pagans reproached them, that they had neither Altars, nor Sacrifices, they freely confessed it, showing thereby, that if they had given unto the Eucharist the Name of Sacrifice, and unto the Holy Table the Name of Altar, it was but improperly, and by abuse of Language. Thence also it is, that when they instruct those within and that they teach them what hath succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law; they contented themselves to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices, either the Spiritual Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel, or the Sacrifice of the Cross, or both of them together; and that there should rest no Scruple in the Minds of the People which they instructed, touching the Nature and Quality of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church, they unanimously depose at all Times, and in all Places, that it is an Oblation of Bread and Wine. It is also what they were induced to believe, because there was but one Altar, or one Eucharistical Table in each Church; and that the Sacrament was celebrated but once a Day: For had they considered the Sacrament as a real Sacrifice, they could not have had too many Altars, nor too often offer the Sacrifice; because in the often doing it, there came the greater Benefit and Comfort unto their Souls. It is also the Instruction which they drew from Believers, being obliged to communicate; and that those were made to departed out of the Church, which did not communicate; in that they never celebrated the Eucharist without Communicants, and that Oblations were not received, but from those which were admitted unto the holy Sacrament. Why should that be, if it had been a real Sacrifice, seeing one might have assisted with Profit, although one communicated not, as is now practised in the Latin Church. The second thing they infer, is, That seeing they have not looked upon the Eucharist as a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead, they have looked upon it as a Sacrament of Communion only, and a Sacrament which is the Memorial of Jesus Christ, and of his Death, and where there is distributed unto the Communicants Bread and Wine for a Pledge of their Salvation: For therein is distributed what is there offered unto God after Consecration. Now the Holy Fathers testify, That there is offered unto God Bread and Wine, Gifts and Fruits of the Earth, the first Fruits of his Creatures, Food which he bestows upon us, the same things which Melchizedeck offered, the Symbols and Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So it is they have formally expressed themselves in this eighth Chapter, which I desire the Reader to peruse over again, to see if these two Inductions are lawful and natural.   

CHAP. VII.  
Continuation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and the Inferences of Protestants.  
BEsides what hath been hitherto said, it is observed, that there be certain Occasions wherein the Holy Fathers should have omitted the Names of Figure, Antitype, Sacrament, if they had believed, that it had been the real Body of Christ himself; nevertheless they have done the quite contrary: For instance; The Author of Apostolical Constitutions, 
Constit. Apost. l. 7. c. 26.  gives us a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving for the Communion, where he makes the Communicants say, We give thee Thanks, O Father, for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us; and for his precious Body whereof we celebrate these Antitypes; that is to say, these Figures; he himself having commanded us to show 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 sanctify 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 Virtue of Consecration, be the Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ, which he looked 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 Virtuous 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 herself 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 itself of Jesus Christ; nevertheless he doth the quite contrary, 'tis to the Antitype and the Figure, that he attributes this wonderful Effect; and thereby he shows, 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 Emperor's Perfect threatened 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 threatened, he earnestly beseeches the Perfect 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 Perfect, 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 itself of Jesus Christ, and of saying unto him, That he conjured him by this precious Body, which he made with the same Mouth which entreated 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. Da●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 hardened to the highest Degree, he must needs have moved them, in showing 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 Archbishoprics 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, alleging this Reason for their Denial; That it would be an abominable thing, 
Concil. C●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 Promotion to the Episcopacy, with any secular Oath, whatever it did before Ordination. In the first place I advertise the Reader, there is in the Text, Conficit corpus & Christi sanguinis Sacramentum; but it may plainly be seen it should be read, Corporis & Christi sanguinis Sacramentum, and translated as we have done, The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, otherwise it would be Nonsense; for what signifies, make the Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ? From all which they conclude, That the Fathers of the Council should have spoken in much stronger Terms, if that instead of saying, that they made the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they had said, that they made the Body and Blood: They think that the Occasion also required it, and that their Denial would have been better grounded; and they affirm, that if an Assembly of Prelates of the Latin Church were in the like Conjuncture, they would make no mention, and that justly of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; they would speak directly of the Glorious Privilege of making the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Whence is it then, that these Prelates of the Synod of Cressy did not do so; it is in all likelihood, because they were not of the same Belief. Optatus Bishop of Mileva in Numidia, aggravating the Crime of the Donatists, which had with horrible Impiety thrown down the Sacrament of the Orthodox unto the Dogs, speaks of it after a manner which would not be easily pardoned, had he believed as the Latins do, that it is the very Body of Christ himself: What, saith he, is there more sinful and impious, than to throw the Eucharist unto Beasts? But what could be weaker than this Expression, if this Eucharist were the real Body of the Son of God? aught he not to have thundered after another manner against these wicked Wretches? Should he not have exaggerated with stronger, and more Emphatical Terms, the Horror of so fearful an Abomination? In a Word, ought he not have given it a blacker Term than that of Impious, and have painted the enormous Sin of these wicked Wretches with other Colours? Can it be thought that a Bishop of the Latin Church should be contented with such a kind of Expression in the like Occasion? not at all: Wherefore then was Optatus content? They can conceive no other Reason, but the Difference of their Belief? Let the Reader judge if there be any other more probable? In the mean while I must tell you, that having sometimes meditated of St. Chrysostom's Books touching the Evangelical Priesthood, to see how he advanced its Dignity, and having applied myself in reading them, to endeavour to discover wherein he makes the greatest Privilege of this Order to consist; which with his Eloquence he exalts as much as he thought fit. I find that he only attributes unto it the Function of Prayer, to obtain by their Prayers the Grace of the Holy Spirit upon the Sacrament. 
Chrysost. l. 3. de Sacerdot. c. 4 p. 32. vid. p. 31.  The Priest, saith he, is present, not bearing Fire, but the Holy Ghost; he makes long Prayers, not to the end that Fire should come down from Heaven to burn the Things offered, but to the end, that Grace descending upon the Sacrifice, should by that means inflame the Spirits of those which are present, and make them purer, and more bright than Silver tried in the Fire. And he sayeth this in Opposition to the Sacrifice of the Prophet Elias, 
1 Reg. 18.  when he assembled all the Prophets of Baal to prefer the Evangelical Priesthood, 
1 Reg. 18.  and what is done in the Celebration of the Sacrament much before and above the Priesthood of the Law. How is it that this excellent Genius had not bethought himself of saying, that though the mystical Sacrificers of the New Testament did not cause to come down from Heaven a material Fire by their Prayers, as Elias did, to consume the Oblations offered upon the Holy Table, but the Heavenly and Divine Fire of the Holy Ghost for the purifying of our Souls? They do make, moreover, the true Body of Jesus Christ by the Force and Virtue of these Words, This is my Body. Was there ever a more proper and favourable Means and Occasion to advance this Evangelical Dignity, and to place what it doth daily do in the Celebration of the Sacrament, by converting the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is infinitely more than what Elias did against Baal's false Prophets? Every Body knows in what manner the Romish Catholic Doctors do exalt this Dignity, and that they never forget when they treat of its Advantages and Privileges, to attribute unto their Priests the Privilege of making the real Body of the Son of God. And I don't wonder any Body should think strange of it, if they consider the Doctrine and Belief of the Latin Church; how is it possible then that the great St. Chrysostom should have forgotten it, that he hath not said a Word of it, and that in so presing an Occasion he passed over in silence a Circumstance so remarkable and essential to his Subject. Men may say what they please, but for my part, saith the Protestant, I find no other Reason for it, but their Difference of Belief. St. Austin in his Books against Faustus the Manichean, undertaking to advance the Honour and Excellency of our Sacraments above the ancient Sacraments so far as to exhort us to suffer for them with more Vigour and Courage than the three Hebrew Children, or Daniel and the Maccabees did for theirs, contents himself to say, 
August. l. 19 contra Faust. c. 14.  That it is the Eucharist of Jesus Christ, the Signs of things accomplished; whereas the ancient Sacraments were promises of things to come. Had he believed that our Eucharist is not a Sacrament only, but also the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, and his Flesh also; wherefore did he conceal and was silent in this essential Difference from the old Sacraments, because his Reputation alone had been sufficiently capable of inflaming our Zeal, and of more effectually disposing us unto Martyrdom for its Defence, rather than any thing else which he said unto us. When we censure, we endeavour to represent to the Offender the Greatness of his Fault to make him the more to loathe it, and all means is used to let him see the Enormity of it, especially in raising and advancing the Excellency of the Object which he offended; for it is commonly according to the Nature and Quality of the Object offended, that the Degree and Greatness of the Offence is proportioned; let us then see after what manner the Holy Fathers have demeaned themselves towards them which have offended against the Sacrament of the Eucharist: For, doubtless, considerable Informations may be drawn from these kinds of Censures. A Council of Carthage assembled Anno 419. condemns by one of its Canons, which is the 18th in the Code of Canons of the Church of Africa, as we already observed in our first Part, the Custom of putting the Eucharist in the Mouth of the Dead; 
Cod. can. Eccles. Afric. Justel. c. 18.  It hath been resolved, saith the Council, that the Eucharist should not be given unto the Bodies of the Dead; for it is written, Take, and eat: Now dead Bodies can neither take, nor eat. A Defence which the Council of the East was obliged to renew in the year 691. but in the same Terms of that of Carthage; it is something in condemning this Abuse: But certainly, say some, if the Church of the Vth and VIIth Century believed, that it is the real Body of the Son of God, it was too slightly condemned. This Profanation deserved a ruder Censure, and deserved a much stricter Prohibition. The third Council of Braga in Gallicia assembled Anno 675. censured those which offered Milk instead of Wine for the holy Sacrament; and see here the Terms that it useth: 
Council. Bracar. 3. c. 2 ●. 4. Council. p. 833.  Let them forbear then to offer Milk at the Sacrifice, because the manifest and clear Example of the Truth of the Gospel appears plainly to our Eyes, which admits not of offering any thing but Bread and Wine. The Protestants think, that the Censure of the Council had been better applied, if it had been represented unto those which dared to offer Milk instead of Wine, that it was not Milk, but Wine which was to be converted into the proper Substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ; and that it is very likely, that if the Fathers had believed this substantial Conversion, they would not have failed to have done so, because the Occasion invited them thereunto. The XVIth Council of Toledo assembled the Year of our Lord 693. do censure another Abuse, which is, That some Priests bethought themselves of offering for the Communion little Crusts of Bread, which they raised round from Loaves, intended for their own use, instead of offering of whole Loaves: The Council-reproves this Liberty, whereunto it opposeth the Example of Jesus Christ, who took an entire Loaf; but it said not unto those People, that they were to blame, slightly to offer bits of Bread without considering, that the Bread of the Eucharist is changed into the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, which nevertheless might have been of great weight unto them. On the contrary, it commands to offer middling Loaves, fearing, if they were too big, the overplus which remained after the Communion, might by its Grossness and Quantity, incommode the Stomach of them which eat it; which, as 'tis supposed, drew them quite from any Thought of Reality, and conducted them unto the Consideration of the Sacrament. In fine, when Ratherius Bishop of Verona prohibits at the End of the Xth Century, committing the Eucharist unto Lay-people to be carried unto sick Folks, he doth not show in censuring this Abuse, that there is any Crime in putting into profane Hands the real Body of our Saviour, there being none but the Persons which he hath consecrated unto his own Service, which ought to enjoy this Privilege, which in all probability he would not have failed to do, had he been thoroughly persuaded of the Truth of the real Presence; he only commands, 
T. 2. Spicil. Dacher. p. 261.  That none presume to give the Eucharist unto any Layman or Woman to be carried unto the Sick. But 'tis not yet time to end these Proofs, the Instructions which the Holy Fathers gave their Neophytes, and new Baptised, will very likely afford us others: For although they never spoke against their Judgement, not even in their Homilies and popular Sermons, where, according to the Circumstance of the Times, they used some Restriction of not giving the Eucharist the Name of Bread and Wine, thinking there might be present some Catechumeny and Persons not initiated, which might hear them, and in whom the Names of Bread and Wine might have created too low and mean Thoughts of the Excellency of our Mysteries: Nevertheless, because it is supposed, that they have expressed themselves clearer in instructing these young Plants but newly grafted into the mystical Stock of the Church, by holy Baptism; let us see what Succour we can draw from these sorts of Catechisms, wherein to give their Neophytes a great Idea of the Sacrament, they forbear not using strong and elevated Expressions; but yet in such a manner, as they plainly discover in what Way they are to be understood: For instance; 
Cyril. Hierosol. Mystag. 5. p. 244, 246.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus speaketh unto his Catechumeny newly Baptised; In coming to the Sacrament, come not with Hands stretched out, nor with the Fingers open, but laying your right Hand in the left, as being to receive the King, and hallowing the Palm of the Hand, receive the Body of Jesus Christ in saying Amen. And having communicated of the Body of Christ, draw near unto the Cup of his Blood, not in stretching out the Hands, but in bowing, by an Act which shows a kind of Adoration or Veneration and of Worship, saying Amen, sanctify yourselves in receiving the Blood of Christ. See here a fair and great Idea of the Sacrament; but that his Neophyte should carry his Thoughts no farther than he ought, he explains unto him in the same place, that he speaks of a Body of Jesus Christ, of which he may lose some Part, of which a Crumb may fall to the Ground; and of a Blood, whereof a Moisture and Humidity rests upon the Lips, and wherewith one may wet the the Eyes, 
Ibid.  the Face, and other Organs of the Body: Having then, saith he, with assurance sanctified your Eyes by the touch of the sacred Body, receive it, taking heed thou lose none of it; for what you lose of it, is as if you should lose one of your Members. Tell me, if any one should give you Lingots of Gold, would you not keep them with all manner of Diligence, taking care not to lose any Part of them, and not to suffer Damage? And should you not take care that there fall not any Crumb of this which is more precious than Gold, and than Pearls? And afterwards passing to the consideration of the Blood whereof he exhorted him to participate with profound Respect, he teacheth him of what Blood he should understand it, when he adds; 
Ibid.  And as the Moisture and Humidity is yet upon the Lips, touching with your Hand the Eyes, the Face, and other Organs of the Senses, sanctify them; and having attended the Prayers, give Thanks unto God for that he hath rendered you worthy to participate of these great Mysteries. Hitherto our Neophyte hath not been ill instructed; but let us again hear how he spoke unto him in the foregoing Catechism; 
Id. Catech. Myst. 4. p. 237. Ibid.  Jesus Christ affirming and saying of the Bread, This is my Body; who is it that can yet make any doubt of it? and in saying of the Wine, that it is his Blood; who will question it? and who will say it is not his Blood? 
Ibid.  He teacheth him, that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine his Blood; but to the end that he should not stagger at it, 
Ibid.  he conducts him unto the Metaphorical and Figurative Sense, when he saith in the same place; The Body is given unto you in the Figure of Bread; and the Blood in the Type of Wine: And if he saith unto him besides, That we shall be Bearers of Christ, when we have his Body and Blood distributed into our Members. See here what he adds to let him see how that is done. Jesus Christ said unto the Jews, If you eat not my Flesh, and drink my Blood, you have no Life in you. But they not understanding it spiritually, were offended, and forsook him; thinking that he would have them eat human Flesh. The old Law also had Shewbread which are not now used, because they appertained unto the ancient Dispensation; but under the new, the heavenly Bread, and the Cup of Salvation, sanctifieth both Body and Soul; for as the Bread regards the Body, so also the Word doth regard the Soul. In fine, he gives also this other Instruction unto his Neophyte; Hold for certain, that the Bread which is seen, 
Id. ibid. p. 2●9  is not Bread, although the Relish judgeth it to be Bread; but believe that it is the Body of Jesus Christ; and that the Wine which is seen, is not Wine, although the Taste think so, but that it is the Blood of Jesus Christ. These Words already begin to inform him, That there is Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, and that the Sight and Taste do both testify the same; the Infallibility and Certainty of which Testimony, the Fathers have asserted. But because St. Cyril's Design in so speaking unto him, was to instruct him, that he should not look upon them as bare Bread, and bare Wine, but as the efficacious Sacraments of the Divine Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 
Id. P. 237.  which they fail not to communicate unto those who worthily participate of them: He told him a little before, Do not consider them as bare Bread and Wine; for by these Words he plainly presupposeth, that it is Bread and Wine, as he presupposeth elsewhere, that it is Water and Oil, when he saith of Baptism, Do not look at the bare Water, 
Id. Catech. 3. illum p. 16. & Mystag. 3. p. 235.  consider not this Washing as of common Water; beware of thinking that it is common Oil. Thence it is, that he likens the Change which happens unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist by Consecration, unto what befalls the Oil of Chrism by Benediction, to the end his Catechumeny may be persuaded, that it is a Change of the same Nature. 
Id. Mystag. 3. p. 235.  As (saith he) the Bread of the Sacrament after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer common Bread, but the Body of Jesus Christ: So also this holy Chrism is not bare Oil, or if it may be so said, common, after Invocation; but it is a Gift and Grace of Jesus Christ. And to complete this Instruction, 
Id. Mystag 5. p. 244.  he tells him in the fifth Catechism, you hear a Divine Melody, which to invite you to the Communion of the holy Mysteries, sings these Words, Taste, and see how good the Lord is. Think you that you are commanded to make this Trial with the Mouth of the Body? not at all, but rather with an undoubted Faith, which changeth not; for you are not bid to taste the Bread and Wine, but the Antitype, or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. As St. Cyril ended his Course, St. Gaudentius was called to the Bishopric of Bressia in Italy; he also composed a kind of Catechism for his Neophytes, 
Gaudent. tract. 2. de rat. Sacram Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 14.  wherein he speaks unto them after this manner, In the shadow of the Legal Passover there was not one, but several Lambs slain; there was one slain for every House, one alone not being sufficient for all the People, because it was the Figure, and not the Passion itself of our Lord. The Figure is not the Substance, but the Imitation of the Truth. In this Truth then whereof we are persuaded one died for all, and the same being offered in all the Churches, doth nourish in, or by the Mystery of Bread and Wine, being believed he vivifies, and being consecrated he sanctifies those which consecrate, it is the Flesh of the Lamb, it is his Blood; for the Bread which came down from Heaven said, the Bread which I will give, is my Flesh, and I will give it for the Life of the World; and his Blood is also well expressed by the Species of Wine; because when himself saith in the Gospel, I am the true Vine; he sufficiently declares, that all the Wine offered in the Figure of his Passion, is his Blood. In this whole Discourse he teacheth them in the Death of Jesus Christ, to search the Body and Substance of what had been prefigured by the Lambs of the Jews; and if he speaks unto them of offering it again, he intended not to understand it of a real Immolation, because all Christians have always believed, and all do still believe, that Jesus Christ was never truly sacrificed but upon the Cross, and that he cannot be any more sacrificed, because he cannot die again. They might then easily understand, that St. Gandentius spoke unto them of an improper Sacrifice, which consists in the Representation of that which was made on the Cross: For 'tis in this Sense St. 
Aug. Ep. 23. Gaud. Serm. 19 p. 72.  Austin saith, That he is every day offered in Sacrament and in Figure. And Gaudentius himself, That we offer the Sufferings of the Passion of Jesus Christ in Figure of his Body, and of his Blood. Besides, in telling them, that he is immolated who was consecrated, He plainly shows them, that it is done not in the Person of Jesus Christ, but in his Sacrament, else he should have instilled into these Catechumenes two Doctrines which would directly contradict Christian Piety; one is, That Jesus Christ is less than him that consecrates him. 
Cyril. Alex. de Trin. dial 6. p. 558 t. 5. Heb 7.7.  For as St. Cyril of Alexandria saith, What is sanctified is sanctified by a greater and more excellent thing, than it is by Nature; according to what is said by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that which is less, is blessed by the greater. The other is, That Jesus Christ should not have been always holy. For as the same Cyril again saith, 
Id. ibid. p. 595.  Reason will absolutely persuade us to say, That that which is said to be sanctified, hath not ever been holy. Therefore our Gaudentius declares unto them in the same Catechism, That Jesus Christ commanded to offer the 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 itself of things; so that in their manner of Speech, the Species of any thing, is the thing itself. As when St. 
Aug tract. 11. in Joan. Ib. p. 14  Austin speaks of the Species of Baptism, to signify 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 hindered 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 shown 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 Virtue 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 terrestrial 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 lie. And indeed it would be a criminal Unbelief not to believe what Jesus Christ hath said, who is the Truth itself, 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 Pledge 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 Pledge 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 twofold 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 testify; 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, you cannot understand; than you may now say unto me, seeing you have commanded us to believe, explain unto us what it is, to the end we might understand; for this Thought may be in every body's Mind: We know of whom Jesus Christ our Lord took Flesh, to wit, of the Virgin Mary; we know he was nursed in his Infancy, that he was fed, that he grew, that he attained the Age of Manhood, that he suffered Persecution of the Jews, that he was nailed to the Cross, that he there died, and was buried; that he risen the third Day, that he ascended into Heaven when he was pleased to go thither; that he lifted up his Body from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and that he is now sitting on the right Hand of the Father: How then is the Bread his Body, and the Cup his Blood? Brethren, these things are called Sacraments, because one thing is what we see, and another is that we understand; that which is seen is a bodily Species; that which we understand hath a spiritual Fruit: If then you would know what the Body of Jesus Christ is, harken to St. Paul the Apostle, which said unto Believers, You are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members, your Sacrament is laid upon the Lord's Table, and you there receive your Mystery. You say Amen unto what you are, and you thereto subscribe by your Answer. It is said unto you, The Body of Jesus Christ; and you answer, Amen; be Members then of Jesus Christ, that your Amen may be true. But why all this to the Bread? let us not add here nothing of our own, but let us farther hear the same Apostle speaking of this Sacrament; We which are many, are one Bread and one Body; understand this and rejoice; for here is nothing but Unity, Piety, Charity, one Bread and one Body, although we be many. Observe, that the Bread is not made of one Grain, but of many: When you were exorcised, you passed, as it were, under the Mill; when you were baptised, you were, as it were, kneaded; and when you received the fire of the Holy Ghost, you were baked like Bread: Be then what you see, and receive what you are. See here what the Apostle hath said of Bread, whereby he sufficiently shows, without repeating it, what we should believe in regard of the Cup; for as to make this visible Species of Bread, several Grains are reduced into one Body to represent what the Scripture saith of Believers, they were but one Heart, and one Soul in God: It is also the same of Wine; consider how it is one, several Grapes are in a Bunch, but their Liquor is mingled all into one Body; so it is Christ hath represented us, so it is he hath made us his, and that he hath consecrated upon the holy Table the Mystery of Unity, and of our Peace. So it was they instructed in the ancient Church the new Baptised; they were told, that what they see upon the Holy Table, was Bread; and their own Eyes were called to witness this Truth. They were taught, that this Bread was the natural Body of Jesus Christ, as it was his mystical and moral Body, that is to say, his Church; because it is the Sacrament both of the one and the other; and that in the Sacrament must carefully be distinguished the Substance of the Symbols which are visible and corporeal, from the Benefit which accrues unto the believing Soul, and which is a Thing invisible and spiritual; that faithful Believers are, although for mystical Reasons, the very same thing which they see upon the mystical Table, that is to say, Bread; according to what the Apostle saith, we are one Bread; and that they do receive truly that which they see mystically. Now let the Reader judge, if these Catechisms, and these Instructions are for the Use of Roman Catholics, or for the Use of Protestants; as for my particular, I'll pass unto a new Consideration.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Proofs of the Doctrines of the Holy Fathers, drawn by Protestants from some Customs of the Ancient Church.  
THere are two sorts of Language used in the Society and Commerce of Men, to communicate unto each other their Thoughts and Intentions, I mean Words and Actions. The Language of Actions is silent indeed, yet nevertheless very intelligible; because Actions, I speak of those authorized by public Use, are for the most part as significant as Words: It is not then to be thought strange, if we do relate what Inferences the Protestants draw from certain Customs which were practised by the ancient Church, and which we have at large established in the first Part: Therefore we will look upon them in this, as established, and will content ourselves in barely mentioning them one after another, to infer from each of them what may lawfully be deduced. In Africa in St. Austin's time, they communicated after Meat, Thursday before Easter; and in several Churches in Egypt, every Saturday in the Year at Evening, after having made a good Meal: Without speaking of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time, where some think the same was practised, what Belief could those People have of the Sacrament of the Eucharist? It is no very easy matter to think, that they believed it to be the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, and his Flesh itself, else it must be confessed, that they were guilty of an horrible Profanation to lodge in a Stomach full of Meats, and it may be sometimes even to excess, the precious Body of the Saviour of Mankind, the only Object of their Worship and Adoration. Nevertheless, none of the ancient Writers have condemned this Practice; those which have treated of it, have spoken as of an innocent Custom, which had no hurt in it, and which, moreover, was authorized by the Example of Jesus Christ himself. Therefore when the third Council of Carthage commanded to celebrate the Sacrament fasting, it excepted the Thursday before Easter, whereon it permitted to participate every Year after the Meal. An evident Proof, say some, that there was no Crime in this Custom, whereas it would have been intolerable, if they had believed then the same of the Sacrament, as the Latin Church now doth belive of it: Therefore no Body can justly blame the Severity of its Laws, when it is so strictly prohibited to communicate otherwise than Fasting. The ancient Church for a long time used Patens and Chalices of Glass; and we do not find, that these first Christians ever made any difficulty of putting the Sacrament in Glass-Chalices, nor that they were ever blamed that did it. On the contrary, some of those which used this Practice were commended for it; nevertheless we cannot say, that these ancient Believers were less circumspect than we are, in the Celebration of the Sacrament: Wherefore then was it, that they feared not so much spilling of it in that Occasion, as the Latin Church hath done some Ages past? Let this Difference be well considered, for, saith the Protestant, I am much deceived, if upon a serious and impartial Debate, it will not be attributed unto the Difference of Judgement, it not being to be imagined, that Christians so good, and zealous, and fervent for the Religion of Jesus Christ, as those were of whom we speak, and have had the same Belief of the Sacrament that the Latin Church at this time hath, which for some time past, doth not suffer the Use of Glass-Chalices, that they had not, at least, used so much Precaution as she doth, to consecrate and distribute the Sacrament; I mean they would have made it a Scruple of Conscience of putting the Body of their God and Saviour in so brittle a Thing as Glass, those which were so careful, that none of the sacred Symbols of their Bread and Wine should fall to the Ground. The ancient Christians gave the Eucharist to young sucking Children at the Breast; a Custom which continued in the West until the XIIth Century, and which is still practised in most Christian Communions, excepting the Roman Catholics, and the Protestants. How came it to pass this Abuse was so long tolerated in the Church, if it had been always believed therein, what the Latins do believe at present, who cannot justly be blamed, by little and little, to have abolished this Custom? One could not without Horror, see exposed what was believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ, unto the undecent and sad Accidents, which oftentimes of necessity happen in communicating of young Children; those little Creatures being uncapable, by reason of their tender Age, of receiving the Sacrament with Respect which is due unto the Body itself of Jesus Christ our Redeemer. But wherefore did the ancient Church for so many Ages suffer such an Abuse, or at least, having tolerated it some time, wherefore had she not bethought herself of abolishing it, instead of letting it take root in the midst of it? Was it not so wise as the Church at this time is? Had she less Zeal, less Piety, and less Prudence? had she less love for Jesus Christ, or less Veneration for his sacred Person? certainly I suppose not. This Difference then of Conduct cannot be grounded upon any other Reason, but upon the Difference of Faith: whilst Christians believed that what they received in the Eucharist, was Bread and Wine in Substance, but that at the same time they were also the Divine Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ; the Reasons which moved them to give the Eucharist unto young Children, made them pass by the Indecencies which might be feared on the Behalf of these little Creatures. But when the Doctrine changed in the West, and that in the Latin Church they began to say, that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, this ancient Custom was abolished, it not agreeing well with their Belief: And indeed we see this Abolition was made about the time when this notable Change happened in their Doctrine. And because that in other Christian Communions, there is no Alteration happened by any public Decree in the Tradition of their Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament, they have innocently retained the ancient Custom of giving the Sacrament unto little Children. I confess this Practice is contrary to what St. Paul desires of Communicants, which is to examine themselves before they draw near unto the holy Table; of which Proof little Children are uncapable. But as we do not here treat, but only of what was done by the ancient Christians, and of what is still practised by several Christian Churches, and not of what ought to be done, I'll say no more of it; referring the Induction which the Protestants draw from this Practice, unto the Judgement of all reasonable Persons, which will take the Pains to read this History. The Communion under both Kind's was practised in the Church until these last Ages, wherein the Latins deprived the People of the Use of the sacred Cup; for as for all other Christian Societies, which hold not Correspondence with her, they retain the Custom of administering the Sacrament under both Symbols, although with some little Difference. The great Ground of the Latin Church for so doing, being through Fear of shedding it: But how comes it to pass, that this Fear is so lately crept into their Thoughts? Whence is it, that she herself practised the Communion under both Kind's, for above a thousand Years without any body scrupling it? On the contrary, when she began to forbid the Use of the Cup unto the People by a Decree at the beginning of the XVth Century, a great many Persons complained of it, and whole Countries earnestly desired, it might be restored unto them. Wherefore did she so long time grant unto her People the Communion under both Symbols distinctly? Was there then less cause of Fear of shedding, than when they deprived them of this Advantage, particularly at the time when in Rome itself they used Chalices of Glass? For it must be owned, that Glass being a weak thing, there was never greater ground to fear spilling, than during the time those Chalices were used; yet nevertheless when there was most cause of this Fear, they suffered the People to participate of the Cup of our Lord, as well as of his Bread; and when there is less Danger, Glass-Chalices being no longer in Use, they are refused it. Whence, say they, proceeds such a notable Change, which could have no show of Reason, if the Doctrine had not been altered? but because wise and prudent Persons do not incline unto these Sorts of Changes, without some powerful Motives, it must be freely confessed, that no other can be found, whatever Scrutiny could be made, but the Change of Belief. And in truth, say they again, if this Change be not presupposed, it will be a very hard matter to forbear censuring those of Lightness, which made it a Change; I say, of the Nature, that is, of, and in a thing which was grounded upon the Authority of Christ himself, and the constant Practice of so many Ages. Whereas if the prohibiting the Cup be considered as a Consequence of this Change, it will not be hard to conceive, that the Fear of shedding the real Blood of the Son of God, obliged them to forbid unto the People the Use of the holy Cup, rather choosing to deprive them of this Comfort and Consolation, than to fall into the Inconvenience of some negligent spilling of the Substance itself of the Blood of their Divine Saviour. A Fear which hath not seized the other Christian Communions, because they have not practised any Innovation in this particular; or that at least there hath not any been made by any public Determination. In the ancient Church the Eucharist was delivered into the Communicants Hand, who with the Hand put it into their Mouth, as hath been proved; and we may produce Examples of this Practice in the XIIth Century, in Flanders: At this time in the Latin Church it is put directly into the Communicants Mouth, unto whom it is not permitted to receive it with the Hand, although the Church of Rome herself practised it so formerly for several Ages. From whence again could proceed this Change, but from the Change of Doctrine? whilst it was believed, that what was received at the mystical Table, was true Bread and Wine; but Bread and Wine which the Consecration had separated from the common Use they had in Nature, to apply them unto a holy and religious Use in Grace, Communicants were permitted to receive the Sacrament in their Hands. But when they taught, that it was the real Body of Jesus Christ, they began to put it into the Mouth of such as presented themselves at the Communion, judging their Hands were not worthy to receive the Flesh itself of their Saviour; and fearing that some, by Neglect, should let fall to the Ground this precious Body; an Inconvenience which their Forefathers never thought of, or if they did think of it, they did not so much fear it, though otherwise they were as circumspect in the Celebration of this Divine Sacrament, so far as to take Care with incomparable Exactness, that none of it should fall to the Ground. Let every body judge the Reason of so notable a Difference. But if the Sacrament was put into the Hand of Communicants, they were wont also for a long time to carry it home along with them to their Houses: At present amongst the Latins, it would be a criminal Action, Father Petau tells us, and held for a Profanation of this Sacrament. As for my part, I cannot blame this Severity of the Latin Church, because she believes that it is the adorable Body of the Son of God, whereunto is owing Sovereign Respect. What shall we then say unto the ancient Fathers which permitted it, and which believed not, as St. Basil tells us, that this Custom was not worthy of Blame? We cannot but know that their Zeal was greater than ours, and their Piety more ardent than what appears in us at this time. How then have they so long time tolerated this Practice in the Church, and even in that of Rome, as St. Jerom hath made appear? From whence the Protestant concludes, That one cannot reasonably forbear attributing the Reason of this Toleration to any thing, but the Difference of their Doctrine, and to say, that their Belief upon this Point being quite contrary, they made no Scruple of suffering what the Latins would not suffer at present for all the World. And as they suffered Communicants to carry the Sacrament to their Houses to keep and take it when they pleased, they also suffered them to carry it in their Travels and Journeys, even by Sea, where they made no Difficulty of celebrating and participating of it when Occasion required; as the Example of Maximinian Bishop of Syracuse, and his Companions do testify, for being in Danger of suffering Shipwreck, they received (it is said) the Body and Blood of their Redeemer: But in the Latin Church it is practised quite contrary at this time, it not being permitted to celebrate the whole Mass, neither at the Sea, nor upon Rivers, but only to read the Epistle and Gospel, to say the Lords Prayer, and give the Benediction: In a Word, to say that which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeny, that is to say, unto that Part called the Canon. 
Thom Valdens. & Guilhelm. Duran● apud Cassand, in Liturg. c. 34. Cassand. ib.  Whence it is Cassander makes this Observation, drawn from a Book of the Order of the Mass according to the Use of the Church of Rome: This dry Mass, that is to say, without Consecration and Communion, is also called Naval; because it is judged it can only be said after that manner in an unsteady place, and where there is motion, as at Sea, and upon Rivers; in which places it is believed that an entire Mass cannot be said. Pope Gregory the first, nevertheless, blamed not what was done by Maximinian and his Companions, when he relates the History of it in his Dialogues, no more than St. Ambrose doth the Action of his Brother Satyrus: All which again gives Ground to believe that in all likelihood, they had not then that Opinion of the Sacrament, which Roman Catholics now have; for they would not have failed to have taken the same Caution. Anciently in the Church the Communion was freely sent unto sick Folks by Lay-people, by Boys, Men, or Women, which continued in the West until the IXth, and Xth Centuries. What Appearance is there they would so long have tolerated this Custem, if the Belief of those times had been the same of that of the Latin Church at present? it is thought they would have been more reserved; and that they would not have so slightly entrusted the Body of Jesus Christ unto all Sorts of Persons, indifferently. But besides all these Customs which we have instanced, and from whence we have drawn the necessary Inferences, there be yet others which we already examined in the first Part, the Consequences whereof we are also obliged to show. The ancient Christians made no Difficulty to employ the Sacrament to make Plasters, as St. Austin hath assured us: every body knows, that to make a Plaster, sometimes Drugs are used that must be bruised and pounded in a Mortar; sometimes Roots are used that must be boiled; and which by means of certain Liquors, are reduced into the consistence of an Ointment, or thick matter, and such as may conveniently be spread upon a Linen-cloth, or upon Flax, afterwards to apply it unto the distempered part which wants Ease. Was there ever any Christian that believed such a Sort of Medicine could be made of the proper and natural Body of Jesus Christ? that it could be beat and pounded in a Mortar, or boiled with Liquor? or, in a Word, reduced in the State, which they are wont to do those Things which are requisite to make Plasters? or if any were so extravagant to believe it, or so wicked and senseless to attempt it, had it been possible to be done? all others would they not have exclaimed against such a Person? would they not have esteemed him monstrous, and worthy enduring the greatest of all Punishments? Nevertheless, there hath been found those which made Plasters of the Eucharist, and which, far from being blamed, have been praised and commended by pious and devout Persons fearing God, witness that Mother mentioned by St. Austin. Seeing then that a Plaster cannot be made of the true Body of Jesus Christ, it necessarily follows, that where there was one made, it was of the Substance of the Symbols; and that the Christians that did so, were persuaded, that it was not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but a Substance of Bread and Wine. In the ancient Church the Sacrament was buried with the Dead: as there is no Christian but knows that Christ died, that he was buried, and risen again the third Day; neither is there any but do know that he dieth no more, and that he shall no more be buried. Those than which heretofore buried the Eucharist with the Dead, did not believe in all likelihood that it was the very Body of our Lord; for they would not have done any such thing, the very Thoughts of it would have terrified them, and they would have esteemed themselves the worst of Men to have put their Saviour, which they knew to be in Heaven, in the Possession of Sovereign Glory, into such a mean and low Estate. In this same Church in several Places they caused to be burnt the Overplus of the Sacrament; and in other Places they caused it to be eaten by Children, which they made come from School on purpose: Is it to be thought, that if they had believed it was the very Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ, that they would have given it so freely unto Children, who were sent for to come from School to that effect? It is also more unlikely, that they would have caused to be burnt the Flesh itself of the Saviour of Mankind, and to cast the Son of God into the Fire, who had ransomed them from the eternal Fire of Hell. The ancient Christians have sometimes taken the consecrated Cup, and have mingled it with Ink, and then dipped their Pen in these two Liquors mixed, the more authentically to sign what they had intended to ratify, not considering what is in the Cup, but as a Symbol and Sacrament of the Blood of the Son of God; yet one would be struck with some Terror so to see profaned this Sacrament of our Salvation; but if one considers it as the Blood itself of Jesus Christ, one shall find himself seized with a holy Fear: And because it cannot fall within the Compass of a Christian's Thoughts, to employ unto this Use the Substance of the Blood of our Lord, if he had it in his power itself, it must be concluded, that those who did it, were very far from thinking that it was the real Blood of our Saviour. It may be, the same Consequence might be drawn from the Practice of the Greek Church, which mingles warm Water with the Wine after Consecration, and at the instant of communicating. But because we shall be obliged to speak elsewhere of the Belief of the Greeks, we will not enlarge upon it in this place, and we shall only advertise the Reader, that all the Customs from whence have been drawn these Inductions contained in this Chapter, have been examined in the 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Chapters of the first Part of this History, and are those which Protestants do make, and which the Quality of an Historian, which I have assumed in this Work, hath obliged me to represent.   

CHAP. IX.  
Other Proofs drawn from the Silence of Heathens, and of things objected against them by the Holy Fathers.  
HAving sometimes applied myself to consider how the Enemies of Christians have behaved themselves in reference to the Simplicity of our Mysteries, I find they have been displeased with most of them, and that they have aspersed them. The Jews, as we find in the Acts and the Epistles of the holy Apostles, could not endure that Christians should believe Jesus Christ, the Son of the blessed Virgin, was the Messiah which had been promised, nor that they should believe he was risen from the Dead, and ascended into Heaven; nor that they should endeavour to free Men from the Yoke of Moses his Law. It will suffice only to read the Dialogue or Conference of Tryphon the Jew, 
Just. Martyr Dial. cum Tryph. p 290, 291, 292, 293, 317.  against Justin Martyr, therein to see, that this Son of the Synagogue did Reproach unto the Children of the Church, as things incredible, monstrous, and grossly forged, what we teach; That Jesus Christ was before Abraham and Aaron; that he assumed our Nature, and was born of a Virgin; a Mystery which this insolent Jew esteems ridiculous and fabulous, insomuch as wickedly to compare it unto the Fables which the Greek. Poets relate of their Danae; and in that we believe God was born, and was made Flesh: but he finds nothing more incredible than the Cross of Jesus Christ; 
Tertul. ad Judaeos cap. 10.  which Tertullian also reckons amongst the chiefest Objections which the Jews made against Christian Religion, according to what the Apostle said, That the Cross of Jesus Christ was a Stumbling-block to the Jews, and Foolishness to the Gentiles. The same Tryphon again reproacheth unto Christians as a great crime, that they adored a Man, and that they placed their Confidence in him. From whence he takes Occasion to charge them of introducing another God besides the Creator. As for the Gentiles, they were no better disposed than the Jews, because they despised the same Belief, and counted fabulous all other Articles which seemed to contradict the common Notions, and which did not exactly agree with the Principles and Maxims of other Religions. For Example: 
Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 677.  Clement of Alexandria observes, that they found it very strange, that we said God had a Son; that this Son should speak in Man; that he suffered; and that they esteemed this Doctrine as a Fable and Forgery. Tertullian witnesseth the same. 
Te●t●l. Apol. c. 21.  Therefore having explained the incomprehensible Mystery of the eternal Generation of the Son, and of his Incarnation, he speaks according to their Supposition, and saith; Nevertheless, believe this Fable, that is to say, admit at last this Doctrine which you look upon as a Fable. And elsewhere speaking again according to the Opinion the Gentiles had of it, he calls the Mysteries of our Faith, the Foolishness of Christian Discipline; and puts particularly in this Number, a God born, 
Id. de Ca●n. Christ. c. 4, & 5. Id. Apolog. c. 47, 48. & de tes●im. an. c. 4. Just. Apol. 2. p. 60 Arnob. l 2. p. 24.  and yet born of a Virgin, and a God of Flesh, crucified and buried. Whereunto he adds in another Treatise; The last Judgement, the Torments of Hellfire, Heaven, and the Resurrection of the Body. And he collects from all these Articles of Faith, that they condemned them of Vanity, of Presumption, of Folly, and of Stupidity. St. Justin Martyr also writes, that they called the Incarnation and Passion of the Son, an Extravagancy. And Arnobius assures us, That they made a Jest at the Simplicity of Christians, in obliging them to believe the Resurrection from the Dead, and the everlasting Torments of Hellfire. 
Orig. contrs C●ls l. 1.  But if we look upon the Books of Origen against the Philosopher Celsus, we shall therein find other things which will inform us of the wicked and prodigious Fables, which the Gentiles made use of to slander and calumniate the Birth of our Divine Jesus, and of making the inviolable Chastity of the blessed Virgin, the Subject of their Raileries. This Philosopher reproacheth unto Christians the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, as a thing unworthy the Divinity. 
Id. l. 2. p. 79. vit edit.  The Son of God (saith he) ought to have appeared like the Sun, which showeth itself in spreading its Light over all Things. And afterwards directing his Words unto Christians, he saith unto them; That having said the Word was the Son of God, they declare, instead of the pure and holy Word of God, a Man shamefully punished, whipped, and nailed to a Cross. He makes a Jest, 
Id. ibid. l. 6. p. 3 5.  that we should believe that God is born of a Virgin, saying, that God intending to send a Spirit, had no need to form it by his Breath in the Womb of a Woman; because knowing before how to make a Body, he could have made one for himself, without sending his Spirit in so filthy a place. And to render the more ridiculous this great Mystery of our holy Religion, he compares it unto the Fables of Danae, 
Id. lib. 1. p. 30. Id. l. 3. p. 131. & 8. p 385.  of Menalippe, of Auge, and of Antiope. He could not suffer they should adore, and as he says elsewhere, that they should honour with a Worship religious above all Religion, a Man that had been a Prisoner, and was dead. As also for that Reason justifies the Plurality of his Gods, as if Christians contented not themselves in worshipping one alone, under a Shadow that they worshipped Jesus Christ. 
Id. l. 8. p. 385.  If Christians (saith he) worshipped but one only God, they might, it may be, have some Pretext of despising all others; but they render infinite Honours unto this, which hath appeared but of late; nevertheless they think they do not offend God, when they serve and honour his Minister. What St. Cyril of Alexandria hath written against Julian the Apostate, sufficiently informs us of all the Blasphemies which this Back slider from the Christian Religion spewed out against all that was most Holy and Sacred in the most important and essential Mysteries of our Religion. He denied the Incarnation of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which is the Ground and Foundation of all our Hopes, the Salvation he hath purchased for us with the Price of his Blood; he reviles us with the glorious Title of Mother of God, which we give unto the holy Virgin; 
Julian Ap Cyril. Alex. l. 8. p. 262. t. 6.  You cease not (saith he) to call Mary, Mother of God. He refutes the Mystery of the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence, accusing us of contradicting Moses, who saith there is but one God; whereas we admit of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
Id l. 9 p. 290, 291.  Moses, saith he, taught there is but one God, but you have invented Things which agree not with what Moses said; for you teach, that the Son is God with the Father. 
Id. l. 8. p. 262.  And in the foregoing Book, They will tell me, it may be, they admit not of two, nor three; but I'll show, that they do admit of it by the Testimony of John, when he saith, In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
Id. ibid. p. 276.  If the Word is God (saith he again) as you assure it is, begotten of the Substance of the Father; wherefore say you, that the Virgin is the Mother of God? For how can a Woman of the same human Nature with us, bring forth a God? And morover, seeing God said positively, It is I, and there is no Saviour but me; how then dare you call him your Saviour, which is born of a Woman? Accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyrdom of Terachus, of Probus, and Andronicus, which Cardinal Baronius inserts in his Annals: but which Mr. Emery Bigot, unto whom the whole Republic of Learning is obliged, hath given us more entire in Latin, two or three Years since, and from whom we daily expect it in Greek: we there read it, I say, that the Judge Maximius a Pagan, hearing Terachus which he caused to be tormented, say, That he trusted in the Name of God and of his Christ, failed not from thence to take Occasion to treat him with Unjust and Cursed, and to tax him with the Plurality of Gods; 
P●ass SS. Tarachi, etc. p. 7.  False and wicked that thou art (said he) thou adorest then two Gods, which thou confessest with the Mouth, and thou deniest those which we do serve. But to return to the great Enemy of the Christian Name, I mean Julian the Apostate, he also hath vilified our holy Baptism, reproaching us with what we believe of the Virtue and Efficacy of these mystical and healing Waters. See (saith he) what St. Paul says unto them, 
Julian Ap. Cyril Alex. l. 7. p. 245.  that they have been cleansed and sanctified through the washing of Water: as if Water penetrated unto the Soul, to wash, and to purify it: But Baptism cannot heal a Leper, non a Scurf,— nor a Scab, nor a Gout, nor a Dysentery, nor a Dropsy, nor the least Sickness of the Body; and then how much more unable is it to remove Adulteries, Rapines, and all other Impurities of the Soul? This wretched Apostate hath ever undertaken to condemn the wise and just Conduct of the God which we adore, in punishing of some for the Sins of others; and for the same Reason he makes some Attempt against the Doctrine of Original Sin; he urgeth what is written, That God visiteth the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children; and insolently condemns what God said in the Book of Numbers touching Phineas, who ran a Javelin through the Israelitish Man, which defiled himself with the Midianitish Woman, till that he had turned away his Anger from the Children of Israel, and hindered that he had not consumed them. 
Id ibid. l. 5. p. 160, 161.  Suppose (saith he) there had been a Thousand, which had undertaken to transgress the Laws of God, ought six hundred thousand been destroyed for the Sin of one thousand? It seems to me, saith he, it had been much better to save one wicked Man with so many thousands of Good, than to have destroyed so many thousands of good Men in the Destruction of one wicked Man. There is scarce one of all our Mysteries, but have been attacked by the Jews, or the Gentiles, and have been censured by them; which doth evidently show that they had Knowledge of them, and that they were not ignorant of what was believed and practised in the Christian Religion, either by reading our Books, or by the Relation of some Apostates that fell away: what we have hitherto said, sufficiently testifies it, 
Lactant. Instit. l. 5. c 2.  and what Lactantius saith of a Heathen, which wrote against the Religion of Jesus Christ, doth fully confirm it. He related, saith he, so many Things, and Things so secret and private, that he seemed to have formerly been of the same Belief. That which causeth Admiration in a great many, is, that amongst so many Things as they have said of our Religion, amongst so many Reproaches which they have made against Christians, touching the Nature of their Mysteries, amongst so many Accusations as they have contrived against them, amongst so many Calumnies wherewith they have endeavoured to slander them, they have never attacked them about the Mystery of the Sacrament. The Emperor Julian scoffed at the Mystery of Baptism, but as for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, we do not find, that either him, or any other hath ever given it the least Onset: Their Admiration is the greater, when they consider that the Doctrine of the real Presence hath been exposed unto very sharp Reproaches of the wise Men of the World; for Cardinal du Perron relates, 
Du Perr. de l' Eucharast l. 3 c. 29. p. 973. La Boulay le Goux in his Travels part 1. c. 10 p. 21.  upon the Credit of Sarga a Jesuit, that the Philosopher Averro, a Mahometan by Religion, said, That he found no Sect worse, or more foolish, than that of Christians, who eat and tear the God which they adore. And Mr. Boulay le Goux doth testify in his Travels, That Mahometan Soldiers in a Contest they had with his Servants, amongst other Reproaches which they used, they called them Wicked, Unbelievers, Eaters of their God. I will not here insist upon the Treatise of Joseph Albon, a Spanish Jew, called Ikkarim, wherein he represents all the Inconveniencies which arise from the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion; and which, as he conceiveth, doth contradict the Lights of Reason, and the Testimony of the Senses; but I will only say, that the Protestants draw this Consequence, That if the ancient Christians had been of that Belief, the Jews and the Gentiles would not have failed in all likelihood to have reproached them of it, and to have made it the Subject of their Scorn; for they cannot think that Celsus had less Wit than Averro, nor that the ancient Enemies of Christianity were less inquisitive, nor less concerned than the Turks are now, who commonly live in Ignorance. The Roman Empire was never more refined by Arts and Sciences, than when the Christian Religion began to be established; so that Christians had for their Enemies and Persecutors Men full of Wit, Knowledge, and of Understanding, and which had spent a great part of their time in Search of Learning: nevertheless we do not find that they have contested with them upon the Subject of the Eucharist, nor that ever they made them the Reproaches that Averro and the Turks have made, and do still make unto those of the Latin Church. It is the Observation which the late Mr. Rigaut made, 
Rigalt. not. ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor. c. 5.  when he said, That amongst so many Villainies and Injuries wherewith they charged the Christians, even in accusing them of Impiety, under pretext they had no Altars, and that they sacrificed not. And amongst so many Apostates which fell away from their Religion, there was not one found that accused them of eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of their God. And to say the Truth, say the Protestants, there is great Reason to wonder at this Silence, if it be supposed that the ancient Christians believed and did what is done and believed by the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament. We know that the Romans and Greeks despised the Religion of the Egyptians, which was, indeed, full of Idolatry, 
Javenal satire 15.  and which one of their best Poets made a Mock of in one of his Satyrs; Neither are we ignorant of these Words of the best of their Orators; 
Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deor.  Do you think there is any Man such a Fool as to believe that what he eats is God? They cannot then conceive, that those People were of such Thoughts, and that they should have been silent towards Christians, if they had indeed believed, that they did eat the Flesh itself of their God and Saviour; What likelihood is there they would have spared them upon it, after having flouted them with most of their Mysteries, and after having made them the Subject of their Raileries and Pastimes? Certainly when they compare this constant and continued Silence, with the Reproach made against the Latins, they can see no other Cause of this different Proceeding, but the Difference of Belief. For if the primitive Christians had believed with the Latin Church, that what they receive at the Lord's Table, was truly and really their God, the Gentiles would not have failed to have made them the same Reproaches which the Infidels make against the Latins. Seeing then they have not been exposed unto the like Reproaches, one cannot choose (as they think) but conclude in all likelihood, that they had not the same Belief, yet it must be granted there i● to be seen in the Writings of the Ancients, one Testimony, from whence it may seem to be collected, that the Gentiles believed that Christians did really eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ: It is Oecumenius that hath preserved it under the Name of St. Irenaeus, and of the first Martries of Lions, 
Oecumen. Comment. in 1 Pet. c. 2.  he thus represents it unto us; The Greeks having taken the Servants of Christian Catechumenies, and torturing them to discover some Secrets touching the Christians: These Servants having nothing to say to the liking of those which tormented them, except what they had heard their Masters say, That the Divine Communion is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, they also thinking it was really Flesh and Blood, said so unto those which examined them; which they took as if the thing had been indeed done by Christians; and they signified so much unto the other Greeks, and constrained Sanctus and Blandina the Martyrs, by violence of Torments to confess it; but Blandina answered them boldly, and to the Purpose, with these Words; How can it be, that those who abstain from Meats which are allowed them, should endure such things? It is said, that whoever will but take the pains to compare this Relation of Oecumenius with the ample and exact Relation of what passed in the Trials of the Martyrs of Lions and Vienna, which is conserved till our Time in Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History, and with what the Father's 7 or 800 hundred Years elder than him, have taught us, to wit, That the Gentiles have not at all made these Reproaches against Christians upon the Subject of the Sacrament, would therein find so many and great Differences, that he would verily conclude, that Oecumenius in all likelihood, relying too much upon his Memory, hath reported an Occasion of this Reproach quite otherwise than it is to be seen in the Acts inserted by Eusebius in his History, and particular Circumstances, which are not there to be found; some whereof are also contrary unto those which are therein at this present; but that none should have Cause to complain, as if it were intended to discredit a Testimony which may give light unto the History which we writ, it must be received as it is, without enquiring any farther, if it agrees, or not agrees with the Acts before spoken of. To this Effect it is said, That it might well be, that the Gentiles, transported with Hatred and Malice against the Christians, might have given a wrong meaning unto what they had extorted by Torments from the Mouth of some of their Domestics; and that having heard of them, that their Masters called the Bread and Wine of the Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they concluded, that it was indeed his Body and Blood, and that they did really eat this Flesh and Blood: But as it was not just to judge of the Belief of Christians upon the Testimony of their Enemies, whose aim was only to slander the Truth of their Religion, let us consider a little, say they, what is contained in the Words of Oecumenius, or if you will, of St. Irenaeus speaking by the Mouth of Oecumenius: In the first place, they attribute unto the Ignorance and Stupidity of these Slaves, that they thought that the Christians held the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, because they called it his Body and Blood; having heard their Masters say, that the Divine Communion is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ: They thought that it was really the Flesh and Blood, and said so unto those which examined them. Secondly, they declare positively, That the Pagans had taken it, as if the Christians had eaten really this Flesh and Blood, which showeth that the Christians had quite another Opinion: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c●e●●adire juxta Hesy●hium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  They understood it, it is added, as if it had truly been done by Christians. And in fine, they represent unto us Blandina answering them freely, That Christians were so far from eating the Flesh and Blood of their Saviour, that they voluntarily abstained, and that by a kind of Duty, even from Meats and Flesh which was lawful: How can it be, saith she, that those that abstain by Exercise from Flesh, which is lawful, should endure such things? And because Christians never denied a spiritual eating the Flesh of Christ, and which is the only eating they have acknowledged, or do yet own, however they may differ; It is evident, say the Protestants, that when by the Mouth of Oecumenius, they deny, that they eat the Flesh of our Saviour, they understand it of a bodily and carnal eating; but as for the Sacrament, they did never deny, but that they did eat it with the Mouth of the Body. I know not if they are deceived in this Discourse, but they believe it is very well grounded in the Testimony which we have examined. And that nothing may want to clear the Reproach made against Christians of eating human Flesh, the Reader may remember, if he please, what hath been said in Chap. 2. of the first Part, that these infamous Reports came not from the Eucharist of Catholics and Orthodox, but from the abominable Mysteries of the Gnostics, and the Carpocratians, of whom we treated in the same place. It shall suffice to observe here, that when the Holy Fathers answered unto this shameful Reproach, or rather this black and devilish Calumny, it was by a downright Denial, and to show it was a Thing so horrible and so far distant from their holy Discipline, that the very Thoughts of it displeased them, without ever making any Exception of the Eucharist. The false Devils, 
Just. Martyr. Apol. 1. vel. 2. p. 50.  saith St. Justin Martyr, caused it to be practised by certain wicked Men; for they having killed some body to cloak their Calumny against us, they made some of our domestic Servants be put to the Rack, or Children, or ignorant Women, and by cruel Torments, they constrained them to say Things against us, which they forged, and which they themselves did do secretly, whereof seeing there is nothing which concerns us, we make no matter, having the eternal and ineffable God for Witness of our Thoughts and Actions. Athenagoras yet speaks more positively; Who, saith he, 
Athenag. legate. pro Christ. p. 38.  of those that are in their right Senses, can say that we are Murderers? For it is not possible to eat Man's Flesh, unless first some one is killed, having then invented the former, if they are examined of the second, if they have seen the things whereof they speak, no body is so bold as to say, that they have seen them. There be some amongst us that have Servants, some more, some less, from whom it were impossible to hid us; but not any of them have informed any such thing against us. For which of them can charge Murder, or eating of human Flesh, unto those whom they know are not permitted to stop to see the Execution of those which are thereunto justly condemned. Minutius Felix, I would, saith he, 
Minut. in Octavio.  see him that saith or thinketh that we be initiated by Murder, and the Blood of an Infant; do you think it can possible be, that so tender a little Body should be appointed to be mangled; that any in piercing it with Wounds, should shed and pour forth the Blood of a newborn Infant, scarce yet a Man; no Body can believe it, but those that are so bold as to undertake it. And a little lower; We are not suffered to see nor hear talk of Manslaughter, and we so avoid Murder, that we do not use nor admit of the Blood of Beasts amongst our Meat. 
Tertul. Apol. c. 9  Tertullian, whose reasoning is strong, refutes the Calumny of the Heathens by these Words, which certainly are worthy of him: Let your Error (saith he) make you blush before Christians, which do not as much as taste the Blood of Beasts, and therefore do abstain from things strangled, and from that of Beasts which have not been slain, for fear of defiling themselves with any sort of Blood whatever, even of that which is in the Body. In fine, to prove them, you present unto them Puddings made of Blood, because you very well know, that they are not permitted to do the Things whereby you would make them offend. Is it possible you should think that we thirst after Man's Blood, we that have an Aversion unto that of Beasts? If it be not that we have found it more delicious, you should then make use of it to prove them, as you do use Fire and Incense; for than you would discover them in desiring Human Blood, as they declare themselves in refusing to sacrifice; and so you may condemn them, if they eat of it, as you do condemn them when they refuse to sacrifice; and by this Means you would want no Human Blood, to hear and to condemn the Christians which you keep Prisoners. I freely confess, saith the Protestant, that I cannot apprehend this Proceeding of the Holy Fathers, if they did really eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the Mouth of the Body, after what manner, or in what regard soever they eat it; and to say the Truth, if the Christians of their Times did eat really and truly the very Flesh of Jesus Christ, they would have been horrible Liars in denying, that they did eat Human Flesh without ever excepting the Sacrament; they betrayed their own Judgement, and erring shamefully in this Point, they rendered 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 Candour and Sincerity, their Piety, Zeal, and the great Inclinations they had to glorify God by their Death, and the little Account they made of their Lives, I dare not accuse them of Prevarication, nor of Hypocrisy; I too much honour their Memory, and have too great a Love for their Virtue: God forbidden, saith he, that I should ever do them so great Injury, or have any evil Thoughts of them, because I own their Proceed 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 show 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 rendered the Divinity which they adored present in the Image, and enclosed him, as one may say, in his Statue, as hath been showed in the 7th Chapter of the first Part, whereunto I will only add these Words of St. Chrysostom; 
Chrysost. Hom. in Christ. nat. t. 5. p. 477.  Is it not an exceeding great Folly to introduce their Gods into Wood and Stone, and into Statues of a low Price, and to shut them up, as it were in Prison, and yet to think that they do nor say nothing that is amiss? Let the Reader judge if the Fathers would have spoke after this manner, if they had been of the same Belief the Latin Church is of, and if they had not given their Enemies some Advantage over them. In the second place, 
(1) Apol. 2. p. 69.  St. Justin Martyr; 
(2) L. 5. p. 91.  the Author of the Recognitions; 
(3) Ad Deme●. p. 201.  St. Cyprian; 
(4) Arnob. l. 6. p. 89.  Arnobius; 
(5) Inst. l. 2. c. 4.  Lactantius; 
(6) Homil. 57 in Genes. t. 2. Tertul. Apol. c. 13.  St. Chrysostom do tell them their Gods may be stolen; 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 Judgement, 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 Catholics, which they look upon as their God and Saviour, is carefully kept under Lock and Key, and is subject and in danger to be stolen. In fine, Tertullian deriding the Domestic 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 Pledge of the Ransom which he had promised the Sultan of Egypt for granting him his Liberty. There be others which have observed, 
Obs●rvat. upon the History of Chalcondyle.  that Vladislaus King of Hungary, who was slain at the Battle of Varn, Ann. 1444, also gave one unto Amurath the second, Emperor of the Turks, for a Pledge 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 Judgement, 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 showeth 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 Heretics, 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 Heretics, 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, Heretics have formerly, as it were, challenged the Holy Fathers unto the Combat, 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 complete than their polemics, I mean, the Books they wrote against these Enemies of Christianity; it is true they had no Controversy with Heretics upon the point of the Sacrament, but nevertheless, because the Holy Fathers do sometimes employ this Divine Mystery 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 Heretic Marc, pretended to consecrate Chalices 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 Catholics of his time had believed that the Wine of the Sacred Cup was changed by the virtue 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 Catholics and Orthodox without any Magic or Enchantment, did what he pretended to do by the help of his Sorceries, in casting a Mist before the Eyes of those that were present; and that by pronouncing of these Words, This is my Body, This is my Blood, they change the Wine of the Cup into the very Blood of the God which they adore: Nevertheless, St. Irencus, nor St. Epiphanius, which have narrowly enough examined the Heresy of this Deceiver, and all that he did in the celebration of the Mysteries, nor any one else that I hear of, have not made him this Objection, to expose unto the sight of the whole World, the folly of his enterprise; which shows, as the Protestants say, that the Orthodox Christians did not then believe, that what was in the consecrated Cup was the real Blood of Jesus Christ. In the same Chapter of the first part, we mentioned the Ascodrutes or Ascodrupites, which rejected both Baptism and the Eucharist, saying, That invisible things should not be represented by visible things, nor incorporeal things, by sensible and corporal, and that Images and Figures ought not to be made upon Earth. How could the Holy Fathers grapple with these Heretics, or condemn as a Heresy that which they taught, that the Symbols of Spiritual and Heavenly Things ought not to be sensible nor corporal, if Catholics had not in their Sacraments Symbols of this Nature: For it would have been unjust to condemn that for a Heresy in others, which we believe and approve ourselves; or how should these Heretics have abstained from the celebration of Baptism and the Eucharist, if the Orthodox had believed with them, that there was nothing sensible nor corporal in the one nor the other of these two Sacraments; for what made them lay aside these Sacraments, was the substance of the Symbols which were corporal and visible; and as the same reason which made them deny Baptism, made them also reject the celebration of the Sacrament, this was the reason that they did not find the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament, no less visible and corporal than the Water of the other; so that the Holy Fathers opposing their Heresy refute it alike, both for the one and the other Sacrament, and in disputing against it, they own that the substance of the Symbols are sensible and visible in both; for in this respect they make no distinction betwixt Baptism and the Eucharist; this is the conclusion of the Protestant. As touching the silence of Heretics, it is almost of the same force with that of the Gentiles; because the same Truths which were the Object of the Scorn and Contempt of Pagans, were also the subject of the slander and contradiction of Heretics, some whereof denied the truth of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ, as Martion, and several others, which attributed unto him an imaginary Body, a Shadow and Figure of a Body, teaching that the Son of God did not become Man, and that he manifested himself unto Man only in a false shape, not having a true Body, but one in show: Others have denied his Divinity, as Ebion, Cerinthus, Artemon, and others, which maintained that our Jesus was not God, but Man only, and that he did not begin to be, but when he was born of the Holy Virgin; two Mysteries which we have seen, whereof the Jews and Pagans both made light: The Cross of Christ which was the stumbling block of the Jews, and the scorn of the Heathen, was also contradicted by Heretics, who were not ashamed to say that Jesus Christ had not truly suffered, but that he either put another Man in his stead, or avoided the fury of those which crucified him, by this seeming Body wherewith they say he was invested. * The Resurrection of the Body which was esteemed a Story and Fable by the Gentiles, also offended exceedingly some Heretics, as the Gnostics, the Marcionites, and some others: And to speak in a Word, there was scarce any one Article of our Faith, which in the first Ages of Christianity, was not traversed by some Heresy, or that met not with some contradiction amongst Christians themselves. What likelihood then, say they, is there, that if the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion, and all the Consequences which necessarily depend of it, had been taught by Christians, and received into the Articles of their Faith, but it would have received some attempt by Heretics, who not having disowned the use of their Senses nor of their Reason, could not choose, as they think, but have disputed against them, especially when they should have considered, that they would have denied the testimony of their Senses, and the clearest light of their Reason: Nevertheless, we cannot find in any Monument of the ancient Doctors of the Church, that the Heretics ever contested with the Catholics and Orthodox upon the point of the Eucharist; it is indeed true that some rejected the celebration of the Sacrament, though upon different Motives, but that they charged the Church, touching the substantial conversion of the Symbols of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ, there is not one to be found, especially of those which have owned the truth of the Human Nature of the Son of God; at least, no such thing is to be seen in their Writings, nor in the divers Catalogues of Heresies that still remain, nor in the Polemical Writings of the Holy Doctors against Heretics: for as for those mentioned by the Author of the Letter unto those of Smyrna, under the Name of St. Ignatius, of whom we have spoken in the third Chapter of the first part; besides, it is very uncertain if there were ever any such, they denied the Mystery of the Incarnation, and did not confess the truth of the humanity of Jesus Christ; they rejected the Sacrament, the celebration whereof is a kind of confessing and owning the truth of his Human Nature, but neither they, nor any others have complained against the belief of the Church upon the subject of the Sacrament, they have not armed against her, nor have separated from her Communion upon account of this Divine Mystery, neither did the Church ever thunder out anathemas nor Excommunications upon this Subject. From whence say some, proceeds so universal a Silence, and so great tranquillity upon so important an Article, which since Paschas his time, that is to say the IXth Century, hath suffered such an infinite number of Contradictions in the West? for this Friar of Corby no sooner published his Opinion, but there opposed against him all the Learned Men of that Age, and it will appear in the course of this Treatise, that ever since that time, the Doctrine of the real presence hath never been without a great many Opposers and Adversaries, which for that reason have been Excommunicated, and esteemed Heretics by the Latin Church. When I make this reflection in myself, saith the Protestant, that the Minds of Men have been at all times much of one and the same Temper, and been ever almost of the same Disposition, and that besides the liberty of writing and speaking against the Doctrines of the Church, was never greater than in the first Ages of Christianity, nor less in the West, than since the Condemnation of Beranger, I can find no other cause of so various and different proceeding, but the difference of Doctrine, which until Paschas his time, was such, that no Body had reason to take up Arms to dispute against it; whereas ever since the establishing of his Opinion, which altered the ancient Belief, there hath been made continual Resistance and Opposition. Now I come to the Disputes which the ancient Fathers have had against Heretics, wherein they have employed the Mystery of the Eucharist. The first which troubled the settlement of Christianity were the Saturnians, the Menandrians, Valentinians, Marcionites, and others. I intent not to burden my Paper with all the Impieties of these Wretches, but only to represent those against which the holy Doctors have made use of the belief of the Holy Sacrament, and in what manner they have done it. I find then there were three horrible Impieties held by these extravagant Persons, against which they employed the Holy Sacrament; by the first, they taught that Jesus Christ had not a true human Body, but a shadow of a Body, and a mere form void of substance or solidity. By the second they said, that the Father of Jesus Christ was not the Creator of the World, but that the World and all Creatures which we see in it, are the effect of Passion, of Nature, and of Ignorance, and not of the Father of Jesus Christ. And by the third, in fine, they said, that all these material Creatures should be wholly destroyed, and that by Consequence our Bodies being of the number of these Creatures, should not be raised, being uncapable of receiving supernatural Incorruption, nor of participating of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, Flesh and Spirit not subsisting both together. The Holy Fathers do allege the Eucharist to refute the first of these Impieties, but it is requisite to know how they do allege it; for if they had been in the belief of the Latin Church, they would not have failed, as the Protestants say, to have told these Heretics that they overthrew the Faith of the whole Church, which holds that the Substance of Bread and Wine is turned into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which could not be if he had not a true Body. They suppose this would have been the only means to have refuted them, and they think the Latins would have used this course had they to do with such Heretics. They say also, that the Argument would have been clear and convincing, and that 'tis to be believed the ancient Doctors would not have followed any other course if they had been of the same Opinions; that yet nevertheless they do not argue after that manner to refute the first Error of these Instruments of Satan; they only tell them, that seeing the Eucharist is the Image and Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ, then of necessity he hath a true Body, because every Image and Figure doth presuppose the Existence and Truth of the thing that it represents, and that it is the reasoning of Tertullian, in his Excellent Treatise against Martion; 
Tertul. adyers. Marc. l. 4. c. 40.  Jesus Christ (saith he) made the Bread his Body; saying, This is my Body, that is to say the Figure of my Body; now it had not been a Figure, if there had not been a true Body; for a Shadow and empty Appearance, such as is a Spirit, is not capable of having a Figure. The Author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites, in origen's Works, reasoneth after the same manner; 
Author Dial contra Marc. inter Orig op. Dial. 3.  If Jesus Christ (saith he) had neither Flesh nor Blood, as the Marcionites affirm, of what Flesh and Blood is it that he hath given us the Images, that is to say, the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, when he commanded his Disciples to remember him by those things? Against the second Impiety they also imply the Holy Sacrament, and see here how they do it. 
Trens. contr. heres. l. 4. c. 34.  They say, The Holy Sacrament is an Acknowledgement which we make unto God, under the Title of Creator, in offering unto him the first Fruits of the Creatures which he hath made; and that it were an injustice to the Father of Jesus Christ, if he were not the Creator of the World, to offer unto him things which belonged not unto him, as if he coveted that which belonged to another, and desired to have what was not his own. That if the Creatures were the product of Passion, of Nature, and of Ignorance, it were to wrong God, instead of giving him Thanks, to offer him the Fruits of Passion, of Nature, and of Ignorance. It is after this manner St. Ireneus doth argue to confute the Adversaries which he opposed, in showing them that the Father of Jesus Christ must needs be the Creator of the World, because he accepts the Oblations of Bread and Wine which is made unto him in the Eucharist; for to say, that it is no longer Bread and Wine after Consecration, but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that 'twas so St. Ireneus understood it, the Protestants say, this would have been yielding the cause unto these Heretics, who teaching that Jesus Christ was not of the number of the Creatures of this World, would not have failed to have inferred that his Father had not been the Creator, because our Lord was offered unto him, which was not the work of the Creator, whereas in saying that there was offered unto him Creatures of this World, as these Heretics owned, as well as the Orthodox, that there was such offered unto him in the Eucharist, he would have put them to silence, all the shifts they could have made would have vanished away at the sight of this Truth, because they confessed that Bread and Wine are of those Creatures whereof the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would not have received an Oblation, if he had not been the Maker of them: Something of this Nature is seen in Tertullian's first Book against Martion, Chap. 14. It remains to see after what manner the Fathers have acted to refute the last Impiety of these Heretics, who denied the resurrection of the Body, maintaining that all material Creatures shall be wholly destroyed and reduced to nothing, 
Iren. advers. haeres. l 4. c. 34.  and that the Flesh is uncapable of receiving Incorruption, because Incorruption is a Grace of the Spirit, which can have no Commerce nor Society with the Flesh; We preach in the Eucharist, (saith St. Ireneus) the Communion and Unity of the Flesh and Spirit: for as the Bread which is of the Earth, receiving the Invocation of God, is no longer common Bread, but is the Sacrament, composed of two things, the one Terrestrial, the other Celestial; so also our Bodies receiving the Eucharist, are no more corruptible, having the hope of the Resurrection. If the Consecration destroys the substance of Bread and Wine, it must be granted, say the Protestants, that this Holy Doctor took wrong Measures, when he would that the Bread of the Sacrament should represent the Flesh which is not destroyed under the Grace of the Spirit; because if the Bread itself be destroyed, it cannot be employed to signify that our Flesh shall not be destroyed. Seeing then that St. Ireneus doth use it to this purpose, it must be ingeniously confessed, that he believed that Consecration did not annihilate the Nature and Substance of the Symbols. 
Tertul. contra Marc. l. 1. c. 14.  They say, moreover that Tertullian confirms them in this Opinion, when he saith, The God of Martion hath not yet rejected the Bread of the Creator, to represent his true Body, so that in his own Sacraments he hath need of borrowing the Goods of the Creator: But Martion which is a Disciple above his Master, and a Servant above his Lord, is much wiser than him; for he ruins what his Master would have. It plainly appears by these Words, that Martion in destroying the Bread, that is to say, in teaching that it shall be destroyed, as being of the Creatures of this World, doth the quite contrary unto Jesus Christ, who desires it and useth it in his Sacrament, and that by Consequence preserves the Substance of it: For if Tertullian, say they, had believed that he destroyed it in consecrating of it, he would not have opposed, as he doth, the act of Martion, or rather his Doctrine, which condemns it unto an entire destruction, unto the action of Jesus Christ which makes use of it, and doth employ it. And because there be several other things in the Works of this African Doctor against Heretics, which may contribute unto this History, 
Tertul. advers. Prax. c. 26.  I will instance some before I shall proceed farther. In his Book against Praxeas, he sets it down for undoubted, That what is of a thing, is not the thing itself: And it is thereupon he grounds the distinction of the Person of the Holy Ghost, from that of the Father; either his Maxim is false, say some, and very indiscreetly propounded, or he did not believe that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ, because it is the Sacrament, by the confession of all Christians. Elsewhere disputing against the Blasphemy of Martion, 
Id. adv. Marc. l. 3. c, 10.  who said that Jesus Christ had not a true Body, he saith, That it was unworthy the Son of God to appear under a strange shape; you make us, saith he to Martion, a miserable God, in that he could not show his Christ but in Effigy of a thing unworthy of him. And presently after; Wherefore did he not come in some other Substance more worthy of him? but especially why did he not come in his own, and not to seem to have had need of another which is unworthy of him? Let Christians judge, say the Protestants, if he could have spoke thus, and believe that Jesus Christ doth every day appear under the Effigies and Resemblance of Bread, but an appearance destitute of the substance and truth of Bread. 
Ibid. c. 8.  It is whereunto amounts also what is said unto this Heretic in the same Book, Jesus Christ was not what he seemed to be, and disguised what he was, being Flesh, and not being so, being Man and not Man, and in like manner Christ, God, and not God; for what hinders but that he also bore the shadow of a God? shall I believe it of his interior substance, who deceived us by his exterior? how shall he be believed to be true in that which doth not appear, seeing he hath been found so false, in that which did appear? See again if what he now saith can be accommodated with a Doctrine which teacheth that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not what he seems to be; for he seems to be Bread, and they will have it to be a bodily Substance: As for my particular, I am content to guests at what the Protestants infer from these Maxims. He again objects this to Martion, 
Ibid. c. 11.  Thou honour'st thy God with the title of a Deceiver, if he knew that he was any thing else than what he gave cause to Men to believe he was. The boldness, or rather rashness, say they, of Tertullian, cannot enough be admired so to pursue and force Martion, if the Church of his time had been of the belief the Latin Church is now of. And in another Book of the same Treatise, he refutes the shadow of this Arch Heretic, by the History of the penitent Sinner in the Gospel, 
Id. adv. Marc. l. 4. c. 18.  In that she kissed, saith he, the Feet of Jesus, in that she washed them with her Tears, and wiped them with the Hairs of her Head, in that she poured precious Ointment upon him, it shows that she handled a true real Body, and not an empty shadow. All the World, as they think, may observe, that if the Christians of those times had believed what the Latins believe, Martion would undoubtedly have opposed unto the example of the Sinner which Tertullian presseth against him, that of the Eucharist, which is handled, which is received into the Stomach, wherewith a living Body may be nourished, which is subject to Mouldiness and several other the like Accidents, and that it may not for all this be concluded according to the Doctrine of the Roman-Church, that it is the true substance of Bread, and not barely Accidents and Appearances. In another Treatise speaking to the same Heretic, 
Id. de carne Christ. c. 5.  Wherefore (saith he) will you that one half of Jesus Christ should be a Fiction? he was nothing but Truth, wholly and entirely. Believe me, he chose rather to be born, than to lie in any respect whatsoever. And there again, he adds, that according to the Doctrine of Martion, Jesus Christ had Flesh, hard without Bones, solid without Nerves, bloody without Blood, covered without Garments, a Body that was hungry without Appetite, that eat without Teeth, and spoke without a Tongue; so that his Words were but a Shadow which deceived the Ear by the sound of a Voice: And in fine, he presseth in the same Chapter by the Words of our Saviour to his Disciples after the Resurrection, See that it is I, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have: Then he adds, that if Jesus Christ according to the fancy of this Heretic had not truly Flesh and Bones, it follows that when he so presented the Appearances unto his Disciples, he openly deceived them, in showing them that for Bones, which were not so in effect: See, (saith he) he surpriseth, he deceiveth, he abuseth the Eyes, the Senses, the coming near, and touching of all his Disciples. There needs not say they, much subtlety and wit to comprehend, that Tertullian could not by these kinds of Arguments destroy the Hypothesis of his 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 choose but make this conclusion, which I leave unto the Reader's Liberty. And from this Dispute of Tertullian against Martion, 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 virtue of Consecration into the substance of the real Blood of Jesus Christ, and that so 'tis 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 Father's Kingdom. It is in this manner that Clemens of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius, and St. Chrysostom argued against these Heretics as hath been shown 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 Heretics, 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 itself 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 Martion, and his Companions, which formerly denied the Truth of Christ's Human Nature, and only attributed unto him a Show 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 alleging 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 virtue 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 Heretic 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 Martion; therefore I find that the Holy Fathers which disputed against them, have employed the Sacrament against them in the same sense, 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 Antitypes 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 allege 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 itself; 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 Eutychians could not have admitted without pulling down with one Hand, what they built with the other; that is to say, without destroying what they taught, that Jesus Christ had not a true Body. But to the end no scruple may rest hereupon in the Mind of the Reader, let us hear this Dialogue of Theodoret with an Eutychian. Heret. 
Theod. dial. 2. p. 84, 85. t. 4.  It is very well that you have begun the Discourse of Divine Mysteries, for thereby I will show you that the Body of Jesus Christ is changed into another Nature, answer then to the Question which I shall propose: Orthod. I will answer. Heret. What do you call before the Priestly Invocation, the thing which is offered? Orthod. We must not speak openly, fearing we may be heard by Persons not initiated. Heret. Answer obscurely. Orthod. I call it a Food made of certain Grains Heret. And how is the other Symbol called? Orthod. It is commonly called by a Name that designs a certain sort of Liquor. Heret. But after Consecration what call you them? Orthod. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Heret. And do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? Orthod. I do believe it. Heret. As then the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ are one thing before the Priestly Invocation, but after Consecration are changed and made another thing, so in like manner the Body of Christ was changed into a Divine Substance after his Ascension. Orthod. You are taken in your own Net which you laid, for the Mystical Symbols do not change their Nature after Consecration, but they remain in their first Substance, in their first Figure, and in their first Form, they are visible and palpable, such as they were before; but they are apprehended to be what they are made, and they are believed, and are worshipped to be what they are believed to be. Compare now this Image with its Original, and you shall see the resemblance which is betwixt them, for the Figure ought to resemble the Original. The Body of Jesus Christ keepeth his first Form, his first Figure, and his first Circumscription, and in a word it hath the substance of a Body; but after the Resurrection it was made immortal and incorruptible, it is sitting on the right Hand of God, and all Creatures do adore it, because it is called the Lord of Nature. Heret. But the Mystical Symbol doth change its former Name, for it is no longer called what it was before, but it is called the Body of Jesus Christ, whence it follows, that the Truth (which answers the Sign) should be called God, and not Body. Orthod. It seems to me you are in Darkness, for the Symbol is not only called Body, but Bread of Life, the Lord himself calleth it so; and as for the Body itself, we call it a Divine Body, a quickening Body, the Body of our Lord; meaning thereby, that it is not the Body of an Ordinary Person, but the Body of Jesus Christ our Lord which is God and Man. This Discourse being written as it were with a Sunbeam, to use Tertullian's Expression, hath no need of Explication. Therefore we will here put an end to the proofs of the belief of the Holy Fathers, to proceed to the Inquiry into the Changes arrived first in the Expressions, and then afterwards in the Doctrine itself.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the change which came to pass in the Expressions, or the History of the Seventh Century.  
ALthough Custom in Speech be a very capricious Master, and exerciseth, over the words which are subject unto its Tyrannical Government, an absolute Authority, rejecting or using them at pleasure, or rather after its wild Fancy; Nevertheless, there are certain expressions so confirmed by long use, and so particularly adapted to signify certain things, that they cannot be Abolished without disturbing the Commerce and Society of Men, and without forgetting by degrees, and insensibly, the Nature of those things, for the representation whereof they were designed: If this may befall in things of Civil Society, much more is it to be feared in things of a Religious Nature; because for the most part, the consequences and effects are more fatal and dangerous; therefore it was, the Ancient Christians were so careful of exactly retaining certain terms and manner of Expressions, which had been as 'twere consecrated in the Church, and which could not be changed without opening the Door unto some alteration in the Doctrine; so certain it is that we must not remove the bounds which our Forefathers have set. It is upon this ground and motive, that it was said throughout the whole extent of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, for above the space of six hundred years, That the Eucharist was the Sacrament, the Sign, the Symbol, the Image, the Figure, the Type, the Antitype, the Similitude and the Representation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it never being seen in so considerable a space of time in that vast and spacious Empire, that there was any body that offered to question Expressions that were so well Established, and moreover so constantly and universally received as they were. Nevertheless in the Seventh Century there was sprung up in Mount Sinai a certain Friar called Anastatius, which rashly passing over the Bounds that in this regard had been observed, rejected the term of Sign or Figure, which was commonly used until his time. But not to confound this Anastatius with others of the same name, which had been Patriarches of Antioch, and also to discover the Age wherein he lived; it must be noted, that himself observes, that being at Alexandria, he was told, 
Annestat. Sin. in c. 10.  that a good while after the Death of the Patriarch Eulogius, there was in that City an Augustal Perfect, which favoured the party of the Severian Heretics, and who to this effect had contributed in corrupting the Writings of the Ancients. Now Eulogius died by every body's confession in the year of our Lord 608. This was not told unto Anastatius until a considerable time had passed after the death of Eulogius, let us say it may be about 20 or 22 years, which is the least can be allowed: Anastatius then could not be informed of this matter till the year 630. and he could be neither of the two Anastatiuses that were Patriarches of Antioch, 
Ibid.  seeing the last was murdered by the Jews in the year 608. Besides, he writes, that being at Alexandria, there arose a question touching some words of St. Chrysostom, which had been Bishop of the same place after his Uncle Theophilus, which had been corrupted and altered; and that then one Isidor, Library Keeper, and truly Orthodox, produced a Copy, an Exemplification of the Writings of St. Cyril, which had not been adulterated; which showeth, that in all likelihood the Patriarch was Orthodox: for if he had been an Eutychian, he would not have tolerated a Library Keeper that had been Orthodox, and an Enemy to his Belief: therefore it may be concluded, if I be not deceived, that it happened about they year 630. 
Hist. Miscel. l. 18.  And because Anastatius wrote some time after, there being yet in Egypt an Augustal Perfect, it necessarily follows, that he wrote about the year 637. And before the year 639. 
Hist. Sarac. in Omar.  that the Sarrazins entering into Egypt, expelled the Augustal Perfect, 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 Heretics, 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 Heretic, 
Annas●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 Heretic having answered, God forbidden 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 showed in the Third Chapter of this Second Part: And have shown, that these holy Fathers testify, 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 public 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 'tis easy 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 Oil of Chrisin, 
Cyril. Hieros'. Catech. 3. illum & Mystag. 3.  that it is not common Water and common Oil, they deny not that it is Water and Oil, they only mean, that it is Water and Oil sanctified to be the Symbols of the washing and purifying our Souls by the Blood of Jesus Christ, and by the Virtue 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 virtue, 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 judgement 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. c. 31. & in Exod. cap. 22.  That the Bread and Wine is the undoubted Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord: 
Id. in Sentent. l. 1. c. 16. Vide lib. 1. office. cap. 37.  And that it is this Sacrament which Believers offer; and which they call, an Oblation of Bread and Wine. Agreeable unto this Doctrine, he speaks elsewhere of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, as of the Nourishment of Saints which preserves from Eternal Death, and which maketh those that eat it to live Spiritually; 
Id. in lib. 2. Reg. ca 3. p. 49.  and he saith, That Jesus Christ ascending into Heaven, is gone in regard of his Body, but is present according to his Majesty, 
Concil. Hispal. 2. Concil. Eracar. t. 4. p. 832.  as he said, Behold I am with you even to the end of the World. And he borrows these words from St. Austin, That our Saviour gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood. The second Council of Sevil, assembled Anno 619. forbids Priests to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in presence of the Bishop. The Council of Braga, Anno 675. testifies, That Jesus Christ gave the Bread apart, and the Wine apart. He calls that which our Lord gave his Disciples bread: And the 16th. of Toledo, Assembled Anno 693. 
Concil. Tollet. 16. to 5. Concil. p. 430. cap. 6. Eligius Noveom. in vita ejus l. 2. cap. 15. p. 216. t. 5. Spicil. Dacher Ib. p. 217.  declares two several times, That Jesus Christ having taken a whole Loaf, distributed it by parcels unto his Apostles. It speaks also of what remains after the Communion, as of that whereof too great a quantity may burden the Stomach of him that Eats it.  
The true St. Eloy Bishop of Noyon gave this Precept unto those whom he instructed, Let him that is Sick confide wholly in the Mercy of God, and receive with Faith and Devotion the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And forbidding them to Sing the Songs of Pagan, he alleges for a reason of this Defence, That it is not fit to hear Diabolical Songs proceed out of a Christian Mouth, wherein enters the Sacrament of Jesus Christ. He retains, as may be seen, the Ancient Expressions and Doctrine. According to which St. Oven Archbishop of Rouen his intimate Friend and Author of his Life, which he wrote at large, doth observe, that as he drew near his Death he said, That he would be no longer absent from Jesus Christ. 
Ibid. l. 2. c. 32. p. 264.  It was thus the true St. Eloy spoke; and in so speaking, he rejects as false and forged, some Homilies that have been published in his name, especially the 8th. and the 15th. the former of these being only a Rhapsody, composed by several Authors, some of which are of the 8th and 9th Centuries; whereas St. Eloy died towards the end of the 7th. Century. Neither doth he that wrote his Life make any mention of these pretended Homilies. Thus several do reason.   

CHAP. XII.  
Wherein is examined what passed in the Eighth Century.  
AS Anastatius, a Friar of Mount Sinai, had rejected the name of Sign or Figure; not allowing to say, that the Sacrament is only the Sign of the Body of Jesus Christ; words which might receive a good Construction, as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter: so John Damascen, surnamed Mansur, another Friar of the East, extraordinarily given to the worshipping of Images, and therefore Anathematised by 338 Bishops, Anno 754. bethought himself in the Eighth Century of condemning the terms of Image, of Type, and Figure; but because he stopped not at Expressions, but proceeded to the Doctrine, it is requisite to see if he therein made any Alteration, and if his Innovation favoured the Belief of the Latin Church. See here then what he saith: 
Damasc. de Fide Orthod. l. 4. c. 14.  The Bread offered, the Wine, and the Water are supernaturally changed, by the Invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and are not two, but one and the same thing. 
Ibid.  And a little after; The Bread and Wine are not the Type, or the Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ: Ah, God forbidden; but the Body itself of our Lord Deified: our Lord himself saying, 
Ibid.  This is, not the Figure of my Body, but my Body; not the Figure of my Blood, but my Blood. And again; If some have called the Bread and Wine Figures, or Signs of the Body and Blood, as St. Basil, they spoke not after Consecration, but they called them so before the Oblation was consecrated. As there are two things in these words of Damascen; the one regarding the Terms, the other the Doctrine, we are obliged to examine both, to give the Reader all the Information he may expect of us in this matter. I will begin with the Doctrine, to see if it agreeth with that of the Latin Church: If Damascen said, that the substance of the Symbols were quite destroyed, and that if passed into the substance itself of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, so that there remained no part of the Bread and Wine but the bare Accidents only, which subsisted miraculously without their Subject, it must be granted that he was of the same Opinion that Roman Catholics are of at this time; and it were very unjust to deny it: But if on the other hand, he so plainly expressed himself, that it cannot be doubted but he believed that the substance of the Symbols remained, whatever Change it was that intervened by Consecration, it must of necessity be concluded, that his Belief upon this Point was not the Belief of the Latin Church. The better to succeed in this Enquiry, it must be noted that he lays this down for a certain Maxim; 
Id. Dialect. c. 1.  That the Accident cannot subsist in itself, but hath its Being in another Subject; 
Ibid.  that the Soul is a Substance, and Wisdom an Accident; that the Soul being taken away, Wisdom also perisheth: 
Ibid. c. 28.  That which subsisteth not of itself, but hath its Existence in another, 
Id. de Fide Orthod. l. 1. c. 17.  is an Accident. He affirms again, That nothing but the Divinity is infinite; that Bodies have beginning and ending, and a bodily place, 
Ibid. c. 4.  and that they may be held; that what is invisible and impassable is not a Body. All which things do not well accord with the Real Presence, 
Ibid.  no more than his restraining the Invisible Presence, whereby our Saviour is with us, unto the Presence of his Divinity. Moreover, he affirms positively that the substance of Bread remains, and that it nourisheth our Body by turning into our substance. 
Id. l. 4. c. 14.  The Shewbread, saith he, did represent this Bread, and it is the pure and unbloody Sacrifice which our Lord foretold by the Prophet, which should be offered unto him throughout the whole World; to wit, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which passeth into the substance of our Body and Soul, without being consumed, corrupted, or passing into the Draft: Ah, God forbidden; but passing into our Substance for our Preservation. All Christians confess that this cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ, as neither can it be said of bare Accidents; it must then be understood of the Substance of Bread which is called the Body of Christ, because it is the Sacrament of it: From thence it is, the same Damascen compares the Change which befalls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist unto that which happens unto the Water of Baptism. As in Baptism (saith he) because Men are wont to wash themselves with Water, 
Id. Ibid.  and to anoint them with Oil, God hath joined unto the Water and Oil the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and hath made it the Washing of Regeneration; so also in like manner, they being accustomed to eat Bread, and to drink Wine and Water, he hath joined them unto his Divinity, and hath made them his Body and Blood. His Similitude would not be just, if the substance of the Symbols did not remain in the Eucharist, as well as in Baptism. He useth also another, which farther illustrates the nature of this Change. 
Ibid.  Esay (saith he) saw a Coal; now a Coal is not mere Wood, but it is joined with Fire: so the Bread of the Sacrament is not bare Bread, but it is joined to the Divinity; and the Body united to the Divinity, is not one and the same Nature; but the Nature of the Body is one, and that of the Divinity united unto it is another. Every body may easily understand that the Coal united to the Fire, keeps its substance, although that by a kind of Change, it becomes red, and like Fire: Therefore by the sense of the Comparison, it must needs be, that the Bread of the Eucharist doth keep its substance, although it be in some sort changed by its being joined to the Divinity; and that so the Change which comes to the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, according to Damascen, is quite different from that which is taught by the Latin Church; and I think it cannot be any way questioned, after what is above said. Now, if I be asked what was the Belief of Damascen; for if it be not the Belief of Roman Catholics, it should in all likelihood be that of Protestants? I answer sincerely, that as far as I can judge, it is not the Belief, neither of the one, or the other; but a particular Opinion of this Friar; who believed that the Bread and Wine, by the coming of the Holy Ghost, were in some sort united to the Divinity, which took them unto itself (for he useth the term of Assumption) as it took the Humane Nature of our Saviour; and that by means of this Union to the Divinity, they became one and the same Body, and not several, as he explained himself in the first passage: an Unity which depends upon this known Axiom; That the things united unto a third, are united amongst themselves. Methinks the Author declares his meaning plainly enough, when having made himself this Question, How is it that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ, 
Ibid.  and the Wine and Water his Blood? He answers, The Holy Spirit comes and changes these things in a manner that surpasseth expression and thought. The Bread and Wine are taken; which is just the term used by the Fathers to represent the Assumption of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ by the Divinity.  
The Sentiments of Damascen will appear yet plainer, if we consider what he saith in his Letter unto Zachary, Bishop of Door, and in the little Chapter which follows; to wit, That the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by way of Augmentation or Increase, which befalls the Body of Jesus Christ: Thus he establisheth the Subsistence of these two Elements, and their joining unto the natural Body of Jesus Christ; but so strict an Union, that they make, in the shallow Conceit of this Writer, but one single Body, with the true Body of Jesus Christ. Moreover, he assures that the incorruptible Body of our Saviour, that is to say, his glorified Body, hath no Blood: a Doctrine with which it is impossible to reconcile the Belief of Transubstantiation.  
As to what Damascen saith, That the Fathers have given to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the names of Figures and Signs before Consecration, and not after, he apparently deceives himself: for do but read what we have alleged in the third Chapter of this second Part, where we have established this Tradition by a very great number of testimonies of this holy Doctors. The Abbot of Billy a very Learned Man, and well read in Ecclesiastical Antiquity, could not suffer this presumption of Damascens without reproving him, 
Billius in Orat. 11. Greg. Naz. p. 632.  by, as it were, giving him the lie. Damascen (saith he) denies that the Bread and Wine are called Figures after Consecration by St. Basil, which is evidently false; as plainly appears by several places in the Apostolical Constitutions of St. Clement, of Gregory Nazianzen, and other Authors. 
Bessar. Card. de Sacram. Eucharist. t. 6. Bibl. patr. p. 470. Edit. ult.  Bessareon a Greek by Nation, Bishop of Nice, and one of those which assisted at the Council of Florence in behalf of the Greek Nation, but corrupted by the Latins, who honoured him with a Cardinal's Cap, excuseth Damascen, and endeavours to give a good sense to his words; By the Figure (saith he) whereof he speaks in this place, he means a shadow, which is nothing else but a Figure, simply signifying another subject, having not at all, any force nor power, to act or operate; like the Sacraments of the Old Testament, which were the Figures of the Sacraments of the New. But this Explication which is not wholly to be rejected, doth not hinder but that the Censure of the Abbot of Billy was very Judicious. In fine, About the same time Damascen denied it, Stephen Stylite, no less zealous than him for the defence of Images, confessed it, when he said to the Emperor Constantine, which commanded them to be taken out of Churches, Will you also banish out of the Church the Signs or Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, 
Vita Stephan. apud Surcum ad 28 Novem. cap. 36.  seeing that is an Image and a true Figure. But let us yet make some progress in the East and West, to know what was the Language and Doctrine of the Church in the Eighth Century. As for what concerns the West, 
Bede in Luc. cap. 22. Id. in Psal. 3. Id. in Hemil. de Sanct. in Epiph. Idem in Psal. 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern. l. 2. c. 2. t. 4.  if we inquire of venerable Bede he will tell us, That the Lord gave us the Sacrament of his Flesh and Blood, in the Figure of Bread and Wine: And that 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 quickening 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 considered what they be, 
August. contra Maxim. l. 3. c. 22.  saith St. Austin, as what it is they signify; because that as Signs they are one thing, and yet they do signify 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 joined 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, citys 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 shows, 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 Rouen, 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 show 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 entire in each portion of the things divided. These words can receive no good sense, but by understanding them of the Sacrament, that is to say, of the Bread which is broken in pieces as to its matter and substance; but that remains whole and entire, as to the virtue of the Sacrament; which made the great St. Basil say, 
Basil. Ep. 289. t. 3.  That to receive one part, or several at ae time, is the same thing as to its virtue. Moreover, German will have us consider Jesus Christ as dead in the Sacrament, and as pouring forth his precious blood for the Salvation of mankind, when he saith, 
Id. Germ. ib. p. 407, 409, 410.  That the Elevation of the precious body, represents the Elevation in the Cross, the Death of our Lord on the Cross, and his Resurrection also; That the Priest receiving the Bread alone, without the Blood, and the Blood also without the Body, signifies nothing else, but that the Divine Lamb is yet all bloody; and that we eat the Bread and drink the Cup, as the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God, confessing his Death and Resurrection. And clearer yet in these words, where speaking of the holy Bread, which he distinguisheth from Jesus Christ, he saith, 
Ibid, p. 408.  That it is the only Bread wherein is figured and represented the Divine and all-healing Death of him which was Sacrificed for the Lafe of the World; because it is the only Divine Bread which is Sacrificed and Offered as the Lamb: but as for the other Divine Gifts, they be not cut in the form of a Cross with the Knife, but they are put in pieces as the members and parts of the body. It is the true Commentary of what he saith in the same Treatise, That Jesus Christ is always sacrificed, because he is so, not in himself, for that cannot be, by the confession of all Christians, but in the Sacrament; the Celebration whereof doth lively represent unto us the imolation of Jesus Christ upon the Cross. 
Ibid. p. 408.  Add unto this that he declares, That Jesus Christ drank Wine in his Sacrament, as he did after his Resurrection, not through necessity, but to persuade his Disciples of the truth of his Resurrection. And that he desires at the instant of communicating, we should lift up our thoughts from Earth, unto the King which is in Heaven. Now let it be judged after all these declarations, what the change can be, which he saith is passed upon the Bread and Wine by Consecration, if he meant a change of substance, or only of use and condition; for the former seems unto Protestants to be inconsistent with the Explanations which he hath given us; whereas the latter doth not ill accord with it, in all appearance.  
German saith, That Jesus Christ is seen and felt in the Eucharist; but he positively affirms, that it is done in his Sacrament; that is to say, that he is seen and touched, inasmuch as the Sacrament is seen and felt which doth represent him. 
Ibid. p. 401.  Our Saviour (saith he) is seen, and suffers himself to be touched by means of the ever to be revered and sacred Mysteries. I will not insist upon what is said by this Patriarch, That the Bread and Wine offered by Believers for the Communion, do in some sort become upon the Table of proposition (which amongst the Greeks is different from that where the Consecration of the Divine Symbols are made) I say they become in some sort the Images and Figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; because it is a frivolous conceit, and with reason rejected by Roman Catholics and Protestants.  
But let us lay aside the Patriarch German, and prosecute the History of the VIII. Century; in the same City where German was Patriarch, the Metropolis of the Eastern Empire; Constantine the 6th. commonly surnamed Copronymas, Son of the Emperor Leo the third, called Isaurus, assembled a Council of 338 Bishops, Anno 754. The Assembly held full six months, during which, they quite abolished the Worshipping of Images; and by the way, 
Concil. Constantinop. in Act. Concil. Nicaen. 2. t. 5. Concil. p. 756.  clearing up the Doctrine of the Church upon the point of the Sacrament, to draw a proof against the same Images they had condemned, they left unto us for a Monument of their belief, this following testimony; Let those rejoice which with a most pure heart, make the true Image of Jesus Christ, which desire, which venerate, and which do offer it for the Salvation of body and soul; the which Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples in Figure and Commemoration. And having repeated the words of Institution, they add, That no other Species under Heaven was made choice of by him, nor any other Type that could represent his Incarnation; That it is the Image of his quickening body, which was honourably and gloriously made; That as Jesus Christ took the matter or humane substance, in like manner he hath commanded us to offer for his Image a matter chosen, that is to say, the substance of bread, not having any humane Form or Figure, fearing lest Idolatry may get in; As then (say they) the Natural Body of Jesus Christ is holy, because it is Deified: It is also evident, that his Body by Institution, that is to say, his holy Image is rendered Divine by Sanctification of Grace: for it is what our Saviour intended to do, when by virtue of the Union, he Deified the Flesh he had taken by a Sanctification proper unto himself; so also he would, that the bread of the Sacrament, as being the true Figure of his Natural body, should be made a Divine Body by the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Priest which makes the Oblation intervening to make it holy, whereas it was common; therefore the Natural body of our Lord, endowed with Soul and Understanding, was anointed by the Holy Ghost, being united unto the Godhead; so also his Image, to wit, the holy bread is filled with the Cup of enlivening Blood which flowed out of his side.  
What renders this testimony the more considerable and worthy to be credited, is, That these Fathers which represented all the Eastern Church, or at least the greatest part of it, were assembled about the matter of Images, and not about the subject of the Sacrament; for had they been assembled upon the point of the Sacrament, it may be some uncharitable person might suspect them of pre-occupation, or of design; but having been assembled upon a very different subject, of necessity it must be granted, that it is by the by, that they inform us of the common and general Opinion and Belief of Christians. They would draw from the Eucharist an argument against the use and Worship of Images; and to do it the better, they were obliged to unfold unto us the Nature of the Sacrament; and they explain it in saying, That it is the substance of Bread; that it is no deceiving Figure of his Natural Body; and as they say a little before, a Type and Commemoration of the Passion of Jesus Christ; and that God in choosing this Type, and not a humane Effigies, intended to shun the danger of Idolatry; they content not themselves to say, that the Eucharist is an Image; they declare, That this Image is the substance of Bread; they speak of Sacrificing this Image, this chosen matter, this Substance of Bread; they pleased themselves in making a perpetual opposition betwixt the real Body of Jesus Christ, and the Bread which is its Figure or Image; they say, That the one is his Body by Nature, and the other his Body by Institution; that the former is the matter of his humane substance, without personal subsistence, and the other, a matter chosen, that is to say, the substance of Bread, not having humane Features; that the one is holy, because it is Deified; that the other is rendered holy by the Sanctification of Grace; in fine, That the one is his Flesh which he hath taken to himself, and that he hath sanctified with a holiness proper unto himself; and that the other is sanctified by the Grace of the Holy Ghost, which by the Ministry of the Priest makes it holy, whereas it was common. And because the Fathers which preceded them were wont to consider the Sacrament as an Image of the Son of God; these also will have it to be an express Image of this adorable Mystery; in contemplation whereof, we must lift up our Faith, and bring down our Sins; it's for this reason they say, That there's no other thing under Heaven, nor any other Figure but that, chosen by Jesus Christ to express the Image of his Incarnation; and a little under they say, That our Saviour's design in the Institution of the Sacrament, was to represent and show clearly unto Men the Mystery of his Oeconomy; that is to say, of his Incarnation: therefore they thus conclude all their Discourse, It hath been demonstrated that it is the true Figure of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ our God. If it be a true Image, as they do assure, it is necessary say some, that the substance of Bread should remain after Sanctification, to represent sincerely the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ, the which is not abolished by his Union unto the Divine Nature; they add unto all these considerations, that the Council testifies, that our Lord commanded us to make, not his real Body, but the Figure of his Body and of his Blood; and in that Jesus Christ commanded that this Image should be of the substance of Bread, without the lineaments of humane shape, it was to prevent Idolatry: An Argument which would be unworthy the Council, if it had believed that the Bread after Consecration had been no longer Bread, but the Body itself of the Saviour of the World, which ought to be Religiously adored, by reason of his personal Union with the Godhead; very far from fearing of committing Idolatry in adoring of him. Thus it is that many do argue from this testimony.  
They lived thirty two years in the East under the Authority of this Council, but in the year 787. the Empress Irene having a violent affection for Images, caused a second Council to be assembled at Nice in Bythinia, whither she caused to come, People to her own liking, as also that favoured Images, insomuch as the better to accomplish her design, she conferred the Patriarchship of Constantinople upon one Terrasius, which being a Lay person, could not according to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions be capable of enjoying this Dignity. In this Council, assembled at the desire and pleasure of the Empress, who governed all things in the Minority of Constantine her Son, was disannulled all that had been done at Constantinople against Images; and by the way, they censured what the other Fathers had said, That the Sacrament is an Image of the Body of Jesus Christ; because, said they, it is his true Body, and his true Blood, and not an Image: 
Concil. Nican. 2. act. 6. t. 5. Conc p. 5●. & 758.  see here their very terms; The Oblations are piously called Types, that is to say, Figures and Images by some of the holy Fathers, before the perfection of Sanctification; but after Sanctification they are called truly, they are, and are believed to be, the Body and Blood of Christ. And thereupon they censure those of Constantinople, for calling the Eucharist an Image, and to have instanced for destroying of Images, the example of an Image, which was not an Image, but the Body and Blood. I will not here make a comparison betwixt these two Councils in their full extent, nor search into the parallels betwixt them; I will say but little; but what I shall say will suffice to satisfy the Reader. 
Sirmond. t. ●. Concil. Gall. p. 191.  Not to mention what hath been observed by Father Sirmond, that the second Council of Nice cannot have the name of an Ecumenical and Universal Council; it appears in the first place, that much simplicity and sincerity might be seen in that of Constantinople, although we have but little of their Acts trasmitted unto us, but what was done by their Enemies. But in that of Nice, I am obliged to say that there is Injustice to be found, in that these Prelates do assure in a great many places, that they had present in their Assembly the Legates of the three Patriarches of the East; whereas the certain truth is, 
Conc. Nican 2. act. 3. p. 594, 595, 596, 597.  that not one of the three Patriarches of the East did send any Deputies thither; but five or six Hermits of Palestine, ignorant and unexperienced persons, as they call themselves, at the instance of the Deputies of the Patriarch Terrasius, did depute two of their own number, John and Thomas, to assist at this Council; of the Legates of the Patriarches of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, I find no marks or mention; the pieces inserted in the Acts of the Council testify the same. Secondly, in the Council of Constantinople, the Fathers whereof it was composed, did not licentiously abuse the holy Scriptures to draw it to their party; but I cannot forbear saying, that it was quite otherwise in that of Nice, where they took liberty miserably to wrest the Scriptures, and to corrupt them to draw inferences in favour of Image Worship, this is to be seen in several instances, especially in all the fourth Session. In the third place, we do not see that the Fathers of Constantinople had recourse to so many and gross pieces as those of Nice, 
Act. 2. p. 555. Act. 4. p. 622.  who made use of them freely, and without any scruple, for the establishing of their Opinion; as the Acts of Pope Sylvester in the second Session; the Book of the Passion of an Image of Jesus Christ, under the name of St. Athanasius, although this ridiculous piece had been but newly invented, 
Ibid. 642. Ibid. 649.  no question but by some one that was for Worshipping of Images; the obscene and filthy History of a Friar 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 Charlemagne, 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'll 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 itself. 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 remembered, 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 remembered, 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 Painter's 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 'tis 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 showeth 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 Crect, now Candia, one of the Fathers of the Council showeth 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 Virtue; for using the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria before alleged, 
Elias Cretens. in Orat. 1. Greg. Nazianz p. 201.  he saith, That God doth send into the things offered an enlivening virtue, 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 show 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 Catholic 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 publicly 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 Catholic, 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 bend 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 esteemed Wicked and Villains; there's no likelihood than they would have spared them, if they had departed from the Belief publicly received in the Church, seeing they had taken the liberty of censuring them for using the terms and expressions which their Forefathers had been accustomed to use in the like occasions. In fine, of two things that Constantinople had asserted, Nice doth censure one, and not the other, it condemns the former, and not the latter: The first doth disgust it, the second doth not; although the one regards but the terms, and the other engageth directly the ground of the Doctrine itself; it will not permit it should be said, that the Eucharist is the Image of Jesus Christ; but it will have it said. That it is the substance of Bread after Consecration. Let us, for example, put instead of that of Nice, a Council of the Latin Church; and instead of that of Constantinople, a Protestant Council; who could imagine, that the Council of the Latin Church should condemn that of the Protestants, for saying, That the Eucharist is the Image of the Body of Jesus Christ; and that it should not condemn it for affirming, That it is the substance of Bread even after Consecration; Nevertheless this is just what is done by the Fathers of Nice. Is not there then absolute necessity to conclude, That Nice was of Accord with Constantinople, as to what concerned the Doctrine, and that neither the one nor the other, departed from the Ancient Belief of the Church; this at least is what is inferred: But may the Latins say, the Prelates of Nice say, that the Eucharist is properly called the Body of Christ, and that it is so. The Protestants answer, it cannot be thought strange in the thoughts they had that the Bishops of Constantinople meant that it was an Image that had nothing common with its Original, but the Name only; an Image that participated not of its virtue, and that was destitute of any efficacy; and to say the truth, say these latter, the Sacrament being impregnated, if it may be so said, with the Grace and Benediction of our Saviour, filled with his Virtue and Efficacy, clothed with the Majesty of his own Person, accompanied with all the fruits and advantages of his death, nothing may hinder from saying, That it is his Body, because it enjoys the privileges; and that there is seen, in the lawful use of this Copy, the same Virtue and the same Efficacy as that which resides in its Prototype and in its Original, with the which it is by consequence, in a manner, one and the same; for then especially is true what Eusebius said, 
Euseb. contr. Marcel. de Eccl. Theolog. l. 2. c. 23.  That no body in his right senses will say, that the King and his Image that is carried about, are two Kings; but one only which is honoured in his Image: And St. Athanasius, 
Athanas. contr Arian. Orat. 4. & contr. Sabel. Gregal.  That the King and his Image is but one and the same thing: The Picture of the King (saith St. Basil) is called the King, yet they are not for that two Kings: for as he saith elsewhere, He that in an open place contemplates the King's Picture, and that saith it is the King, doth not for all that own two Kings, to wit, 
Basil. de Spirit. S. c. 18.  The Portraiture, and him that it represents. 
Contr. Sabellian. vel Homil. 27. t. 1. p. 522.  But according to the observation of St. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria, The Portrait may say unto him that looks upon it, and that besides would see the King himself, the King and I are all one thing, as to the perfect resemblance. 
Cyril. Alex. in Thesaur. assert. 12. t. 5. p. 111.  And I make no doubt but it was in this sense that some of the Ancients considered the Bread of the Sacrament, and the Body of our Saviour crucified upon the Cross, as one Body, and not as several Bodies; and if I should doubt of it, Haymond Bishop of Alberstat, or Remy of Auxerr, would soon cure me of this doubt in saying, The Flesh which Jesus Christ hath taken, 
Haym. Halber. in 1 ad Cor. c. 10.  and the Bread of the Sacrament, and the whole Church, do not make three Bodies of Christ but one Body; that is to say, the Bread of the Sacrament, and the Church, are called the Body of Jesus Christ, just as his Natural Body is, because they are Mystically so, that they have all their relation unto his true Body, and that by virtue of this relation they are deemed one and the same Body; 
Theodot. apud Bulenger. count Casaub.  and before Haymond, Theodotus of Antioch so expressed himself, As the King (saith he) and his Portrait are not two Kings, so also the Personal Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven, and the Bread which the Priest distributes unto believers in the Church, and which is the Antitype and Figure, are not two Bodies: In fine, if it may be said in a good sense of all Images in general, that they are one and the same with their Original, of greater reason may it be said of the Eucharist, which is not an Image depending of the Painter's Fancy as the others, nor of the skill of his Pencil, but of the Institution of Jesus Christ, which hath instituted this Divine Sacrament, to be the remembrance of his Death, the Portraiture and Image of his Person and Sufferings; but an Image and Portrait that truly communicates unto us his Body broken, and which in the Celebration of the Sacrament is always accompanied with his Virtue and Efficacy; therefore St. 
1 Chrys. Hom. 28. in 1 ad Cor.  Chrysostom saith, That the Sacramental Table is exuberant with life, 
2 Homil. 51. in Matt.  and full of the holy Spirit; 
3 Catech. ad illuminand.  that the Cup is full of much virtue; 
4 Ibid. Ambro. lib. de initiand. c. 4. t. 4. p. 346.  and that those which are initiated know the force and virtue of this Cup. Which agrees not ill with what the Fathers of Constantinople said, That the Bread of the Eucharist is filled with the Holy Ghost: And what they said of the Bread and Cup of the Sacrament, the Author of the Book of those which are initiated in St. Ambrose, saith the same of the Water of Baptism, Believe (saith he) that the Waters are not alone, 
Just. Mart. Dial cum Tryph. pag. 231. Ammon. Cat. in Joan. 3.5.  and that there descends a Divine Virtue into this Fountain: Thence it is St. Justin Martyr calls the Water of Baptism, the Water of Life; and that Amonius saith, It is changed into a Divine Nature.  
Seven years after, to wit, in the year 794. Charlemagne being displeased at what had been done at Nice in favour of Images, caused a Council to be assembled at Francfort to prohibit the Worship, and stop the progress of an abuse which then seemed intolerable unto the greatest number of Christians in the West: And at this time were written the Books of Images which bear the name of this Emperor, because in all likelihood they were written by his order, rather than by his Pen. In one of these Books is censured the word Image or likeness, as those of Nice had censured it in those of Constantinople: I will not now examine if there was any thing of surprise in this Censure, that is, if it was done with an intent of directing it against Nice, and not against those of Constantinople: for although it is most certain that the principal design of the Council of Francfort was to oppose that of Nice, against whom those of the West were no less incensed, than those of Nice had been against them of Constantinople, I will make no censure upon the matter, not to give occasion unto any uncharitable Reader of censuring me. It shall suffice to cite the words of the Book, 
Carol. Magnus de imag. l. 4. c. 14.  that all the World may see what was the thoughts of the Author in censuring the word Image; The Mystery (saith he) of the Body and Blood of Christ, ought not now to be called Image, but Verity; not Shadow, but Substance; not the Type of things to come, but what had been figured by Types; the Daylight is already come, and Shadows are gone away; now Jesus Christ, the end of the Law, in righteousness unto all believers is come; he hath already fulfilled the Law: He that was in the valley of the shadow of Death hath seen a great Light; already the Veil is fallen from the Face of Moses, and the vail of the Temple which is rend, hath discovered unto us all things that were hid and unknown, now the true Melchisedek, to wit, Jesus Christ the righteous King, the King of Peace, hath bestowed upon us not the Sacrifices of Beasts, but the Sacrament of his Body and Blood.  
It is no hard matter to guests at the scope of these words, and to see that they do not tend to the condemning the word Image, taking it for a holy Sign, instituted of God not only to signify and represent, but also effectually to communicate Jesus Christ unto our Souls, dead for our sins; their intent is only to reprove this term, as it was taken for a legal Shadow, or for a prefiguration of Christ to come; therefore to show that the Sacrament was not of the Nature of Types and Figures of the Law, which did only represent, without communicating the thing represented; it is spoken in opposition unto the Sacrifices of Beasts, that our Saviour hath left us, not his Body but the Sacrament of his Body and of his Blood; but a Sacrament so efficacious and Divine, that the faithful Soul never participates of it, but that it really and truly communicates of the thing itself; whereas the Types of the Law did only prefigure it; therefore it is that the Author said a little before, 
Ibid.  speaking of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of the Lord, That believers do receive it every day in the Sacrament. And in another Book he declares, 
Lib. 2. c. 25.  That it is the Mediator of God and Men, which by the Ministry of the Priest, and the Innovation of the name of God, doth make the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which he hath left us for a Commemoration of his Death and of our Salvation: And again, The Apostle St. Paul, 
Ibid.  that chosen Vessel, considering that the Body and Blood of our Lord should not only be equal unto all other Sacraments, but also preferable unto any, he saith, Let every one examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup. He testifies, That what is eaten at the Holy Table is Bread; and in saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be preferred almost before all others, he shows plainly, that he did not believe it was the very Body of our Saviour; for these words would have been unworthy a Christian, if they had been spoken of the proper Flesh of the Son of God: But what need there any other explanation than that which is given us by Charlemagne himself, when writing unto Alcuin his Tutor, 
De ration. Septuages. ad Alcuin.  he saith, That our Saviour Supping with his Disciples, broke Bread, and also gave them the Cup, for a Figure of his Body and Blood, and gave them a great Sacrament for our profit. Thus it is that several explain it.  
But as to Alcuin, let us see what he will furnish us for the better understanding the History of this Age; and if the Tutor will accord with his Scholar. I will not insist upon the Treatise of Divine Offices which go in his name, because the Learned do confess that 'tis not his, it shall suffice to relate what is written by the late Andrew du Chesne; the last of which hath set his hand unto the Edition of his works; We do not (saith he) want sufficient conjectures to show that this Treatise is not Alcuins; 
Gallia Braccata. Andr. Quercetan. praefat. ad Alcuin. c. 17.  for the Author whoever it was, doth testify that he is of Gall Narboness: and an ancient Copy, by the help whereof we have recovered twelve whole Chapters, Attributes the question of the Feasts of Saints, tacked unto the 18th. Chapter, unto the Friar Elpris, who according to Trythemius, flourished in the year 1040. And in fine, in this Treatise there is mention of the Institution of the Feast of All-Saints the first of November: Nevertheless, it is easily found by Sigebert and others, that it was not begun to be celebrated that day in France and Germany, till a good while after the Decease of Alcuin, that is, Anno 835. and Alcuin died Anno 804. Neither will I infist upon a Confession of Faith, which Father Chifflet hath published in the name of the famous Alcuin, because it is no less Fathered upon this excellent Master of Charlemagne, than the Book of Divine Offices: And that it is most certain, it was taken out of the Books of Anselm's Meditations, and unadvisedly crowded into the Works of St. Austin. Now Anselm lived towards the end of the XI. Century, and the beginning of the XII. And I could easily here insert all the evident proofs of Forgery which the piece itself doth furnish; but because it is so apparent a truth, and that moreover I find it hath already been done, I will proceed to the consideration of what is found in the genuine works of Alcuin touching the subject in hand. In one of his Letters he saith of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, that they be consecrated, in Corpus & Sanguinem Christi, into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But let us hear the Explication he gives unto us of these words in the same place: 
Alcuin. Ep. 59  The Sanctification (saith he) of this Mystery doth presage the effect of our Salvation: The faithful people is understood by the Water; and by the Grains of Wheat whereof the Flower is taken to make the Bread, is meant the Union of the whole Church, which is baked into one body by the fire of the Holy Ghost, to the end the Members should be united unto their Head, etc. And by the Wine, the Blood of the Passion of our Lord is exhibited: and so when in the Sacraments, the Water is mingled with the Flower and the Wine, the faithful People is incorporated and joined unto Jesus Christ. He follows the steps of St. Cyprian, from whence he borrowed the expression. And elsewhere he disputeth against Christ's Presence upon Earth. 
Id. in Joan. l. 5. c. 28.  He was (saith he) to continue but a little time corporally with his Church; but as for the Poor, they were to remain always; so that we might always give unto them. 
Ibid. l. 6. c. 34, & 35.  And in the same Treatise, If I depart by the absence of my Body, I will come by the presence of my Divinity, whereby I will be with you unto the end of the World. And again, in the sense of venerable Bede: 
Ibid. c. 37.  It is expedient that I should remove from before your eyes the form of a Servant, to the end that the love of the Divinity might sink deeper into your hearts. It is necessary I should carry into Heaven this Form which is known unto you, to the end you should the more ardently desire to be in that place. And according to what St. Austin said in explaining the 6th. Chapter of St. John; Whosoever eateth my flesh, 
Ibid. l. 3. c. 15.  and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. This eating (saith he) his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, is to dwell in Jesus Christ, and to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us: And so he that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ, and in whom Jesus Christ dwelleth not, for certain, eateth not spiritually the Flesh, although he visibly and carnally doth eat the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; but rather, he eateth and drinketh unto his Condemnation the Sacrament of so great a thing; because, being impure, he presumed to come to the Sacraments of Jesus Christ, which none receive worthily but those that are holy. After all this, let it be judged which side Alcuin was of. Although the Book called the Roman Order is not of any certain date, and that the Learned do not agree at what time it first appeared: Nevertheless, because there be some that judge that it was written about the time that the Books of Images were composed under the name of Charlemagne; but they are deceived, 
Ord. Rom. de Offic. Miss. t. 10 Bibl. Pat. ed. 4. p. 5.  the Author being much younger. We will make no difficulty of joining it unto what we have alleged of those Books, and of the Works of Alcuin. The Subdeacons (saith he) having seen the Chalice, wherein is the Blood of our Lord, covered with a Linen Cloth; and having heard, Deliver us from Evil, depart, and prepare the Cups and clean , wherein they receive the Body of the Lord; fearing it should fall to the ground, and be turned to dust. Let it be imagined if that could befall the true Body of Jesus Christ. And again, 
Ibid.  in the same place; The Bishop breaketh the Oblation; that is to say, the Bread, on the right side, and leaves the piece he broke upon the Altar. He speaks of a Subject that may be broken into bits and pieces. 
Ibid p. 6.  And in the following Page, The Fraction, or as 'tis read in the Margin, the Consecration, being done, the youngest of the Deacons, taking the pattern from the Sub-Deacon, carries it unto the place where the Bishop is, to the end he may communicate; and having communicated, he delivers unto the Archdeacon, the holy Host which he had bit. See again, if the Flesh of Jesus Christ could be bit; and if it could be said of the real Blood of Jesus Christ what he observes in the same place, 
Ibid.  That it is made in the Cup, where there is put a portion of the holy Host, a mixture of the Body and Blood of our Lord. 
Ibid. p. 10.  And in the same Treatise, That the Deacon (saith he) holding the Cup and the Quill, doth stand before the Bishop, until he hath taken what he thinks fit of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. I cannot tell if one may take more or less of the true Body of Jesus Christ; and whether it depends on the free Will of men, to take as they list, and as much as they please. In fine, 
Ibid.  he will have the Deacon take care with much precaution, that there be nothing left remaining in the Cup and Plate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Is it to to be conceived (say the Protestants) that any drop of the Blood of our Saviour could remain in the Cup; or any part of his glorified Body in the Paten? In the Roman Order of those times, which this Author afterward relates, there is to be read what we have alleged of the Cannon of the Mass in the 8th Chapter of the first Part. Whence it is inferred, that the Oblation presented unto God was, after Consecration, an Oblation of Bread and Wine, according to the Inference which was made at the end of the 6th Chapter of this Second Part, which 'tis not needful to repeat again in this place.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Containing the History of the IX. Century.  
WHatever change happened unto the Ancient Expressions relating to the point of the Sacrament; nevertheless, the Belief of the Church received no alteration during the eight first Centuries, the Doctrine still continued sound, as I think hath been fully justified hitherto; but at last in the IX. Century▪ Paschas Radbert a Friar of Corby near Amiens, yet bolder than Anastatius of Mount Sina, who contented himself in giving an assault unto the ancient manner of Expressions, about the year 818. attacked the Doctrine itself; the Providence of God permitting that the Innovations which arose in the terms, and in the belief, took beginning by two Friars; which being both of them enclosed in their Cloisters, departed in their meditations, the one from the Expressions, the other from the Belief of their Ancestors. I said that Paschas began to write of this matter in the year 818. because it was in that year he composed his Treatise of the Body and Blood of the Lord, as may be collected from the Preface to his Scholar Placidus; where speaking unto Adelard his Abbot, under the name of one Arsenius an old Hermit, he sufficiently shows, that he wrote in the year that Bernard King of Italy, and some others, had their eyes put out for conspiring against Lewis the Debonair; and that some Bishops that were of the same Combination were banished and deposed; which happened exactly in the year 818. the Rebellion having begun in the year 817. as the Historians of those times inform us. I will not mention that Paschas appears sometimes to be disturbed at what may happen in going about to adjust some ancient expressions with his new Opinion, to make his disguise succeed the better: He proceeded by way of Explication; it shall suffice to say, that it seems it may be so gathered from the words of his Letter unto Frudegard, Although (saith he) I have writ nothing in this Book, 
Pasch. ep. ad Frude. p. 1●25  which I have dedicated unto a certain young Man, which might be worthy the Reader; nevertheless, as I am informed, I have excited several persons to the understanding of this Mystery. Thence it is, that in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord, he speaks of his Explication as of an admirable thing, and whereof sufficient heed had not yet been taken; 
Id de corp. & sang. Dom. c. 1.  To the end (saith he) I might yet say something more admirable: But the chief is, to know wherein his opinion did consist; Those that will a little consider his Writings, may observe he taught, That what is received in the Sacrament, is the same Flesh of that which was born of the Virgin Mary, 
Id ibid.  and which suffered Death for us; Although (saith he) the Figure of Bread and Wine doth remain, yet you must absolutely believe, that after Consecration, it is nothing but the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ; for which reason the Truth itself said unto his Disciples, It is my Flesh for the Life of the World; and to say something more admirable, It is no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary, that suffered upon the Cross, and which is raised out of the Sepulchre. So it is that he explains himself also again in the 4th Chapter of the same Book, and several times in his Letter unto Frudegard; It is the testimony that an Anonymus Author gives us, which Father Cellot hath published, 
Aut Anonym. l. de Euchar. apud Cellot in append. histor. Gostech. op. 7.  and which was one of his Adherents,— Paschas (saith he) establisheth under the name of St. Ambrose, That what is received at the Altar, is no other Flesh than that born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered on the Cross; which was raised out of the Grave; and is at present offered for the Life of the World. Against which Rabanus, in his Letter to the Abbot Egilon, sufficiently doth argue. In fine, we shall be informed by Rabanus and by Ratramn, that it was the Opinion of Paschas; and that nothing should be wanting to the establishing of his Opinion, he wrote two Books of the Virgins being delivered of Child; which Books had always gone in the name of Ildefons, Archbishop of Toledo; 
T. 1. Spicileg. praes. ad Ratiam.  and are at this time under that name, in the last Edition of the Library of the holy Fathers. But Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar, hath informed us by the help of Manuscripts, that Paschas was the true Author of them. In these two Books he teacheth, that the blessed Virgin was Delivered after an extraordinary and miraculous manner; and that Jesus Christ was not born after the common course of Nature; but that he came out of the Womb of this blessed Maid without any opening, and not as Tertullian saith in some of his Writings, Lege patefacti Corporis: But as Bertram or Ratramn refuted the ground of the Doctrine of Paschas, so he also refuted this progress of it, by a little Treatise he wrote on purpose, on the Birth of Jesus Christ; wherein several times he qualifies with the name of Heresy, the Opinion which he refutes; whereas I do not find that he ever gave this name unto what his Adversary had taught of the Sacrament; which gives me occasion to make this conjecture, which I freely submit unto the Reader's Judgement; to wit, That Paschas having proceeded in what he wrote of the Sacrament by way of Explication; and as one that did seek for the true knowledge of this Mystery: His Adversaries did not call this Doctrine Heresy, how erroneous soever they knew him to be in other their things, because in the Church it was not the custom to call any single error Heresy, unless it was attended with Obstinacy. But Ratramn having seen the Books of the Virgin's Delivery, which were written after what he had taught of the Sacrament, and as he drew near his Death; 
Ratram. de nativit. Christ. c. 4.5.9. t. 1. Specileg.  or as he saith himself in the Preface of Dom Luke d'Achery, Multo jam senio confectus: And having thereby judged, That he was not now a man that desired to be instructed, but was strongly confirmed in the Opinion he had taught, and which he endeavoured to support by establishing the consequences which might best suit with his Principles, he made no scruple to render this of which we speak, odious, in calling it Heresy: but after all, whatever my conjecture may be, 
Paschas. de corp. & sang. Dom. c. 14.  it is certain that Paschas omitted nothing that might set off his Opinion, not Visions itself, and Apparitions of Jesus Christ during the Celebration of the Sacrament; not fearing to be jeered that he was the first that bethought himself of speaking of these kinds of Apparitions, unknown unto Christians for above 800. years, seeing that in effect there is no certain Author found, that hath made any mention of them; yet that hindered not but Cardinal Bellarmine, and Father Sirmond considered him as the first that cleared and explained the Mystery of the Sacrament; 
Bellarm. de script. Eccles.  This Author (saith Bellarmine) was the first that wrote seriously and amply of the truth of the body and blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist; And Sirmond, 
Sirmond. in vita Paschas. operibus ciuprae●ixa.  He first of all so explained the true sense of the Catholic Church, that he opened the way unto all others that have since written of the same matter. But so it is, that if the belief of Paschas was the Ancient Belief of the Church, he deserved to be loaden with blessings and thanks for having so happily laboured for the Instruction and Edification of Christians, and in all likelihood no body would have dared to contradict or oppose the Doctrine which he published, or if any one undertook so to do, he should make himself the Object of hatred and aversion unto all the World. It is then requisite to know, how men carried it towards him after that he had published his Opinion. If we inquire of himself, he will inform us, that he was accused of departing from the common Belief, and of having rashly spread abroad the thoughts of a young head; for see here how he writes unto his intimate Friend Frudegard; 
Pasch. Ep. ad Frudegard. pag. 1632.  You have (saith he) at the end of this little Book, the Sentences of Catholic Fathers succinctly noted, by which you may see, that it was not out of a hasty fit that I formerly meditated these things in my younger days; but that I 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 expressly, 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 itself 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. u●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 virtue of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, as if our Saviour had told a lie, and that it was not his true Flesh and Blood, etc. When he broke and gave the Bread unto his Disciples, he said not, This is, or there is in this Mystery a certain Virtue 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 itself, but in Sacrament; a certain efficacy of the body, and not the body; a virtue 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 Catholics, 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 Catholic, as 'tis 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 suspense, 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 alleges 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, 'tis true, citys 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 Sceptics. 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 on Paschas his side. I know not precisely the time that he lived; although it is very probable, it was either at the latter end of the IX. Century, or it may be in the X. but I know he was not a stout Champion, and that his Courage was not able to restore Paschas his Party, if they had the fortune to be worsted. Unto this day the name and quality of this Proselyte is not known; as also, it is not known who or what Frudegard was, if it be not inferred, by Paschas calling him Brother and Fellow-Soldier, that he was either a Friar, or Abbot of some Monastery. As for Hin●mar Archbishop of Rheims, incomparably better known than our Anonymous, and more famous than Frudegard, by his Dignity and Writings, I find myself a little at a loss: for when I consider that he saith with St. Cyprian and St. Austin, 
1 Hinem. de proedest. c. 3. epilogi. c. 1.  That our Saviour recommended his Body and Blood in things that are reduced into one: 
2 Id. ibid. & de cavend. viriis. c. 12. & ad Hincm. Laud. c. 48.  That he reserves, with St. Austin and St. Prosper, the eating of the Flesh of Christ for Believers only. 
3 Id de non trina deitate c. 17.  That he declares with the former, that the Mystery of Bread passeth into a Sacrament. 
4 Id. de caven. vit. c. 11.  And that he acknowledgeth with others, That our Saviour hath left us the Sacrament as a Pledge of his Love, and as a Memorial of his Person, and of his Death; as a Man travelling into a far Country, should leave a Pledge unto his Friend. I cannot tell if I should make him a Friend of Paschas, whose Doctrine doth not agree well with what we have now mentioned. But when on the other hand, I find in his Writings, some things which seem to favour the same Paschas, I cannot tell how to make him his Adversary. 
Id. de cavend. vit. c. 12.  For example, what he saith, That Jesus Christ is every day consecrated upon his Table, that he sanctifies his Sacrament, and that he makes himself. 
Id. de pradest. ●. 31.  And that he observes that Prudens Bishop of Trois, and John Scot, or of Scotland, or rather of Ireland, said, That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real body and blood of our Lord, but only the memorial of his true body and blood. Let the Reader than place Hincmar either amongst the Enemies of Paschas, or amongst his Friends: for my part, I am very apt to believe that he was of his favourers; I mean, that he followed his Opinion in the point of the Eucharist: which yet I do not affirm as a thing indubitable, and which may not be questioned. I will only say, that I do not find that he was of any extraordinary esteem: for if we believe Father Sirmond, who otherwise was no Enemy unto him: Archbishop Hincmar was wont to be deceived himself, 
Sirm. de duob. Dionys. c. 4. Mauguin. Hist. Chron. p. 442. Apolog. pour les Saints Peres l. 5. p. 3. c. 5.  and to deceive others. If we believe Monsieur the Precedent Mauguin, he calls him a Deceiver and a Dissembler. And if we will give Credit unto the description that is made of him in the Apologies of the holy Fathers, Defenders of Free Will, we shall find him to be both violent and ignorant; a Deceiver, scandalous and malicious; a Calumniator, and a Man full of Vanity. These are the Colours wherein he is displayed in that excellent Work; besides several others which I pass over in silence. So that if Hincmar was such a person as these Gentlemen describe him to be, I do not think he would render the Party very considerable, in which side soever he is placed: yet he cannot be denied the Knowledge of the ancient Canons, if I mistake not, wherein he was better skilled, than in that which is dogmatical, and relating unto Divinity.  
In the main, see here two Followers of Paschas; one of which, to wit, the Anonymous, declares himself directly for him; and the other, I mean Hincmar, though he makes not so formal a Declaration, doth nevertheless in all probability follow his steps. But in fine, they are the only two which I can find to be of the Belief of Paschas in the IX Century, if it were true that the Anonimous wrote in that Century; whereas if he wrote after, as Father Cellot inclines to think he did, all the strength of this Friar, and afterwards Abbot of Corby, will consist in himself and Hincmar, in the uncertainty we are in, whether St. Austin or Paschas prevailed over Frudegard. As for the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles, which some attribute unto Haymon Bishop of Alberstadt, others unto Remy Archbishop of Lions; and others, in fine, with greater probability, unto Remy Friar of Auxerr; I do not think he ought to be reckoned amongst the Friends nor Enemies of Paschas: He did like those that seeing a Kingdom divided into two Factions, take part with neither; but think of making a third Party: for he would neither follow the Party of Paschas, nor the Belief of those which argued against him; but would establish in the West, as far as I can find, the Opinion that Damascen had broached in the East, of the Union of the Bread of the Sacrament with the Divinity, to make by means of this Union, one sole Body with the true Body of our Saviour, as we have showed in speaking of Damascen. And this is the reason that we here place Remy of Auxerr, although he lived not, according to all Circumstances, but at the end of the IX Century: and to say the truth, because he had a middle Opinion betwixt that of Paschas, and that of his Adversaries, we cannot appoint him a fit place than this; to the end, that as he disturbed not the Depositions of Paschas his Friends, neither should he trouble the Testimony of his Adversaries. That the Opinion of Remy is such as we say, I hope the Candid Reader will believe it to be so, when he shall see what we here produce of his Commentaries upon the 10th and 11th Chapters of the First to the Corinthians, and of his Exposition of the Cannon of the Mass, ' The Flesh (saith he) which the Word took in the Womb of the Virgin into the Unity of his Person, 
Remig. Altiss. comment. in ●. ad Corin. c. 10.  and the Bread which is Consecrated in the Church, are one Body of Jesus Christ; for as this Flesh is the Body of Jesus Christ, so also this Bread passeth into the Body of Jesus Christ; and they be not two Bodies, but one Body; for the fullness of the Godhead which was in that Body, filleth also this Bread; and the same Godhead of the Son which is in them, filleth the Body of Jesus Christ, which is Consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the World; and causeth that it is one sole Body of Jesus Christ: And as this Bread and Wine pass into the Body of Jesus Christ, so also all those that eat it worthily in the Church, are one sole Body of Jesus Christ, as himself hath said, Whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. Nevertheless, this Flesh which he hath taken, and this Bread, 
Id. ibid. in cap. ●1.  and the whole Church, are not three Bodies of Jesus Christ, but one Body, And afterwards, Although this Bread is brought from several places, and that it is Consecrated throughout the whole World by several Priests, nevertheless, the Divinity that filleth all things, filleth it also, and maketh it to be one sole Body of Jesus Christ; and all those which receive it, 
●d. in Canone Idiss. ●. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 441.  do make this same Body of Jesus Christ, which is one and not two. And elsewhere, As the Divinity of the Son which filleth all the World is one, so also, although this Body is Consecrated in sundry places, and in an infinite number of different days, yet they are not several Bodies of Jesus Christ, nor several Cups, but one sole Body and one Blood, with that which he took from the Virgin, and gave unto the Apostles; for the Divinity fills it, is joined to it, and causeth that as it is one, so also it should be joined unto the Body of Jesus Christ, and should be one Body of Jesus Christ in verity. This Author, whoever he was, says two or three things which sufficiently inform us of his intention; for he saith, that the Divinity joins the Bread unto the Body of Jesus Christ, of necessity than he must needs believe that it subsisted still after Consecration, because a thing that is not, cannot be joined unto another thing; the uniting and joining of two different subjects, presupposeth the Existence of the one and the other; he saith also, that the Church as well as the Sacrament, is one Body with the natural Body of Jesus Christ; he affirms it no more of the Sacrament than of the Church; he than meant that they were both so, after one and the same manner. In fine, see here how he argues; the Natural Body of Jesus Christ, the Sacrament, and the Church, are filled with one and the same virtue, and animated, if it may be so said, with the same Spirit; they are not then three Bodies, but one; the Unity of one Body depending on the unity of the Principle that acts in him. So that because the same Principle that acts in the natural Body of Jesus Christ, acts also in the Bread of the Eucharist, and in the Church, they should not be, according to this Author, but one and the same Body: because that, though considering them severally, they be three different Bodies; yet to consider them in the unity of this Principle, and in the Numerical Identity, if I may so say, of the same virtue, they become one sole Body. This is as far as I can comprehend, the Opinion of Remy; which, though not favouring the Opinion of Paschas, yet is not, for all that, the Opinion of his Adversaries: Therefore we will let him stand alone, to receive the Depositions of others which present themselves to be heard.  
The first is Rabanus, very illustrious for his Dignity, and for his Merit. Historians vie with each other to celebrate his Praises, as of the greatest Man of that Age, and unto whom none was to be compared. He was first a Friar in the Abbey of Fulda, than Abbot of the same Monastery, and at last Archbishop of Mayance. This illustrious Prelate, and the most famous Disciple of the great Alcuin, Tutor unto Charlemagne, being informed of the Opinion of Paschas Radbert, touching the Sacrament, set himself in a posture of arguing, and openly opposing himself against it, as against a Doctrine that appeared new and strange unto him, and contrary to the ancient Belief of the Church: This is the Declaration which the Anonimous Author, and favourer of Paschas, hath made us; saying, That Rabanus disputed against him at large, 
Author Anonym. ubi supra.  in his Letter unto the Abbot Egilon. But if we had not the Testimony of this Disciple of Paschas, we cannot be ignorant of this matter, seeing Rabanus himself hath transmitted the thing unto us; for in his Penitential, which Peter Stuart, Professor in Divinity in the College of Ingolstat, hath published, he speaks after this sort; 
Raban. Maur. in Penitent. c. 33 de Eucharist.  It is not long since some persons holding erroneous Opinions touching the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, have said; That it is the Body itself, and the Blood of Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and wherein our Saviour suffered upon the Cross, and risen again from the Dead: which Error we have opposed, as much as we could; and have signified in writing unto the Abbot Egilon, what ought to be believed of the Body itself. It cannot then be doubted but Rabanus wrote directly against Paschas, seeing that the Opinion which he condemns, and which he opposeth as erroneous, is just that of Paschas, as we have plainly demonstrated. This Letter is lost, either through the length of time, or the malice of Men which have lived since that time. But 'tis sufficient that we do know that he wrote it; and by consequence, was a great Enemy of Paschas; as unhe plainly testifies by several of his other Works, which are come to our hands; for he teacheth that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration; and that these divine Symbols being received by Communicants, part of it turns into their substance, and the rest goes as their other ordinary food doth, unto the place where Nature dischargeth itself. 
Author Anonym. ubi supra.  The Anonymous Author, already cited several times, saith positively, That he held the Sacrament to be subject unto this Accident. And William of Malmesbury wrote to his Brother Robert, in the Preface of the Epitome of Amalarius, of Divine Offices; which is to be seen in a Manuscript at Oxford, 
Guillelm. Malmesbur.  in All-Souls College. I gave you notice (saith he) that amongst those which have writ of these things, there is one that you are to avoid, which is called Rabanus; which in the Books of Ecclesiastical Offices saith, That the Sacraments of the Altar are profitable to nourishment; and for that reason are subject to corruption, or malady, or age; or to be cast into the draft, or to death itself. See how dangerous a thing it is to say, to believe, and to write these things of the Body and Blood of our Saviour. 
Tho. Waldens. t. 1. doctrine. in praesat. & t. 2. c. 19.52. & 62.  Thomas Waldensis testifies the same in divers parts of his Writings; where he reproacheth Wicliff, That as he teacheth that the Eucharist is digested, and passeth into our substance; so he might also teach, with Rabanus, that it passeth into the draft. And he instanceth the very Testimonies which Wicliff had borrowed out of Rabanus, for the defence of his Doctrine. It is then most certain that this Archbishop of Mayans taught two things of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; one that by reason of its substance and matter, it was subject unto the meanest accidents of our ordinary food: and in so saying, he followed the Opinion of Origin; who said so positively, six hundred years before him. The other thing which he taught is, That the Sacrament doth feed our body, and turns itself into our substance; which he learned from St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, St. Austin, St. Isidore of Sevil, and others. But let us hear what he intends himself to say unto us. 
Raba. Maur. de instit. Cleric. l. 1. c. 31.  Our Saviour (saith he) chose rather that believers should receive with the mouth the Sacraments of his Body and Blood, and that it should be converted into their nourishment (or as it is cited by Thomas Waldensis, agreeable to the Manuscript Copies) into part of themselves; to the end that by the visible thing, the invisible effect should be shown: for as material food doth nourish the body, and preserve it outwardly; so in like manner the Word doth inwardly strengthen and preserve the soul. And again; 
Ibid.  the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another: The Sacrament is converted into the nourishment of the body, but by the virtue of the Sacrament we do acquire Eternal Life. As then the Sacrament is converted into us, when we do eat and drink it, so also are we converted into the Body of Jesus Christ, when we do live in Obedience, and in Holiness. And building always upon this Foundation, 
Id. in Mat. c. 26  he saith elsewhere, with venerable Bede; That Jesus Christ, 
Id. in Ecclesia. li. 7. c. 8.  in the room of the Paschal Lamb, hath substituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Creator of the World, 
Id. de Instit. Cler. c. 31. l. 1.  and the Redeemer of Mankind, making of the Fruits of the Earth, that is to say, of Wheat and Wine, a convenient Mystery, converted it into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That the Unlevened Bread and Wine mixed with Water, are sanctified to be the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Then he gives the reason wherefore our Lord chose Bread and Wine to be made the Sacraments of his Body and Blood; and saith, That it is because Melchisedek did offer Bread and Wine; 
Ibid.  and that Jesus Christ being a Priest after the Order of Melchisedek, he ought to imitate his Oblation. And teaching us wherefore the Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, he saith, with Isidore Archbishop of Sevill, 
Ibid.  Because bread doth strengthen the body, it is fitly called the Body of Jesus Christ: and because Wine increaseth blood in the body, it doth for this cause resemble his Blood. Now both these are visible; yet nevertheless, 
Ibid. c. 33.  being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, they pass into a Sacrament of the Divine Body: a Sacrament which he calls the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, by opposition unto his natural Body, from which he distinguisheth it. It must then be granted, that Rabanus Archbishop of Mayans, did teach quite contrary unto what Paschas did teach.  
After Rabanus, I will receive the Deposition of Amalarius Fortunatus, although a little ancienter. It is something difficult to know who he was, and what Ecclesiastical Dignity he enjoyed. And this difficulty is occasioned, because some make him a Deacon, others a Priest, others an Abbot; and in fine, others a Bishop: but the difficulty is not great, because it is most certain, he was invested with these four Dignities, one after the other: unto which also they added that of Archipresbyter. Let the Reader see the Preface of the 7th Tome of the Collections of Dom Luke d'Achery; where this learned Benedictine proves what we now say. And he alleges, besides the Manuscript Copies, Father Sirmond, which called him only Deacon, and refutes him; the late Monsieur blondel, who wrote that he was also Bishop, he approves; and of Monsieur Baluze, who speaks of him as Abbot and Archipresby●●r; although hitherto cannot be discovered, neither the place of his Monastery, nor of his Diocese. Remy Archbishop of Lions, and the Church of the same place, have endeavoured to eclipse his Reputation; 
Lib. de tr●●us Epist.  because he was not of the same Opinion with them, touching Predestination; which Subject at that time was very hotly disputed and controverted amongst the Prelates of France. Agobard Archbishop of the same place, hath mightily inveighed against him in a Book which he composed against Amalarius his four Books of Ecclesiastical Offices. 
Ago●ard. count. Amalar. index Chronolog. 〈◊〉. Pat. in author. 9 secul. & ma●usc. Flori.  He was no better treated by Florus, Deacon of the same Church, in a Book which he wrote expressly against him; where he denies, amongst other things, what Amalarius had said of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ, de triformi Corpore Christi: an expression which also escaped not the Censure of Paschas Radbert; who gives this intimation at the end of his Letter to Frudegard: Fellow not the fooleries of the Tripartite Body of Jesus Christ. De Tripartito Christi Corpore. But as men are always men, and that they but too much suffer themselves to be lead by their Passions, it would not be just to judge of the Merits of Amalarius by the Testimony of his Enemies; for, not to insist upon what is said in the Manuscripts alalledged by Dom Luke d'Achery, in the Preface , he is qualified with the Title of a Man most learned. And those which after him have written of Divine Offices, mention him with honour and great commendation. Two things may inform us in what esteem he was; The first is, in that he was by the Emperor Lewis the Debonair sent unto Pope Gregory, to search for Antiphonaries; 
Amalar. in Prologue. Antiphon.  as he testifies himself in the Preface of his Book of the Order of the Antiphonary. The second is, That the same Emperor having assembled a Council at Aaix la Chapel, Anno 816. he ordered a Rule to be made for prebend's, drawn out of the Writings of the holy Fathers; that the prebend's should conform unto it, as the Friars did unto St. Bennets. And it was this Amalarius that, by Order of this Prince, composed this Book; as is testified by Ademar, a Friar of Angoulesm, in his Chronicle. Whereunto may also be added, 
Ademar. in Chron. Anno 816. In Supplem. Concil. Gall. p. 110.  that the same Amalarius was chosen with Halitgarius by the Council of Paris, assembled, Anno 824. against the worshipping of Images, to present into the same Emperor the Letter written unto him by this Assembly of Prelates. And therefore it is, that in the Memoirs that Lewis the Debo●ur directed unto Jeremy Archbishop of Sens, and unto Ionas Bishop of Orleans, when he sent them to Rome, unto Pope Eugenius, upon the Subject of the Images, he thus gins; 
Tom. 2. Conc. Gall. p. 461.  The Bishops Halitgarius and Amalarius are come unto me, etc. Let us conclude then from what hath been said, that Amalarius was, in his time, in Esteem and great Consideration in Church and State. 
Amalar. de office. Eccles. l. 1. c. 1.  And now let us examine what he said of the Sacrament, directly or indirectly. After (saith he) that our Saviour had appeared according to his own pleasure unto his Disciples, whom he would have to be Witnesses of his Resurrection, he ascended up into Heaven, and became invisible unto Men; as he himself testifies: I came forth from the Father, and came into the World; and now I leave the World, and go unto the Father. Which is plainly to say, I made myself visible unto men; returning unto my Father, I shall be invisible. Although we do not see his bodily presence, yet we daily salute him in adoring of him. 
Id. de Ordine Antiphon. c. 9  And elsewhere, We cannot think of the absence of Jesus Christ without sadness. But what he is going to tell us is yet more plain and positive, 
Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 29.  because he testifies that Bread and Wine is consecrated and made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We (saith he) call Institution the Tradition which our Saviour left us, when he made the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. And to the end it should be known what he meant by the word Sacrament, he gives us this Definition of it; Sacrament, that is, a holy Sign. 
Id. l. 1. c. 15.  He saith moreover, that the Sacrament is in the stead of Jesus Christ: The Priest bows, and recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in the place of Jesus Christ. 
Id. l. 3. c. 23.  He distinguisheth what was sacrificed from Jesus Christ himself; and considers what is offered, and Jesus Christ, as two different Subjects; whereof the one serves us instead of the other; 
Id. l. 3. c. 25.  for it cannot be conceived that a person or a thing can be instead of itself. He yet goes farther, and declares expressly, that that which is offered instead of Jesus Christ is Bread and Wine; 
Id. de Offic. prafat. s●cunda.  and that this Bread and Wine are the Sacraments of his Body and Blood. The things (saith he) which are done in the Celebration of Mass, are done in the Sacrament; that is to say, in representing the Passion of our Saviour, as himself commanded us; saying, As often as ye do this, ye do it in remembrance of me. Therefore the Priest which sacrificeth the Bread, the Wine and Water, doth it as a Sacrament of Jesus Christ (that is, in the place of Jesus Christ, and represents him) the Bread, the Wine, and the Water in the Sacrament of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Sacraments should have some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments. Let the Priest then be like Jesus Christ, as the Bread and the Liquor is like the Body of Jesus Christ. These words are easy to be understood, and need no Commentary; because every body may perceive, without help of others, that Amalarius considers the Act of the Sacrament as a mysterious Representation; where the Priest celebrating, is in the place of Jesus Christ; the Bread, Wine and Water instead of his Body and Blood, and will have a Relation of Resemblance to be betwixt these things, and those whereof they be Sacraments; which according to some, is plainly contrary unto the Identity taught by Paschas. 
Id. de Offic. l. 3. c. 26.  The Oblation (saith he again) and the Cup do signify the Body of our Saviour. When Jesus Christ said, This is the Cup of my Blood, he signified his Blood; which Blood was in the Body, as the Wine is in the Cup. And in another place; 
Id. l. 4. c. 47. Id. l. 3. c. 25. Id. l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 34. Ibid. c. 31. Ibid. c. 35.  The Bread set forth upon the Altar signifies the Body of our Lord upon the Cross, the Wine and Water in the Cup do represent the Sacraments which flowed out of our Saviour's side upon the Cross. He calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine; and saith, That Jesus Christ in the Bread recommended his Body, and his Blood in the Cup. And with Bede, that the Apostle recommends the Unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread. He observes the Bread is put into the Wine. 
Ibid. l. 1. c. 15.  And in the passage which gave occasion of the Censure of Paschas and of Florus, he speaks of what is received in Communicating, as of a thing broken into several pieces. In fine, he affirms that Jesus Christ did drink Wine in his Sacrament. Our Saviour said, I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine, until I drink it new with you; which the Lesson read the second Sunday after the Resurrection of our Lord, sheweth to have been done; Peter saying, Unto us who eat and drank with him after he was risen from the dead. He will have it, that this fruit of the Vine which our Saviour drank when he celebrated his Sacrament, was of the same nature with that which he drank with his Apostles after his Resurrection. But besides all these Testimonies which are commonly alleged out of the Writings of Amalarius, we have others, for which we are beholden unto Dom Luke d'Achery, a Benedictine Friar. Rantgarius Bishop of Noyon demanded of him, how he understood these words of the Institution of the Sacrament; This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament, with this Addition which is in the Canon of the Mass, The Mystery of Faith. Amalarius answers him by Letter; wherein, after having spoken unto him of the Paschal Cup, he passeth unto the Sacramental; and having alleged what St. Luke saith, 
Amalar. ad Rantgar. t. 7. Spicile. p. 166.  he adds, This Cup is in figure of my Body, wherein is the Blood which shall flow out of my side, to fulfil the old Law; and after it is shed, it shall be the New Covenant. He showeth that the Cup is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ; because, as the Wine of the Sacrament was contained in his Body, not to be poured out until his death, that he shed it on the Cross for the Salvation of Men; and in the same Letter he makes the eating the Flesh of Christ to consist in the Participation of his Death. The same Cup (saith he) is called the Mystery of Faith, 
Ibid.  because he that believes that he was redeemed by this blood, and that doth imitate his passion, is profited thereby unto Salvation and Eternal Life; which made our Saviour himself to say, If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man, nor drink his Blood, you have no life in you; that is to say, if you participate not of my passion, and if you believe not that I died for your salvation, you have no life in you. This is the constant Doctrine of St. Austin. He also testifies in the following words, that he gloried in being one of his followers: The Mystery is the Faith, 
Ibid.  as St. Austin saith in his Letter unto the Bishop Boniface, As then the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is after some sort the body of Jesus Christ; and the Sacrament of his blood, his blood; so also the Sacrament of Faith, is Faith; so we may also say, This is the Cup of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament; as if he should say, This is my Blood which is given for you: he could not say more plainly, That the Cup, that is the Wine which is in the Cup, is the Blood of Jesus Christ; as the Sacrament is the thing whereof it is the Sacrament. And in another Letter unto one Guntard, whom he calls his Son; and that he was something dissatisfied, because Amalarius did spit presently after having received the Sacrament, he saith unto him, 
Id. ad Guntard. Ep. 6. p. 196.  that he denied not, but that we should venerate the Body of Jesus Christ above all other Food: It is not at all likely he would have spoken after this manner, if he had believed that what is received in the Sacrament, is the very Body of Jesus Christ, because there can be no comparison betwixt this Divine Body, and our Ordinary Food; but he might well say so of the Sacrament, for the which we should have a more peculiar respect and veneration, than for our other meats; He explains himself and showeth, that he speaks not of the real Body of Jesus Christ, but of his Typical Body, when he saith, That it belongs to our Lord to pour out his Body by the Members and Veins for our Eternal Salvation; 
Ibid. p. 171.  That it is the Body of Jesus Christ which may be cast out in spitting after having received it, and whereof some part may be cast out of the mouth. Unto all which he adds, Having so received the Body of Christ with a good intention, I don't intent to argue whether it be invisibly lifted up unto Heaven, or whether it remains in our bodies until the day of our Death; or whether it be exhaled into the Air, or whether it departs out of the body with the blood, or whether it goes out at the pores; our Saviour saying, 
Ibid. p. 172.  Whatsoever enters in at the Mouth goes into the Belly, and from thence into the draft; only care is to be taken, not to receive it with a heart of Judas, not to misprise it, but to distinguish it savingly from ordinary Food. Thence it is that he requires, That during Lent all Believers, 
Id. de observatione Quadrages. p. 174.  excepting such as are Excommunicated, should receive the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jes● Christ; and that the people should be warned not to draw near the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ irreverently. I know not, saith the Protestant, if after all these Declarations, it can be doubted that Amalarius was far from the Opinion of Paschas; 
Id. de offic. l. 3. c. 24. Ibid. c. 25.  and that when he saith, We believe that the plain Nature of Bread and Wine mixed, is changed into a reasonable Nature of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, That the Church believes it is the body and blood of our Saviour; and that by this Morsel, the Souls of Communicants are filled with a heavenly Benediction; (which are passages alleged by the Latins to support their Doctrine.) He meant not that they passed, or as Rabanus told us, that they are converted into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood: And to say the truth, adds he, I find he hath so fully explained and cleared his intention, that it must be concluded, that he believed the Sacrament is, not the Flesh itself born of the Virgin, as Paschas taught, but the Sacrament of this holy Flesh, the Bread and Wine by sanctification passing into this Divine Sacrament; as he said of the Oil the People offered, 
Ibid. l. 1. c. 12.  That by benediction, it is converted into a Sacrament: Therefore he gives us to understand, that this Sacrament which we receive, and that he calls the Body of Jesus Christ, because of some likeness, as he explained himself by the words of St. Austin, is subject unto divers accidents, whereto the real Body of Jesus Christ cannot be exposed, particularly of going into the place of Excrements like other Meats. Let the Reader judge, if he please, of this Dispute and Controversy.  
Unto Rabanus and Amalarius, I will join Wallafridus Strabo, who in all probability wrote his Book of Ecclesiastical matters betwixt the years 840. and 849. 
In Poemate.  which was the time of his Decease. In that he calls Rabanus his Father and Master, it may give cause to conceive that he was of one Judgement with him; but because mere surmises are not sufficient proof nor convincing Arguments; 
Walafri. Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccles. c. 16. Bibl. p. 7. t. 10.  let us learn from his own mouth what he believed of the Mystery which we examine. Jesus Christ (saith he) gave to his Disciples the Sacraments of his body and blood in the substance of Bread and Wine, teaching them to celebrate it in Commemoration of his most holy passion, because there could nothing be found more fitting then these species, to signify the Unity of the head and his members; for as the Bread is made of several Grains, and is reduced into one body by means of Water; and as the Wine is pressed from several Grapes, so also the body of Jesus Christ is made of the Union of a multitude of believers. And a little after he declares, That Jesus Christ hath chosen for us a reasonable Sacrifice for the Mystery of his body and of his blood; in that Melchisedek having offered Bread and Wine, he gave unto believers the same kind of sacrifice. And again, That as for that great number of legal sacrifices, 
Id. cap. 18.  Jesus Christ gave us the Word of his Gospel; so also for that great diversity of sacrifices, believers should rest satisfied with the Oblation of Bread and Wine. As all these passages are exceeding clear, so it is very just and reasonable they should serve for a Commentary unto others, if it had happened that Wallafridus had spoken less clear any where else; for than should that judicious rule of Tertullias be practised, That the plainest things should prevail, 
Tertull. de Resurrect. carn. c. 19 & 21.  and that the most certain should prescribe against the uncertain; things which are doubtful should be judged by those things which are certain, and those which are obscure, by those which are clear and manifest. Let us apply this unto what Wallafridus saith in another place, which the Latins forget 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 Virtue, 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 Virtue; because they are indeed accompanied with the Virtue 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, entitled, Of the virtue 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 itself 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 Judgement. 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 Lions, in behalf of Guenilo Archbishop of Sans, and of Count Gerrard in speaking of Jesus Christ, 
Lupus Ferrati●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 rendered 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 situated 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 Aeneas, 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 Aeneas is extremely 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 Precedent Mauguin, speaking of him, said, 
Mauguin. dissertat. Hist. & Chron. c. 17. t. 2. p. 133. 135.  that he was a learned Doctor of the Church, Non levis Armaturae in Ecclesia Christi Militem: Eminent in Probity, and in Doctrine; an undaunted and powerful Defender and Protector of the Catholic Verity, against Innovators. It was this Ratramn, whom Charles the Bald consulted upon the Mystery of the Sacrament, to be informed by him what was the true Opinion of the Church; and who by his Order, wrote the little Treatise, Of the Body and Blood of our Saviour: The Destiny whereof was more favourable than that of John Erigenius' Book, which is destroyed, whereas the other is still in Being. 
Ep. ad Dom. Luc. d'Achery t. 2. Spicileg. praes.  I know the late Monsieur de Marca said, that the Book of John Erigenius, and that of Bertram, or Ratramn, was but one and the same thing; and that the true Author of it was John Erigenius, who having concealed his Name, cloaked it under that of Bertram; but in truth, nothing can be seen weaker than the Conjecture of this illustrious Prelate. I have often admired that so learned and understanding a person as Monsieur de Marca should have such a thought: for if he had taken the pains to have compared this little Treatise whereof we speak, with the other Works of Ratramn, and with what remains unto us of John Erigenius', he would never have gone about to have taken it from the one, to have given it unto the other; because the Style is wholly Ratramns, and is nothing like unto that of Joh. Scot: for the saying that Berengarius frequently made mention of John Scot, and that he made no mention of Ratramn, is to say nothing to the purpose; for it may be, that Berengarius might speak of him, and that it might not come unto our knowledge; or if he did not speak of him, it might be because Bertrams Book was not come to his hands, as that of John Erigenius' was. Doth it not very often come to pass that small Treatises, as that of Ratramns was, do at first make a great noise, but a hundred or two hundred years after, they are, as it were, buried in Oblivion, that scarce any hath knowledge of them. And who knows but the same fate may one day befall the great and famous Works of this illustrious Archbishop; I mean, his eight Books of the Privileges of the Gallican Church. This great Man adds the Testimony of Ascelin; who making Answer unto a Letter of Berengarius, doth make mention of an Interpretation given by John Erigenius unto some passages of Gregory the First, very agreeable unto that which Ratramn also gives them; and from thence infers, to confirm his Hypothesis, that the Book of Ratramn and of John Erigenius was but one and the same Book, and composed by this latter. But let me again take the liberty to say, that this is no solid Reason. John Erigenius and Ratramn disputed against one and the same Adversary, they both pleaded the same Cause; wherefore then might they not employ the like Arguments, and explain after the same manner the words of Gregory, now spoken of. And to say the truth, if the reasoning of Monsieur de Marca should be admitted, it would follow, that Tertullian and St. Austin should be but one and the same Author, seeing they both writ, and almost in the same Terms, that Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples the Figure of his Body. And that moreover, it doth not appear that the Explication of John Erigenius is whole and entire word for word in Ratramn: It is concerning these words of the ancient Latin Liturgy; We beseech thee, O Lord, that thy Sacraments may accomplish in us what they contain; to the end we may receive in substance what we now perform in appearance. Ascelin, upon whose Testimony this learned Prelate doth rely, makes John Erigenius say, Specie, inquit, geruntur ista, non veritate: But the words found in Ratramn are; Dicit quod in specie, gerantur ista, non in veritate. See here already some difference in the Construction, and in the Terms. Besides, we know not if John Erigenius joined unto his words this Paraphrase, which Ratramn joined unto his; Id est per similitudinem, non per ipsius rei manifestationem; that is to say, by resemblance, and not by manifestation of the thing itself. It cannot then be said for certain, that the Explication of John Erigenius is to be found verbatim in Bertram: for although they agree both as to the Ground of the Explication, and that in substance they expressed themselves alike; nevertheless, it cannot be denied but that there was some difference in their Expressions. I am very sorry that this illustrious Prelate had not always followed the truth, and that it was his fortune sometimes to run against the constant Current and Truth of History; as when he pretends to vindicate Pope honorius from being tainted with the Heresy of the Monothelites, when he would make the Foundation of Churches in France to be ancienter than indeed it is, when he undertook to derive the Institution of Archipresbyters from the Will and good Liking of Bishops of Cities, and other things, which it may be, may some time or other be enquired into. And to conclude, that the Books of Ratramn, and of John Erigenius should be but one and the same Book, against the truth of History.  
Cardinal Baronius said very well, 
Baron. Annal. Eccles. num. 12.  That one ought to make light of what a new Writer doth relate of ancient Transactions, if he be not countenanced by the Authority of some elder than himself. Of much greater reason than should he be rejected, when he directly opposeth the Testimony of the Ancients. Here is a Question of a matter in the IX Century, viz. whether Ratramn wrote against Paschas: Monsieur de Marca denies it. Is it just to believe him before a Writer of that Age, and which was a favourer of Paschas; and whose Interest it was, by consequence, to have suppressed the Works of Ratramn? I mean the Anonymous writer, of whom we have formerly made mention. Paschas Radbert, saith he, 
Anonym apud Cellot ubi supra.  abbot of Corby, affirms, under the name of St. Ambrose, that it is no other flesh which is received at the Altar, but that which was born of the Virgin Mary, and which suffered on the Cross, that is risen from the Dead, and which is at this day offered for the Life of the World. Rabanus in his Letter unto Egilon, and one Ratramn, in a Book which he composed, and dedicated unto King Charles (that is to say, Charles the Bald) do sufficiently argue against him. Unto this Testimony may be joined that of Sigibert in the XI Century, and of Trythemius in the XV. besides the Witnesses of several written Manuscripts. And after all this, conclude that the Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ, which we have under the name of Ratramn, is truly his; and that it was published in the time of Charles the Bald, by whose Command he wrote it. Father Cellot the Jesuit never made any difficulty of this matter, freely attributing unto Ratramn the little Treatise whereof we speak; and proving by a long Dispute, that he was the Forerunner of Berengarius, and of Calvin: and that he openly taught, that the Eucharist is not the real Body of Jesus Christ; which he confirms by the Authority of persons most learned in the Communion of the Latins; alain, Despans, de Saints, du Perron, Clement the Eighth; which all have had this same Opinion of Bertram, and of his Book. He observes that Cardinal Bellarmin doth rank him amongst those which have disputed whether the Eucharist is the real Body of Jesus Christ, and that it was justly put in the Index of prohibited Books, according to the intention of the Council of Trent. As for Sixtus de Sienna, he found it so contrary unto the Belief of the Latin Church, that he took it to be some of the Works of Oecolompadius, which the Protestants published in the name of Ratramn.  
It is commonly said, that second thoughts are better than the first; but Monsieur de Marca seems to go about to give the Lie unto this Maxim by his Conduct: for in this French Treatise of the Eucharist, a little before mentioned, and which he had composed before what we but now examined of his, he very judiciously attributes unto Bertram this little Treatise of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and saith, That he was consulted on this matter by Charles the Bald: This is that whereto he should have held, and not to change his Opinion without any solid Ground. And it ought not to be said with some, that Bertram, who was a Friar in an Abbey whereof Paschas was Abbot, durst not therefore write against him: for in the first place, who told those persons that Bertram was yet a Friar in the Monastery of Gorby when he wrote against Paschas, when probably he was Abbot of Orbais, and no way depending upon Paschas. And for my part, I find much more likelihood of the last, than of the former. In the second place, Wherefore is it that Ratramn should not dare to write against what Paschas writ touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist, seeing he feared not in other things directly to oppose one of the necessary Consequences of Paschas his Opinion, and plainly to call it Heresy; as we have fully made it appear in the 13th Chapter of the second Part of this History.  
It may then boldly and without danger be affirmed, after the testimony of so many Learned Men of the Communion of Rome, that Ratramn was an Adversary unto Paschas: But to make this truth appear in its full lustre, it is requisite to allege some passages of this small Treatise, after having showed, that all therein amounted to prove two things; one is, That the Mystery of the Eucharist is a Figure, and not the thing itself; and the other, That 'tis not the same Body which is born of the Virgin Mary, as Paschas did teach it was: In fine, having first of all said unto Charles the Bald, 
Bertram de corp. & sanguine Dom.  That there being nothing better becoming his Royal Wisdom, then to have a Catholic Opinion of the sacred Mysteries, and not to suffer that his Subjects should be of different Judgements touching the Body of Jesus Christ, wherein we know is the Abridgement of Christian Religion, he proposed two questions wherein the King desired to be resolved: 1. Whether the body and blood of Jesus Christ which Christians do receive with the mouth, be made in mystery or in reality? And 2. Whether it be the same Body which was born of the Virgin, that suffered, died, risen again, ascended into Heaven, and is set down at the right hand of God the Father? Paschas taught, That it was the same Flesh as was born of the holy Virgin; and his Adversaries on the contrary, That it was the Figure, and the Sacrament, and not the real Flesh.  
If then Ratramn taught, That the Eucharist is the Figure, and the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, and not the very Flesh itself, of necessity it must be concluded, that he directly opposed the Opinion of Paschas, according to the Declaration made us by the Anonymous Author. 
Id. Ibid.  As to what regards the first question, see here how it is resolved: I demand (saith he) of those that will not here admit of a Figure, and that will have all to be taken simply, and in reality; I say, I would ask of them to what purpose was the change made, that it should no longer be Bread and Wine, as it was before, but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; for according to the bodily appearance, and the visible form of things, the Bread and Wine have no change in them; and if they have suffered no change, than they be nothing else but what they were before. And a little after, 
Ibid.  there offers here a question, which is made by several, saying, That these things are made in Figure, and not in reality; and so saying, they show themselves contrary to the Writings of the Holy Fathers. And after having alleged two passages of St. Austin, one of the third Book of Christian Doctrine, and the other of the Epistle unto Boniface, he concludes, We find that St. Austin saith, 
Ibid.  That the Sacraments are other things than that whereof they be Sacraments; the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered, and the Blood which flowed out of his Side, are the things; but the Mysteries of these things are the Sacraments of this Body and of this Blood, which are celebrated in remembrance of the Death of our Saviour, not only once a year at the Solemnity of Easter, but also every day. And although there is but one Body wherein our Saviour suffered, and one Blood which he shed for the sins of the World; nevertheless, the Sacraments take the name of the things whereof they be Sacraments, and are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, by reason of the resemblance they have with the things which they represent; as the Death and Resurrection of our Lord, which are celebrated yearly on certain days, although he suffered and risen but once in himself. Those days cannot be brought back again, seeing they are passed; but the days whereon the Commemoration of the Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour is made, are called by their names, because of the resemblance they have with those whereon our Saviour suffered and risen again, In like manner, we say our Saviour is sacrificed, when the Sacraments of his Passion is celebrated, although he suffered but once in himself for the Salvation of the World. He saith moreover, 
Ibid.  that those which believe the reality, make a true confession, when they say, That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but that they deny what they seem to affirm, and that they themselves destroy what they believe; for when they say so (saith he) they acknowledge that it is not what it was before; 
Ibid.  and that the Bread and the Wine have been changed: Now we see there is no corporal change passed; they must then of necessity confess the change is passed in some other regard, than in respect of the Bodies; from whence he concludes, That they must be constrained to deny, 
Ibid.  either that it is the Body or Blood of Jesus Christ, which is not to be permitted to say, nor even to think; or, if they confess that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, seeing that cannot be, without there was a change for the better, that this change is passed Corporally. Then it follows, that it is passed Spiritually, that is to say, 
Ibid.  Figuratively; inasmuch as the Spiritual body, and the Spiritual blood of Jesus Christ, is under the Veil of bodily Bread and corporal Wine. And to inform us clearly of his intention, he adds, It is not that two several things exist in the Sacrament, one whereof is Corporal, and the other Spiritual, no, but it is one and the same thing, that in one regard, is the Element of Bread and Wine; and in another regard is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; 
Ibid.  for in regard of what we touch Corporally, they be the Elements, or bodily Creatures; but in regard of what they were made Spiritually, they be the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. He also affirms, That what we receive outwardly in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, is proper to nourish the Body.  
And from thence, passing to the Examination of the second Question, to wit, 
Ibid.  whether that which Believers do receive with the mouth daily in the Church by the Mystery of the Sacraments, be the same Body that was born of the Virgin Mary, that suffered, and was buried, and which sitteth on the Right Hand of God: He thus explains himself; These Creatures, in regard of their substance, 
Ibid.  are after Consecration, the same they were before; they were Bread and Wine, and it is visible that they remain in the same kind, although they be consecrated. The Change then which passes here by the power of the Holy Ghost, is internal; what Faith beholds, doth nourish the Soul, and communicates unto it the substance of Life eternal. And again, 
Ibid.  The Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified, was made of the Flesh of the Virgin Mary, composed of Bones and Sinews, divided by the Lineaments of Members, furnished with a reasonable Soul, from which it received life and motion: But as for the spiritual Flesh, which spiritually feedeth the faithful people; it is made according to what it is outwardly, of Grains of Wheat, by the hands of the Baker; without Bones and Nerves, without diversity of Members, without a reasonable Soul, or exercising any Life or Motion; for all that is in it which communicates Life unto us, proceeds from a spiritual Virtue, from an invisible Efficacy, and from a divine Benediction. Therefore it is quite another thing in regard of what appears outwardly, from what is believed of the Mystery; whereas the Flesh of Jesus Christ which was crucified, is not inwardly what it appears to be outwardly, because it is the Flesh of a real Man, and by consequence a true Body, existing in the form of a true Body. It must also be considered, that the Body of Jesus Christ is not alone represented in this Bread, but that the Body of the faithful people is therein figured also. Therefore it is that the Bread is made of divers Grains, because the Body of the people is composed of many Believers; and as the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ mystically, the numbers of the people which believe in Jesus Christ are therein also represented mystically: and as this Bread is the Body of Believers, not corporally, but spiritually; it is also necessary to understand the Body of Jesus Christ, not corporally, but spiritually. So also it is commanded to mingle Water with the Wine, which is called the Blood of Jesus Christ; and it is not permitted to offer the one without the other, because the People cannot be without Jesus Christ, nor Jesus Christ without the People; as the Head cannot subsist without the Members, nor the Members without the Head: and the Water in this Sacrament bears the Image of the People. If this Wine, sanctified by the Ministry of Priests, were corporally changed into the Blood of Christ, it would be necessary that the Water, which is therein also mingled, should be corporally changed into the Blood of faithful Believers; for where there is one and the same Sanctification, there must be also of necessity, one Operation; and where this is one and the same reason, there will also be one and the same Mystery. Now we see there is no Change made in the Water according to the Body; therefore by consequence it must follow, that there is no bodily Change made in the Wine. All that is signified by the Water, in regard of the Body of the People, is taken spiritually; all than that is signified by the Wine, in reference to the Blood of Jesus Christ, ought necessarily to be understood spiritually. Besides, the things which do differ in themselves are not one and the same things: The Body of Jesus Christ which suffered, and is risen again, was made immortal, and dieth no more; Death hath no more Dominion over him; he is eternal, and cannot die: Now this Body which is celebrated in the Church is temporal, and not eternal; corruptible, and not incorruptible; it is in the way, and not in the Country: they do then differ, therefore they be not the same; then if they be not the same, how is it that they call them the real Body of Jesus Christ, and his real Blood? For if it be the Body of Jesus Christ, and that one may truly say so, the Body of Jesus Christ being incorruptible, impassable, and by consequence eternal. It must necessarily follow, that this Body of Jesus Christ which is made in the Church should be incorruptible and eternal: but it cannot be denied but that it is corruptible, because being broken in pieces, it is divided unto Believers, which receive it; and being eaten with the Teeth, it is swallowed down, and goeth into the Belly. What we do exteriorly is then another thing from what we believe by Faith; what regards the sense of the Body is corruptible, but what is believed by Faith is incorruptible. What appears outwardly is not the thing itself, but the Image of the thing; and what the heart feeleth and understandeth, is the reality of the thing.  
In fine; for the whole Book must be transcribed, if all should be alleged that makes directly contrary unto the Doctrine of Paschas; 
Ibid.  he thus concludes the whole Treatise; Let your Wisdom consider, illustrious Prince, that we have very clearly proved by the Testimony of the holy Scripture, and by Passages of the holy Fathers, that the Bread which is called the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Cup which is called his Blood, are Figures, because a Sacrament; and that there is a great difference betwixt the Body which is by Mystery, and the Body which suffered, which was buried, and risen again: This here is the real Body of our Saviour, where there is neither Figure nor Signification; but the evidence of the thing itself is present. The Faithful desire to behold him because he is our Head, and because that in his sight consists the joy of our Souls; for the Father and him are but one: which is to be understood, not in regard of the Body which our Lord hath assumed, but in regard of the fullness of the Divinity which inhabits in Jesus Christ God-man; but the mystical Body is a Figure, not only of the true Body of Jesus Christ, but also of the believing People; for it bears the Figure both of the one and the other Body of Jesus Christ; that is to say, of Jesus Christ himself, which was crucified, and is risen again; and of the People which are born again in Jesus Christ by Baptism, and was raised from the Dead. Unto which may be added, that this Bread and this Cup, which are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, are a Memorial of the Death and Sufferings of our Saviour, as himself hath declared in the Gospel, saying, Do this in remembrance of me: which St. Paul expounds after this manner; As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink of this cup, you show forth the death of the Lord until he come. It is then our Saviour, and St. Paul which teach us, that this Bread and Cup that are set upon the Altar, are there laid as a Figure, or Memorial of the death of our Saviour.  
And as Ratramn opposed himself directly against the Opinion of Paschas, so he also refuted the Consequence of this Belief, by opposing in his Book of the Birth of Jesus Christ, what Paschas had written of the Delivery of the blessed Virgin. For in this little Treatise he positively affirms the Locality, or the Inclusion of the Body of Jesus Christ within the bounds of the place which it occupieth; whereas the Hypothesis of his Adversary imported, that it could be in several places at the same time. 
In Spicil. d'Acher. t. 1. p. 333  In holding these things, saith he, you wickedly utter a kind of Novelty, to cry, that there was nothing could hinder our Saviour that he should not be born, because no Creature could resist the Creator; but that all things that do subsist, are open and penetrable unto him. Whilst you judge so, you judge very prudently; but when by this rule you go about to subject the beginnings of the Birth of Jesus Christ, you plainly dogmatise, as to what regards his Power: but as to what regards the property of the Body which he hath taken, and his Humane Birth, you stray very far from the way of Truth; for there is nothing firm, nothing that is not penetrable unto the Power of the Will of Jesus Christ. But as for the Humanity which he hath taken, it was enclosed and shut up in the Virgin's Womb; that during the time it remained there, it was not elsewhere: but in a short time it left the Abode of the Virgin's Womb, and went forth, and returned no more thither. What is it that he hath showed by this change of place, if it be not, that though he be omnipresent by the propriety of his Divinity, he was but in one place according to the circumscription of his Body? That that which is local, as it is not always every where, but it goes unto one place when it leaves the other: so also also when he goeth from one place to another, he at the same time is not at the right hand and at the left; neither walketh he before and behind, nor above and below. So also the Saviour, as he was at one time in the Womb of the Virgin, according to the Flesh, and at another time he was out of it; so in going out, though nothing could stop him when he would come out, nevertheless he made use only of one way for his coming forth; and he issued not out by all the parts of the body wherein he had been form. I will not here say any thing of certain Sterconaristes, which some pretend to have been opposed by Ratramn, and not by Paschas: Others say, he was one of this Sect himself; and others, in fine, That in disputing against it, he varied from the true Sentiments of the Church; because we will treat of it in examining the Testimony of Heribold.  
To continue the Course of my History, I come to John Erigenius, the other Doctor which the Emperor Charles the Bald consulted, and whom he commanded to write upon the same Subject. He had a singular esteem for him, and lived so familiarly with him, that some Historians have assured, that he made him eat with him at his own Table, and lie in his own Bedchamber. I am not ignorant how unworthily he was treated by Remy Archbishop of Lions, and by the Deacon Florus; and that Prudens Bishop of Troy's, and the Council of Valentia did censure some Errors that appeared in some of his Books upon the Subject of Predestination. Neither would I undertake to defend all his Expressions and Philosophical Notions about the state of the Blessed, and of the Damned; neither can I but confess, that the Pen of his Adversaries have been steeped in too smart Liquor, to tear the Reputation of this Man, unto whom Historians give great Commendations; 
Gulicl. Malms. de gestis Reg. Angl. l. 2. c. 5. Apud Usser. in Sylloge Ep. Hibernic. Ep. 24. & de Christian. Ecclesiar. success. c. 2.  dignifying him with these two glorious Titles, of most Learned, and most holy. William of Malmesbury assures us, That he was a very wise Man, and very eloquent; that he translated out of Greek into Latin, at the desire of Charles the Bald, the Hierarchy of Dennis the Arcopagite. A Translation so acceptable to Anastatius, Library-keeper unto the Popes, that he wrote a Letter unto King Charles which was inserted in the Preface of this Translation; wherein, after having admired that a Man born in one of the remotest parts of the World, that is, in Ireland, should be capable of comprehending, and of rendering this Hierarchy into Latin, he adds, That he had heard he was a Saint: concluding, that it was the work of the Spirit of God, which had made him as zealous as he was eloquent. Also the fame of his Learning made him be sent for by Alfred, King of England; where he died, Anno 883. or 84. in the Monastery of Malmesbury, having received several Wounds by Penknives from young Men that he instructed. The Writers also of England observe, that having been buried without much honour in the Church where he had been slain, there shined a miraculous Light several nights upon his Grave; which made the Friars transport him into the great Church, and to inter him more honourably near the Altar, with this Epitaph, which is to be seen in the History of William of Malmesbury: 
Guliel. Malms. l. 2. c. 5.  Here lieth John the holy Philosopher, who in his life was enriched with marvellous Learning, and who at last had the honour to ascend by Martyrdom unto the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, where the Saints reign everlastingly.  
The same Historian said in the same place, He was esteemed a Martyr; which I do not say by way of doubt, to do wrong unto this holy Soul. And after his death, he was put into the Catalogue of Saints; for Thomas Fuller in his Ecclesiastical History of England, saith, that he was accounted a Martyr of Jesus Christ; 
Histor. Eccles. Angl. l. 2. p. 119.  and that his Anniversary Commemoration was celebrated the 4th of the Ideses of November, in the Martyrology printed at Antwerp, Anno 1586. by the Command of Gregory the Thirteenth. He adds, That it was Baronius that put him out of the Martyrology out of hatred, because he had written against the Real Presence; alleging upon this Subject, Henry Fitz Simond. in 2. Edit. Catal. S.S. Hibern. who defends the Action of Baronius; and saith, That there was preparing, even in his time, an Apology for justifying this Proceeding.  
Bishop Usher also testifieth, That in the Catalogue of Saints buried in England, drawn out of ancient English Monuments, 
Usser. de Eccl. Christian success. & statu. c. 20.  by a Friar of Canterbury, in the time of Anselm; that is, in the beginning of the XII. Century, there are these words; St. Adelm and John the Wise are recorded to be laid in the place called Adelmisbirig; that is to say, Malmesbury. Molanus, Professor of Divinity in the University of Louvain, hath left this in Writing in his Appendix in the Martyrology of Ussuard. John Erigenius, Martyr, 
Molan. Appen. ad Usuard. littera l.  translated the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dennis. He was afterwards, by the Command of the Popes, put in the number of the Martyrs of Jesus Christ: Hector Deidonat, in his History of Scotland. Which words have been inserted in the Appendix of the Martyrology of the Gallican Church, which was left us by the Bishop of Thoul; having recorded in the Supplement at the 4th of the Ideses of November, the Commemoration which is made of St. John Surnamed Erigenius, Martyr; killed at Malmesbury by some young Debauchees.  
See here exactly what the Man was that wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald, as Ratramn also did; as we are given to understand, by a Letter of Berengarius, written unto one Richard, who had some Access unto King Philip. In this Letter printed some years past, by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery, he desires him to speak for him unto this Prince; to the end he would be pleased to repair by his Liberality, the Losses and Damages which he had unjustly sustained. After which he adds, 
Epistola Berengarii ad Richard. t. 2. Spicil. p. 510.  If he doth not do it, yet nevertheless, I shall be ready to prove by the Scriptures unto his Majesty, and those whom he shall appoint; and to make appear that John Erigenius was very unjustly condemned by the Council at Verceil, and Paschas very unjustly vindicated. And afterwards, To the end the King should not reject this service of my fidelity, he may know that what John Erigenius hath written, he wrote it at the desire, and by order of Charles the Great (he means the Bald) one of his Predecessors, who was as affectionate unto Religious things, as he was valiant in his Expeditions, lest the folly of ignorant and carnal men should prevail. And he commanded John, that learned Man, to collect from the Scriptures what might check this folly. Whence it follows (saith he) that the King is obliged to take up the Defence of the Deceased, against the Slanders of those alive; not to show himself unworthy of the Succession and Throne of his Illustrious Predecessors, that desired this Service of this learned Man: not to scatter Darkness over the Light of the Truth, but to inform himself carefully in the Knowledge of the holy Scriptures. Berengarius complains of the Condemnation of John at the Council of Verceil, in the year 1050. because it was there his Book was read, and condemned to be burnt, about two hundred years after he wrote it; as we are informed by Lanfranc; who owns him to be an Adversary of Paschas, whereof he was himself a great favourer. Therefore Berengarius wrote to him, 
Tereng. Ep. ad Lan●ranc.  If John, whose Judgement we approve, touching the Sacrament, be esteemed by you to be a Heretic, you must also hold for Heretics St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Austin; not to mention others. That which renders John Erigenius' Testimony the more Authentic in this Debate is, for having had four Enemies; to wit, the learned Church of Lions, Florus its Deacon, Prudens Bishop of Troy's, the Councils of Valencia and of Langres, which spared him not upon the matter of Predestination; it is very likely they would have less spared him upon the Subject of the Eucharist, had he differed from the Belief generally received in the Church, upon so important a Point as is that of the holy Sacrament.  
This truth will yet be more evident, if we consider that many do believe Prudens Bishop of Troy's, and Florus Deacon of the Church of Lions, two Enemies which his Opinion of Predestination had stirred up against him, were also opposite unto the Opinion of Paschas, so that it happened unto those People, much after the same manner as we have seen it hath done in our days unto those called Jansenists and Molinists; for however they be divided in the matters of Predestination and free Grace, yet nevertheless, both the one and the other still retain the great point of the real presence of the Latin Church: so although Prudens and Florus did censure what John wrote of Predestination, yet for all that they were well agreed as to what concerned the Sacrament; Prudens indeed hath writ nothing, or at least there is nothing of his come unto our knowledge. But the Archbishop Hincmar, suffers us not to be ignorant of what Prudens believed, when joining him with John Erigenius; against whom, nevertheless, he observes he wrote upon the Subject of Predestination; he saith, that they both held, 
Hinemar. de praedest. cap 31.  That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real Body and the real Blood of our Saviour, but only the memorial of his true Body and Blood: And when I speak of Prudens, I speak of one of the greatest Ornaments of his Age in Piety and Learning; and of a Man, whose memory is Annually Honoured with great Solemnity: I shall content myself with relating the character which the Bishop of Thoul gives of him in the Martyrology of France the 6th day of April, 
Martyrol. Gallican. Andr du Saussay. 5. Id. April  At. Troy's is solemnised 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 Troy's, whither he had retired himself, and had given proofs of his Virtue 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 Lions, who in this Explication is sty●●● Master Florus; for Trithemius attributes this little Treatise whereof we speak, unto one Florus, a Benedictine Friar in the Abbey 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 Lions under Lewis the Debonair, Son of Charles the Bald, wrote against Amalarius. 
Vid. Flor. Bibl. Patr. t. 6. edit. ult. p. 171. unde Eccles. etc. 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 gathered 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 quickening 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, etc. 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 Lions, 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 Protestant's 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 Lions, 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 looked upon by many, as the faith of a Man that approves very well of Expurgatory Indices, 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 Indices, 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 Lions publicly 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 men's 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 show 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 Licence 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 'tis said, makes void Sixtus his Accusation against the Lutheran Printer, who acted like an honest Man; and showeth, 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 shattered 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 rejoiceth the heart, and increaseth blood; therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ; because all that cometh from him rejoiceth 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 signify that the Bread of the Eucharist is not really the Body of Jesus Christ, but only the Sacrament of it. Therefore he showeth 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 show, that the spiritual Change whereof he speaks is a Change of Use and of Virtue; 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 Virtue, 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 departed 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 of 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 Charlemagne 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 Charlemagne; the Annals of Fulda, Herman Contract, and others do testify. This Ahyto, who departed this Life, Anno 836. left a Capitulary, for the Instruction of the Priests of his Diocese, 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 join 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 virtue and efficacy of his Body broken, and of his Blood poured forth. According to which he order in his Capitulary, Every Lord's 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 Lions, who lived in the same Century; and who in the year 834. was of the number of the Prelates, which joining with the Children against the Father, deprived Lewis the Debonair of Crown and Sceptre; it is easy 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, 'tis to be observed, that Amalarius, of whom we have insisted already, had found something amiss in the Service of the Church of Lions, which so offended Agobard, that he wrote a Book on purpose against the four Books of Amalarius touching Ecclesiastical things: And he writes it with so high a resentment, that Father Chifflet could have wished he had wrote with more moderation; And that he had dipped his pen, 
Ep. ad Baluzium Agobardo praefixa.  after the example of his Predecessors, in the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb without spot, truly meek and humble in Spirit. It is then very probable, that in the humour Agobard was, against Amalarius, he suffered nothing to pass unreproved, except what he thought not fit to be censured, and which he approved of himself: And indeed by reading his Book, it will plainly appear with what exactness he examines all that dropped from the Pen of his Adversary: Now 'tis most certain, he censured not any of the passages which we alleged for proving that Amalarius was contrary to the Opinion of Paschas; can it be believed this Man, so full of anger and revenge, and who wrote not his Book, but to censure those of Amalarius, and yet touched not any of the testimonies whereof we speak; if the belief of Amalarius had not been the belief of the Church, or if Agobard had not been of the same Opinion he was, on the subject of the Eucharist, how could it possible be, but that he would have censured what Amalarius said. How could he have slipped so fair an occasion to have discredited his Adversary, as a Man that prevaricated from the belief of the Church upon one of the Capital Articles of our Religion; but further, he alleges these words of Amalarius, which we before cited, The Bread set upon the Altar, represents the Body of our Saviour spread upon the Cross; the Wine and Water in the Cup, do show the Sacraments which did flow from the side of our Saviour upon the Cross: 
Agobard. advers. Annal. cap. 21. p. 119.  but he doth not there apply one word of censure. What can be inferred from this conduct, but that they were both agreed upon this point? Now if from the consideration of his silence, we proceed to that of his words, it is said, we shall be confirmed in the belief of what hath been said; for he testifies, 
Ibid. c. 13. p. 115.  That as there is but one Altar of the Church, so also there is one bread of the Body of Jesus Christ, and one sole Cup of his Blood. He distinguisheth the Bread from the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Cup from his Blood; as he distinguisheth the Altar from the Church where it is. Moreover he declares, 
Ibid.  That the Church consecrating by these words, (he speaks of all the words of Institution) according to the Tradition of the Apostles, the Mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord, he saith expressly, that our Saviour said unto his Disciples, Take, and Eat you all of this: Words which the Deacon Florus borrowed of him, with those that follow, as we observed not long ago, to prove, that what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to take and eat, was Bread. This is what was said of Agobard.  
We have already mentioned in the 7th Chapter of this second Part, an Assembly of Bishops of the Dioceses of Rouen and of Rhemis at Cressy, which furnished us with a Declaration of their belief; but because they wrote in this same Century, the History whereof we examine, it is just that we should here insert their testimony; David Blundel in his Exposition of the Eucharist, said in Chap. 18. That he separated not from Ratramn, and John surnamed Erigenius, the greatest part of the Bishops assembled at Cressy, anno 858. with out signifying the place where they had given marks of their belief; therefore some have thought, he had read it in some Manuscripts: Nevertheless it is certain, that he had a regard unto what we have alleged, and unto what we will produce a second time, yet in referring the Reader unto the 7th. Chapter to ponder the occasion, and the words, which be these; 
Concil. Carisiac. t. 3. Concil. Gall. p. 129. Extr.  It would be an abominable thing, if 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, that it should after promotion unto Episcopacy, meddle in any secular Oath, whatever it did before Ordination.  
The Chronicle of Mouson, which is in one of the Tomes of the Collection of Dom Luke d'Achery, makes mention of one Arnulph, and represents him unto us as a Martyr. He died, as near as can be judged, about the end of the IX. Century. And as he was at the point of death, he said unto those that were present, Favour me by your compassionate piety and help, 
Chron. Mosomens'. t. 7. Spicil. pag. 627.  that I may receive from the hands of the Priests, the Eucharist of the Communion of our Saviour. He desires to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which truly communicates unto the faithful and penitent Soul, Jesus Christ our Lord; which he plainly distinguisheth from his Sacrament, as the thing whereof we communicate, from the Instrument by means whereby we do thereof participate. He did not then believe with Paschas, that the Eucharist was the real Flesh of Jesus Christ. It is the Inference that many do make.  
In the last Chapter of the first part, we treated of the Custom of mingling the consecrated Wine with Ink; and at the end of the 8th Chapter of the Second Part, we showed the Inferences which is said, are lawfully made from it. But because of the Examples of this practice, which we have alleged, there is one of the Year 844. we will make no difficulty of joining this Testimony unto the former; yet it shall be only in the nature of a Historian which relates what passed at Tholouse, betwixt King Charles the Bald, and Bernard Count of Barcelonia, whom this Prince had sent for under pretence of being reconciled unto him; but indeed, with design to kill him. See here what the Historian saith; 
Odo Ari●ertus inedit. in notis Baluz. ad Agobard. pag. 129.  The Peace having been concluded, and interchangeably signed by the King and the Count, with the Blood of the Eucharist, Count Bernard came from Barcelonia, unto Tholouse, and cast himself at the King's feet in the Monastery of St. Saturnine, near Tholouse. The King taking him with the left hand, as it were, to lift him up, he stabbed his Dagger into his side with the other hand, and cruelly murdered him; not without being blamed for having violated Faith and Religion, nor without suspicion of Parricide; because it was generally thought, Charles was Son to Bernard, also he resembled him very much about the mouth, Nature publishing thereby the Mother's Adultery. After so cruel a death, the King descending from his Throne, reeking in blood, kicking the body with his foot, said thus; Mischief befall thee, who didst defile the Bed of my Father, and of my Lord. This Testimony is so much the more authentic, as that it is grounded upon the mixture which was made of the consecrated Wine with Ink; an action which the Christians of those times blamed not: yet it is evident that they would not have failed to condemn it as a great Crime, if they had believed that it was the real Blood of their Saviour. It is after this manner they interpret the thought of this Historian.   

CHAP. XIV.  
A Continuation of the History of the IX. Century; wherein the Dignities and Promotion of Heribold is discoursed of.  
ALthough the Testimony of good men ought alike to be considered and admitted of; nevertheless, it must be granted, that there be some persons that give greater credit unto that which they affirm; their extraordinary Merit, or the degree they are in above others, rendering it more authentic, or more worthy to be believed; which is most especially done in matters of Religion, in regard whereof, there are sometimes persons to be found, whose Depositions turn the Balance, and do much support the Opinion in whose favour they declare. I judge that Heribald, or Heribold, was of this number and quality; therefore we have reserved a whole Chapter for him, to examine in the first place, the Dignities which he enjoyed in the Church, and then his Belief upon the point of the Sacrament. As to the first Head, Heribald, or Heribold (for the Writers of that Age give him indifferently that Name) was a Bishop, a Dignity which every body knows, is very considerable; and in fine, Messieurs de St. 
Gall. Christ. t. 2. p. 269.  Martha reckon him to be the 36th Bishop of the Church of Auxerr; and do observe, that he was a person of good Quality, and very much esteemed by King Charles the Bald, in whose Reign he flourished. There is not any question to be made, but his proper Merits were the Foundation of his Credit with this Prince. 
Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 19 & 37.  Whence it is that Loup, Abbot of Ferriers, calls him, Most Excellent Prelate; and speaks of him as of a Man endowed with a sublime and divine Spirit. But besides the Dignity of Bishop, it may be collected by the 37th Letter which Loup writ unto him, that he was also Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald. It is the Induction which is made by Monsieur Baluze, unto whom we are beholden for the last Edition of the Works of Loup, Abbot of Ferriers; and certainly he doth it with great reason: for by only carefully observing this Letter, one may perceive the marks of this Dignity in the person of Heribold. In the first place, 
Lupus Ferrar. Ep. 37.  Loup represents him unto us, as being entrusted with multiplicity of Affairs that employ him continually, from which he wishes him some ease, that he might have some time to spend in reading St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Prophets, whereof he sent him a Copy before he had read it himself. I know that the Charge of Pastor and Bishop is attended with much trouble, when it is faithfully and conscientiously discharged. Nevertheless, that continual attendance, and multiplicity of business spoken of by Loup, cannot be attributed unto the Office of a Bishop. And what puts the thing out of question is, that he calls this sort of business, Public Affairs; that is to say, great and important. Business, in a word, which the chief Chaplains were wont to determine in the Prince's Palace; as we shall see, and as Monsieur Baluze has observed in his Notes upon his Letters.  
Secondly, Loup intimates this Dignity by these words; Officii clarissimus gradus; which imports an illustrious Degree, and something that is sublime and eminent. In fine, he congratulates him with the many Honours conferred upon him; Vos convenientibus cumulatos congratulor honoribus. All which things tend only to design this eminent Dignity. And if we had not this Letter of the Abbot de Ferriers, we could not doubt but Heribold was Principal Chaplain, because the History of the Bishops of Auxerr, which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father Labbe, saith so in plain terms; and speaks of him as of an eloquent, wise and circumspect person, abounding in Virtues, and full of Probity. It was this Heribold which assisted at the Council of Tours, Anno 849. But because it is not sufficient to know that Heribold was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald, unless we know wherein this high Office consisted; I hope the Reader will not be offended, if I here make some little Digression to show what the Dignity of Arch Chaplain was.  
Under the second Race of our Kings, there were two Palatine Offices; that is to say, of the Palace, and of the King's Household, which were the two chiefest Offices of the Crown: The one of which took cognizance of all things relating to spiritual matters, and the other of all things relating unto temporal matters. The first was called Principal Chaplain, Arch Palatine, Chief Chaplain, Prelate of the Sacred Palace: and the other was called Count of the Palace; very different from those Counts which were sent into the Provinces to administer Justice. Unto each of whose Jurisdiction there was commonly assigned the Extent of a Bishop's Diocese. I speak on purpose of the second Race of our Kings, because I find indeed there were Counts of the Palace under the first Race, 
Hignon. in not. ad lib. 1. Marculf. p. 288.  by what the late Monsieur Bignon said in his Notes upon Marculf; where he instanceth an Example after what manner the Kings of the first Race did judge affairs: wherein mention is made of Andobella, Count of the Palace; and of Clothair, Son of Clovis the Second, and Grandson of Dagobert. But as for Principal Chaplain, I find not any until the second Race. Now, the better to know what was the power and privileges of these two Dignities, we must consider what Adelard, near Relation of Charlemains, and Abbot of Gorby, doth inform us, in one of Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims his Letters; for he writes, that the Office of Principal Chaplain, and that of Count of the Palace, 
Hincmar. Ep. 3 c. 19 Edi. Mog.  were the two Principal Offices of the King's Household, That the former, that is to say the Apocrisary, who was called the Chief Chaplain or Governor of the Palace, had the charge, and took an account of all Ecclesiastical matters, and of all Church Officers; and the Count of the Palace, of all secular causes and things; so that neither Ecclesiastical nor secular persons, were permitted to trouble the King about their affairs, until they had first advised with these Officers, to see if their business merited to be mentioned unto the Prince; but if it was a business whereof the King should take present cognizance, they disposed the King to hear them honourably, patiently, and favourably, according to each persons quality. And speaking again of Ecclesiastical judgements, which appertained unto the Jurisdiction of the Principal Chaplain, which he designs by the word Apocrisary; He had care (saith he) of all that concerned Ecclesiastical matters, 
Ibid. c. 20.  as also of differences betwixt prebend's and Monks, and generally of all matters that were reported unto the Prince's Palace, touching the affairs of the Clergy, the King taking Cognizance only of what his chief Chaplain could not fully determine.  
And as the Count of the Palace judged of temporal matters in the Assembly of the Peers of the Realm, and of the Bishops, as appears by this ancient Formulary in Mr. Bignon's Notes above mentioned; so it is very likely, that the Arch Chaplain also judged of Ecclesiastical and Sacred things in the same Assembly; beside, that he assisted, and was present at all the Consultations and Councils which were held in the King's Court, either touching public or private matters. It's true, this Dignity was only temporary, and during the King's pleasure that bestowed it; therefore Loup Abbot of Ferriers, 
Lupus Ep. 97.  writes unto Halduin Abbot of St. Dennis, who was chief Chaplain unto Lewis the Debonair; We believe you will enjoy this Dignity for some time. And from thence he takes occasion to exhort him to use it worthily, and to do Justice: And because Bishops are determined by their Flock, where to live, and that the Popes had already acquired great power in France, Princes did in some sort desire liberty to withdraw them from their Churches, 
Concil. Franc. can. 55. t. 2. Concil. Gall.  to have them near their persons, and in their Houses, as we are informed by one of the Cannons of the Council of Francford; which also showeth us, that the permission of the Synod was as necessary thereunto, as that of the Apostolical See. In the main, This Dignity was so eminent, that if an Abbot had it, he had the precedency of Bishops; 
Baluz. in not is add Lup. p. 463. & ad Agobard p. 73. Lupus Ep. 110  as Monsieur Baluze doth prove by the Capitulary of Charles the Bald: but if a Bishop had it, he took place of Metropolitans and Archbishops, even in Councils; because this Employment was the chiefest degree of all the Palatine Dignities, that is, of the King's Household; Dignitatis Apex, it is the title given it by the Abbot de Ferriers; and that the chief Chaplain was established by God, over Sacred things, as the Church of Sans speaketh unto the Abbot Hilduin, 
T. 2. Concil. Gall. p. 650.  in the Letter she directs unto him while he was possessed of this Dignity. And there is no question, but the Bishops which were thereunto appointed by the Kings and Emperors, took Precedency of Metropolitans in Synods also, because it was in this Quality that Ebrion Bishop of Poitiers, 
Concil. Vern. in titulo. Conci. Mogun. in praefat. Lupus Ep. 110 Tom. 7. Spicil. Dacher. p. 175.  Presided at the Council of Vernon, Anno 844. Hildebald in that of Mayans, Anno 813. for although he was Archbishop of Cologne, yet it was as Prince Chaplain of the Sacred Palace; and as the Master of the Churches, to speak with Loup de Ferriers, that he there precided, and that, to the prejudice of Richolf, an Elder Archbishop; and besides, Archbishop of the place where the Council was Assembled; and Drogo Bishop of Metz, in the Assembly held at Ingleshem in the year 840. for the re-establishing of Ebo Archbishop of Rheims, not any of the Archbishops or Metropolitans thereunto gainsaying. He is there also called Chief Palatine Prelate: yet I will not deny but I have observed, that Joseph Bishop of jury, Chief Chaplain of the Emperor Lewis the Second, Son of Lothair, and Grandchild to Lewis the Debonair, subscribed after the Envoy of the Archbishop of Ravenna, at the Council at Rome, under Pope Leo the 4th for the Deposition of Anastatius, not of Anastatius the Library Keeper (as the great Vossius Father of Isaac Vossius his worthy Son, in his Book of Latin Historians, unadvisedly supposed) but of Anastatius, a Priest of the order of St. Marcell; yet I do not believe that this Example doth prejudice the Rights and Privileges of the Principal Chaplains, there being some reason for so doing, 
Collect. Rom. Bipart. part. 2. p. 111.114.  because of the presence of the Emperor Lothair, Father of Lewis, who assisted at this Assembly; and thereunto subscribed, taking from the Arch Chaplain of his Son, part of his splendour, and of his privilege. I will add unto all we have said of this Dignity, two circumstances, which I suppose will not be unwelcome to the Reader. One is, that it may be Collected from the 7th Chapter of the Letter, which the Prelates assembled at Cressy, 
Concil. Carisiac. c. 7.  Anno 858. wrote unto Lewis King of Germany, that the Dignity of Principal Chaplains, decreased by little and little, that of Count of the Palace gaining upon it insensibly; which obliged those Bishops to move for the re-establishing of it. The other is, that the Chronicle of Laurisham, 
Chron. Laurisham. ad an. 805.  gives unto Eginhard, Son in Law unto Charlemagne, the Quality of Principal Chaplain. So that it may be said, that at that time, the Principal Chaplains were married, which nevertheless, I refer unto the Judgement of others, without interposing my own.  
But having proved that Heribold was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald, and shown the importance of this Employment, we must say something of his belief touching the matter whereof we treat. The Anonymous Author that sided with Paschas, whom we have several times alleged, saith positively of him, and of Rabanus, that they taught, 
Anonym. apud Cellot. Hist. Got. Tesc. Append. Opusc. 7. p. 541. Thom. Wald. t. 2. c. 19.52.61 ibid. c. 61.  That the Sacrament goeth into the draft. Thomas Waldensis saith also the same, Heribold (saith he) Bishop of Auxerr, and Rabanus Archbishop of Mayance, have taught that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, is subject unto the place of Excrements. Wickliff, (saith he again) is of Accord with Heribold, and Rabanus of Mayance; who taught, that the venerable Sacrament of the Altar, is subject unto the Draft.  
It is not then to be wondered at, that Rabanus dedicated his Penitential unto him, wherein he hath left marks of this Doctrine; Peter Stuart who caused it to be Printed, giving notice, that Rabanus dedicated it unto Heribold Bishop of Auxerr; I know that Cardinal du Perron, who had an extraordinary Genius, and several other since following his steps, would make I know not what Sect of Stercoranists, whereof Heribold was chief; and whose Opinions were quite different from the Doctrine of those called Calvinists, to be adversaries unto Paschas; but to speak freely what I think, I could wish, that great men would act after another manner; and that they would not insist upon these sorts of Cavils. There is here question made of the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas; Will Cardinal du Perron, and those which follow this Fiction of his Brain, tell us better than Pasehas himself what their Opinion was? Paschas told us in the foregoing Chapter, that those People did not judge, as he did teach, That the Eucharist was the Flesh which was born of the holy Virgin; but the Figure and the Sacrament of that Flesh; a Figure and Sacrament filled with the Virtue and Efficacy of this Divine Flesh; so that believing that the Bread remaining Bread after Consecration, they also believed, that as to its substance and matter, part of it turned into our proper substance, for the nourishment of our Bodies; and the other part passed the way of our common Food; which is directly, to speak plainly, the Opinion of those, at this present called Calvinists. Now if this Belief was Erroneous, if this Opinion was Heretical, contrary unto that of the Church, and different from the Ancient belief of Christians, is it probable, that King Charles the Bald would have chosen for his Principal Chaplain, by consent of the Pope, and the Synods of his Kingdom; and that the Clergy of France would have suffered to preside over it, a man infected with such an Opinion? Or, that Hinemar after his Death, should call him a Bishop of venerable memory: And that there should be engraven on his Tomb, Here lieth the Body of St. Heribold. I cannot think so; but rather that the Opinion of Heribold, and the other Adversaries of Paschas, which is the same of the Calvinists, was the most general Opinion in the IX. Century; and that that of Paschas, which is followed by Roman Catholics at this time, was not approved at that time; but was opposed by all the great and learned Men of that Age. This is what the Protestant saith; and the inference he makes from the Dignity and Belief of Heribold.   

CHAP. XV.  
A Continuation of the History of the IX. Century; wherein is examined the silence of the two Popes, Nicholas the First, and Adrian the Second; with two Observations touching the Greek Church.  
IT is a thing very worthy to be observed, and which deserves serious consideration, that the Pope's Nicholas the First, and Adrian the Second; having been Spectators of so obstinate a combat, without engaging on either side; and having been silent in a time when they ought to speak: and seen men's minds divided, although unequally, upon the subject of the Sacrament; yet after all, declared not themselves in favour of the one side or the other; and it doth not appear that they opened their mouths either to condemn or approve either of the two Opinions. So that if the Roman Catholics do say, that they condemned not their Doctrine in the person of Paschas; the Protestants can also affirm, That they pronounced no sentence against their Belief, in the persons of his Adversaries; which were incomparably more famous both in number and quality, than the followers of Paschas; because, that instead of one or two at the most, (at least that is come to our knowledge, which followed him) we have heard the testimonies of Sixteen; the Principal Chaplain, Bishops, Archbishops, Abbots and others, which in that Age, opposed themselves directly or indirectly unto his Opinion, as being contrary unto the Belief which until that time, had been generally received in the Church. But if after what hath been said, the Latin Church shall continue to teach, that the Belief of Protestants, which we have proved to be that of the Adversaries of Paschas, was at that time esteemed erroneous; than it must necessarily follow, say they, that she confess that Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second may justly be suspected to be guilty thereof, 
Decret. Grat. dist. 82. c. Error. Leo. I. Ep. 93. c. 15.  according to this Maxim of the Law inserted by Gratian in his Decree; That one approves the Error whereunto he makes no opposition: And according unto what is said by Leo the First, That he which recalls not a Man from his Error, showeth that he erreth himself. And if on the other hand, she affirms that the Doctrine of Paschas, which is hers, was at that time acknowledged to be Catholic and Orthodox, and the public Doctrine of the Church, she would tacitly accuse these two Popes for having suppressed it, as Adversaries and Enemies, according unto what is contained in the same Maxim of the Law before alleged; 
Decret. Grat. ubi supra.  That the Truth is suppressed when it is not defended. For to imagine that Nicholas and Adrian had not knowledge of this great Contest, cannot reasonably be said. The thing had made too great a noise for them to be ignorant of it. Had there been indeed only bare verbal Disputes, this pretext might have some colour; but there having been Books written on either part, and some of them having been composed by Order and Command of a King of France, it is nothing probable that the Apostolical See should be wholly ignorant of the matter, under Nicholas the First, and Adrian the Second. Wherefore then may it be said, Did they not take part? Wherefore did they not declare either for Paschas, or for his Adversaries? Wherefore had they not condemned the one, and protected the others? If the Doctrine of Paschas had been the ancient Doctrine of the Church, why did they not authorise it by their Approbations? And wherefore did they not thunder out their Censures against that of his Adversaries? Or if the Belief of his Adversaries were the ancient Belief of Christians, wherefore did they not encourage it by their Power? And why did they not Anathematise the Novelty of Paschas? This difficulty deserves to be carefully enquired into, there being not many Demonstrations to resolve it, but only several Conjectures and Circumstances, which I refer unto the Judgement of those that shall take the pains of reading this Treatise.  
It is said then in the first place, that although we have not positively said, that Paschas proceeded by way of Explication, yet we have made appear, that in all likelihood it was the way he took, not to irritate Mens Minds in proposing his Opinion.  
Secondly, that Paschas his Party had no Followers during the IX. Century; as hath been already proved. So that having but a very few, it remained, very probably, enclosed in the Cloisters of some Friars which he might have gained unto his Party; wherein it hide itself from the many oppositions which it found, until some more favourable time should present, to advance and establish itself in the World. And in fine, that the Belief of his Adversaries had the Victory and Advantage in this Age; being generally received and practised in all the West. Nicholas then, and after him Adrian, considering that the Opinion of Paschas was opposed by the most eminent Men of that Age, that it had no Followers nor Adherents; and that after all the Opposition it found in its first Establishment, it would not do any prejudice unto the other, they very judiciously believed that it was the wisest course to let it fall of itself, and to refer unto time the utter ruin of it; there being no likelihood that being so powerfully opposed as it was, it should ever do any harm: whereas, should they have set about censuring and condemning it publicly, it might be feared lest it might recover strength; because 'tis often seen, that persons grow stubborn against Reproofs; and more earnestly desiring the things that are forbidden, use their utmost skill and power to obtain the Enjoyment. These, as is supposed, were the reasons and motives of the Conduct of these two Popes in regard of the Opinion of Paschas, in not condemning him publicly, although they did not also approve of him.  
But it was not so of the other Opinion; for they plainly did see that the Belief of the Enemies of Paschas was a Belief publicly received by all the World; in France, in Germany, in England, and elsewhere; and moreover, approved by the most learned Men of the Age, publicly vindicated by Writings, supported by the Authority of the most eminent Princes and Prelates. They could not then be ignorant of the danger the Church was in, if this Belief were not Catholic, nor this Doctrine Orthodox: And not being ignorant of it, it had been Charity, and the duty also of Nicholas and Adrian to have taken notice of it, and to have redressed it; for the case was not of two or three Friars which Paschas had drawn unto his Opinion; but of the greatest part of the West, which was overspread with the Opinion of his Adversaries. Had it been an Heretical and Heterodox Opinion, and a Doctrine contrary unto the Faith of the Church, it cannot be said but these Popes had Credit and Power enough to have opposed themselves. For besides, that every body knows the Popes had already acquired great Power over the Western Churches, wherein they easily caused their Constitutions to be received; the Bishops not daring much to oppose the Execution of their Decrees, although they found them not always agreeable unto the ancient Canons. Besides this, I say, who knows not but they might at least have protested against so pernicious an Opinion, have opposed what they could unto its Settlement, and earnestly exhorted the Prelates to stop the course and progress of so dangerous a Doctrine, to have used anathemas and Excommunications against the Promoters of it, thereby to have discouraged others. Yet nevertheless, it is most certain they did no such thing. Is it not then a manifest sign that they themselves were of this Belief, and that they acknowledged that this Doctrine is the very same whereof the Church had ever been in peaceable Possession, until Paschas came to disturb her in the Enjoyment of her Paternal Inheritance. These are the Inferences made by Protestants, from the Silence of these two Popes.  
They say, the thing will appear yet plainer, if we consider the temper of Nicholas the First, and the occasions he had; as also Adrian the Second, to take notice of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas. Nicholas the First was a learned Man for that Age, a daring and undertaking Man, who very much advanced the Dignity of his See, unto the prejudice of other Churches. France felt the effects of his Policy and Power, in that he obtained the Right of assembling Councils, which the Kings were wont to do before; that he gave a very great Assault unto the little power that its Prelates had remaining, and that he began to make them receive the Decretals of the first Popes, which had been forged by some Impostor about the time of Charlemagne. 'Tis only necessary to read what the late Monsieur de Marca hath said in his Books of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, 
Marca de concord l. 3. c. 5, 6. & l. 6. c. 28. & l. 7. c. 23.  to see what kind of a person Nicholas the First was, and what Attempts he made against the Prelates of France and their Synods. Nevertheless, I do not find that ever he touched the point of the Eucharist; although he had occasion either to have reproved their shameful Compliance, or their Error. For example, In the difference he had with the Bishops of France, first upon account of Walfad, and some other Clerks, which had been established by Ebbo Archbishop of Rheims, after his Deposition and Re-establishment, which was no way Canonical, and whose Ordination was esteemed void in a Council of Soissons, in the Year 853. And secondly, upon the Subject of Rothard Bishop of Soissons, who had been deposed by the French Prelates. Nicholas informing himself of both these matters, and forcing our Bishops to comply with his desires, even to the prejudice of their Liberties, and of their remaining Authority; as those know very well that have any knowledge of the History of those times, without reciting here the particularities of it. It need only be said, That if the Belief of Nicholas upon the point of the Sacrament, had been different from that of the Adversaries of Paschas, it is likely that these two Conjunctures of matters had offered him two fair occasions of reproaching them; That as they made no difficulty of breaking the Canons in deposing of Clerks and Bishops, for they thought so, otherwise he could have had no pretext for re-establishing of them; so also, they feared not violating the Rule of Faith, in so important a point as is that of the Sacrament, either in embracing themselves a new Belief, or in suffering it to get ground, to the prejudice of the ancient Doctrine of the Church, which Paschas had clearly explained. Is it likely that Pope Nicholas, who was a very learned, politic and prudent Man, should have forgot to have made them this Reproach in the differences he had with them, thereby to have loaden them with shame; and with the more plausible show of Justice, to have deprived them of their Rights and Privileges, in showing unto all the World, that they had made themselves unworthy of them, because they see the ancient Faith of Christians ruined, without making any opposition, by the establishing of a new Doctrine, which insinuated itself into the minds of all Men, and which was already generally received in all places? It cannot be believed, Nicholas would have been silent in these occasions, if the Opinion of Paschas had been the first Belief of the Church, and that of his Adversaries a new Opinion, which they endeavoured to settle in the place of the Old.  
Moreover, we have made appear in the precedent Chapter, that Heribold, Bishop of Auxerr, was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald; that he could not be so, without the consent, not only of the Synod, but also of the Pope; that is, either of Nicholas the First, or of Adrian the Second: for in all likelihood, it must have been under one or the other of them. And, in fine; that he had an Opinion contrary unto Paschas, upon the Subject of the Eucharist, and agreeable unto that of the Protestants. Is it probable, say some, that Nicholas or Adrian would have suffered Charles 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 Insolences 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 alleges 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 Troy's, 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 virtue of Consecration, and of what it operates in the things which are Consecrated and Sanctified, alleges 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 Virtue 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 Virtue 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 proceed upon this important occasion, wherein I do not interpose my Judgement.  
And what is said of the proceed 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 than 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 judgement 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, and affront his Messengers; insomuch, as he threatens him with Deposition, or of Anathematising, according to the Decree of the Fifth Universal Council. There are several other things of the like Nature in the Letter, which is not necessary to be mentioned: What hath been said, sufficeth to show, that Pope Adrian could not wish a fairer occasion to tax Charles the Bald, as Protector of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas, against whom Ratramn and John Erigenius wrote by his command; not to speak of his Principal Chaplain Heribold, which was of the same Opinion: Adrian doth no such thing. On the contrary, he endeavours to appease the spirit of Charles, in the Letter which he after wrote to him; and to mitigate the anger which the first had provoked him unto: wherein he had commanded him with Authority, to send Hincmar Bishop of Laon unto Rome. It is said, that these proceed do in all likelihood justify, that the belief of Ratramn and of John Erigenius, whom the King Protected, was the belief of Adrian himself, and of the whole Church; it not being to be believed, the Pope would have been silent unto this Prince, who had so touched him to the Quick, if the Doctrine which he favoured, had not been Catholic and Orthodox.  
I would here conclude the History of the IX. Century, were I not obliged to say something of the Greek Church; for at the beginning of this Age, Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Successor of Tarrasius, following the steps of the Second Council of Nice, whose Constitutions touching Image Worship, he followed; Nicephorus I say, with the Fathers of the Council declared, That the Eucharist is not the Image of Jesus Christ, 
De Cherub. c. 6. Bibl. Pat. t. 4.  but his Body; seeing he spoke as the Prelates of Nice, the same Explication must be given to his words, as were given unto those of the Council, and refer the Reader unto what hath been said in the 12th Chapter, if it be not better to rank him with John Damascen, of whom we have also spoke in the same Chapter; and to say the truth, he speaks many things which are inconsistent with the Doctrine of the real Presence: As for example, 
Ibid. c. 7.  That the humane nature of Jesus Christ is not invisible; that God only can be at several places at once; 
Id. de imag.  That every Body is necessarily limited, and that it filleth a place; which he applies particularly unto the Body of Jesus Christ. 
Id. libel. 12. capitulor. c. 3.  The third sacred Council, saith he, hath declared that Jesus Christ our God, is limited according to the Flesh, and hath Anathematised those which believe not this word. And elsewhere, 
Id. de imag.  having treated of the manner of Existing of Bodies, Jesus Christ (saith he) is bounded according to his humane Nature, after all the ways which we have showed; for he hath born a true Body like us, and not a supposed Body. And in a Dispute which the same Nicephorus had with the Emperor Leo the Armenian, which Father Combefis hath published, he attributes unto the Body of Jesus Christ, 
Origin. Const. p. 176.  visibility, touch, and circumscription; to distinguish it from his Divinity; and showing the reason why Angels cannot be in one place circumscriptively, he saith, It is because they be simple, 
Ibid. p. 180.  and without composition; and that they have not Bodies.  
Father Combefis in the same Collection of divers Authors concerning the City of Constantinople, allegeth a great passage of Theodorus Graptus, 
P. 221. 222.  touching the Eucharist; but because he teacheth the same Opinion with John Damascen, as is observed by this same Friar which hath given it unto us; and as it is easy to observe inreading of it, we will dispense with ourselves in relating of it, seeing the Reader may find what hath been said of it, in the 12th. Chapter, upon the Belief of Damascen.  
Leaving then this Theodorus Martyr of Image Worship, let us speak of another Theodorus, no less affectionate than the former unto this same Worship, and imprisoned for it. It is Theodorus Studite, whom Michael Studite that wrote his Life, introduceth thus speaking unto his Disciple, My Son, these Men, as I find, endeavour, 
Apud. Baron. ad ann. Dom. 816. num. 12.  besides the other cruelties they exercise against us, to starve us to Death, because they know it is the cruelest of all sorts of Death; but let us put our trust in God, which can feed us not with Bread only, but with meat incomparably more excellent; because alf Spirits subsist by his good pleasure only. And because above all other things, the participation of the Body of our Saviour is wont to be the nourishment of my Body and of my Soul, (for the Father always carried along with him some parcels of the quickening Body, and Celebrated the Divine Mysteries as often as he had conveniency) I will receive only this Food, I will taste nothing else whatsoever; and what is wont to be allowed for two, shall be for thee only. He speaks of the Eucharist as of a thing which nourisheth the Body; and which may be divided into sundry parts; which cannot be meant of the real Body of Jesus Christ, but of his Sacrament; which is called his Body, be-because it hath the virtue of it for the nourishing of the Soul.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Of the State of the X. Century.  
THe Tenth Age hath exercised of late years, two good Writers, and hath afforded matter and subject unto Authors, which with much skill and industry (each defending the cause of his party) grappled a long time about this poor Age, either to advance the credit of it, or to show the morosity, ignorance, and obscurity of it; they both spoke very agreeably what they intended to say; and having thereupon reflected sharply upon each other, in the view of all France, have not as yet decided their Controversy. If I mistake not, every body may see that I mean the Author of the Perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist, and him that answered him: The former having made a short Discourse, which was to serve for a Preface unto the Office of the Holy Sacrament, had not some reasons hindered the execution of this first design. The latter, at the desire of some Godly Friends, undertook to make some Considerations upon this little Treatise; and having in brief spoken of the X. Century, as of an unfortunate, ignorant Age, overspread with Darkness and Errors, according to the testimony of Historians. The Author of the Perpetuity, hath insisted upon this part of the considerations of his Adversary; and hath employed all his endeavours to restore unto this Age, all the Reputation and Glory that he thought it had been unjustly deprived of; accusing the Ministers of disparaging it for interest sake. The other was not silent, but having fully vindicated his Brethren from the Accusation laid to their charge; he proves by several Historians, and of persons the most affectionate to the Latin Church, That it was a Leaden Age, an Iron, and unhappy Age, an Age of Darkness, Ignorance, Superstition, and Obscurity: whereas his Adversary esteems it to be an Age of Light, an Age of Grace and Benediction. For my particular, although I know that he which esteems it an Age of Darkness, is supported by the Authority of all, or at least, the greatest number of Historians which have written of it, especially of Baronius, Gennebrard, and Bellarmine: and that so far he hath not said any thing of his own: And that the reasons of his Adversary, which represents it as an Age of Learning and Benediction, do not appear unto me of sufficient force to invalidate what he hath established upon the report of Historians: I will however make a third party in this rencontre, and hold the mean betwixt these two extremes; I say, that I will not absolutely follow the Historians, which represent it wholly dark and ignorant; nor the Author of the Perpetuity, which represents it all light and glorious: For if I do not make it an Age wholly Light, neither will I esteem it to be wholly Darkness: If I judge it not to be an Age of Grace, neither do I conceive it to be one altogether unfortunate: If it appear not unto me to be wholly an Age of Benediction, neither doth it appear to be only an Age of Malediction. In a word, if I look not upon it to be an Age of hilary's, of Athanasius', of Basills, of Gregory's, and of Ambroses; or as an Age of Chrisostoms, of Jeromes, and of Augustine's; yet I do not regard it as an Age of Bareletes, of Maillards, and of Menots. I do not liken it unto a fair Summer's day, when the Heavens being free from Clouds, the Sun shineth in its full force, and communicates unto us, without any Obstruction, his Light and Heat; but unto a Winter's day, which being dark, and the Air full of thick Clouds, deprives us of the sight of the Sun, yet not totally of its Light; so that we have still left us sufficient to direct us, although it may not be always enough to hinder us from stumbling. In like manner say some, during the X. Century; the Sins of Men having made a thick Cloud betwixt the Sun of Righteousness and them, he communicated not unto them fully the Light of his healthful Beams, although he imparted unto them sufficient to avoid the Errors which cannot be believed without Ruin, and to embrace the Truth, the knowledge whereof is necessary to Salvation. What likelihood, say some, is there, that having shed forth so much Light upon the IX. Century, for the defence of the Truth, that Men should, on a sudden, be plunged into Darkness: But what likelihood is there also, that the same Craces, with the same freedom, should be continued to be dispensed unto Men, when it was seen that they began to abuse them; and that the Flesh gaining, by little and little, the Victory over the Spirit, they degenerated insensibly from the truth of their Belief, and the purity of their Devotion. Nevertheless, as God is infinitely good, and that he never leaves himself without witness of doing good unto Men, however unthankful and ungrateful they be; so if he dispensed not sufficient Knowledge unto the Men of the X. Century, to oppose the Opinion of Paschas, with the same vigour as it was opposed in the IX. yet he dispensed them so much, as to hinder it from being established all that Age; as shall be showed in the progress of this History. But in the first place, it will be necessary to relate what is said by William of Malmesbury, 
De gestis Pontific. Anglor. 〈◊〉.  of Odo Archbishop of Canterbury, who lived in this Age; He so confirmed (saith he) several persons which doubted of the truth of the Body of our Lord, that he shown them the Bread of the Altar changed into Flesh, and the Wine of the Cup changed into Blood; and afterwards he made them return unto their natural form, and rendered them proper for the life of Men. This is the only Author of the X. Century that is come to our knowledge, which publicly declared himself for the Opinion of Paschas; whereas the Historian's Relation showeth, that there were several that were of a contrary Judgement, and who had no small inclination to profess it openly: besides, the method of this Prelate, to make them receive his Opinion, seems unto many, to be but a story made at random, either by Odo himself, or by the Friar which wrote the History of it; and they hearty wish that Christians would not use these kind of Prodigies, to prove the truth of the Doctrines of their Religion; saying, that Unbelievers are dissatisfied, and those which believe, and are enlightened, and that are pious, can receive no Edification thereby. And they make no question but that Paschas rendered his Doctrine suspicious unto most persons, by the pretended Miracles that he made use of to establish it; because this kind of proceeding showed plainly, that he found neither in the Scriptures, nor Traditions, Reasons strong enough to defend it, seeing he had recourse unto these prodigious Apparitions. But whatever this Archbishop of Canterbury could do for the promoting the Doctrine of Paschas in England, his endeavours had not all the success he could have wished; the contrary Doctrine which had been so well planted in this Kingdom, until the Year 883. by John Erigenius, one of the greatest Adversaries of Paschas, there continuing still, and being publicly preached. In fine, Alfric, which some also esteem to be Archbishop of Canterbury; and others, Bishop of Cried, after having been Abbot of Malmesbury; a Man learned according to those times; in a Sermon under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury, thus spoke of the Sacrament, 
In notis Vheloci in histor. Bedae Anglo-Sax. l. 4. c. 24.  about the Year 940. The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally, but spiritually; not the Body wherein he suffered, but the Body whereof he spoke, when consecrating the Bread and Wine, he said, This is my Body, This is my Blood. He adds, That the Bread is his Body, as the Manna; and the Wine his Blood, as the Water of the Desert was. If this Sermon was one of Wulfin's, according to the Title, the Year 840. as we have computed it, doth not ill agree with it? But if it be Alfric's, we must descend lower, towards the end of the X. Century. 
Apud Usser. de dhristian. Eccles. success. & statu. c. 2. p. 54.  There is another which some cite under the name of Wulfin Bishop of Salisbury, and others attribute unto Alfric; wherein the Author useth the same Language, This Sacrifice, saith he, is not the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered for us, nor his Blood which he shed; but it is made spiritually his Body and Blood; as the Manna which fell from Heaven, and the Water which flowed from the Rock. If these two Sermons are of two several Authors, we have already two Witnesses directly 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 Archbishop 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 alleged 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 show 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 showing that it was almost copied out of the Treatise of Ratramn, of the Body and Blood of Christ, they will by the same means show, 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 risen 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 itself: 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 virtue 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 virtue of this holy Sacrament, and the visible form of its proper Nature: by Nature it is fading Bread, and corruptible Wine; but by the virtue 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 virtue, 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 virtue, 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 baptised; 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 virtue of the Holy Ghost intervenes by Prayer, unto this corruptible Water; and by a spiritual virtue, 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 virtue. 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 Virtue, 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 Virtue. 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 Abbot. Lob. p. 573  saith, That it is the Table whereupon is consumed the holy Body of our Lord. Which cannot be applied unto the true Body of Jesus Christ, which by the Confession of of all Christians, is a Subject which cannot be consumed. Of necessity then this Abbot must needs have believed, that what was received at the holy Table, was not the real Body of Jesus Christ, because he speaks of it as of a thing that was to be consumed. And I am much deceived if he borrowed not this Expression of St. Austin; who testifies, that the Sacrament is consumed: The Bread, 
August. de Trinit. l. 3. c. 10.  saith he, prepared for this purpose, is consumed in receiving the holy Sacrament: What is laid upon the Table is consumed, the Celebration of Devotion being ended. The Abbot Folium departed this Life, Anno 990. and was succeeded by Herriger: so that they be mistaken which place Herriger at the end of the XI. Century, because he succeeded Folium in the Office of Abbot, about the end of the X. 
De Gest. Abbar. Lob. t. 6. Spicil. p. 591.  And of this Herriger it is said, That he collected against Paschas Radbert several passages of Catholic Fathers, touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. Molanus writeth in his Martyrology of the Saints of Flanders on the 2d of January, that a certain Author of the Life of Adelard observes, that it appears by a Letter of Herrigers, whom he styles the wisest of Men, what Paschas was, and how much Reputation he was of. But that hinders not, that in collecting against him the Passages and Testimonies of the holy Fathers, upon the Subject of the Sacrament, he declared that he did not approve of his Opinion; for Justice ought indeed to be done unto the Merit of the person, even of our greatest Enemies; and it was a great honour unto Herriger to write against a Man, unto whom he gave so great Commendations; at least, if Molanus his Author saith true; for he thereby showed, that it was only Love of the Truth which made him take Pen in hand against a Man whose Memory he honoured, 
Ibid. p. 590, 591.  and whose Learning he esteemed. He which continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes doth exceedingly praise Herriger, as a Man whose Virtue and Learning was esteemed, even by Strangers. He makes mention of several Books composed by him; and observes, that some said that Miracles were made at his Grave. The Author of the Customs of the Abbots of Gembloux, near Namur, speaks also much in his praise, in the same Tome of Dom Luke d'Achery. Herriger had for his Friend and Companion in Studies, 
Ibid. p. 519.  in the searching and Meditation of the holy Scriptures, one Hughes, who succeeded him in the Dignity of Abbot, after Ingobrand: And it is observed that Herriger wrote unto him familiarly, concerning some Questions. This great familiarity, 
Ibid. p. 591.593.  joined with a strict society in reading, and the understanding of the holy Scriptures, gives, if I mistake not, a sufficient evidence that they were both of one Opinion upon the point of the Sacrament; but an Opinion contrary unto that of Paschas, against whom Herriger assembled several Testimonies of the holy Fathers. And as what I have now related is but a Conjecture, so I leave it unto the Reader's liberty to think and say what he please, whilst I proceed to continue the History of the X. Century.  
In the beginning of this Century the Congregation of Clunie was instituted, Anno 910. by the Foundation of William, 
Tom. 3. Concil. Gall. p. 569.  Count of Auvergne, and Duke of Guien; who by his Testament, bestowed the place of Clunie, with all its Dependences, there to erect a Monastery of Benedictine Friars, to the honour of St. Peter and St. Paul: Which Monastery he put under the Protection of the Pope, and See Apostolical: and he nominated Bernon to be Abbot of it during life; but after his death, he left it to the liberty of the Monks, to choose what Abbots they should think fit. Accordingly they elected Odo after the decease of Bernon; 
Tom. 4. Spicil. p. 40.49.  unto Odo succeeded, as I suppose, Haymard, Majole unto Haymard, and Odilon unto Majole: and it was after the death of the Abbot Odilon, who died about the middle of the XI. Century, that the Friar Ulrick digested into a Body the Customs of this Monastery. Cassander saw them in a fair Manuscript, and drew a passage out of them for the Communion under both Kind's, as hath been observed in the first part; but six or seven years ago, they were printed by the care of Dom Luke d'Achery, a Benedictine Friar. I find in these Customs several things which make some think, that the Opinion of Paschas was not received in this famous Congregation at the beginning of its Institution, nor in all the X. Century. And I take notice particularly of that time, because those persons would not deny, but that the Congregation might have changed Opinion after the condemnation of Berengarius, not that there is any certain proof thereof; but if it be considered that it was under the Protection of the Roman See, one may be inclined to believe, that as soon as that See declared against the Doctrine of Berengarius, which was that of the enemies of Paschas, this Society of Clunie did also embrace the Opinion favoured by its Protectors. But because it cannot be perceived that there was in these Ancient Customs above mentioned, certain passages which agreed not well with the Doctrine of the real Presence, or that having perceived it, they dared not to take them away, it being come to the knowledge of too many People, we therefore find them yet therein at this time; and it is from hence we intent to draw proofs of what hath been said, That this Congregation was not at first, nor in all likelihood during all the X. Century, of the Opinion of Paschas; and as they be the first that have produced an instance in this matter, they endeavour to confirm the truth of it in such a manner, which as they think, will not be displeasing unto all reasonable persons, and unto such as as are wont to judge of things according to reason and truth; They say then in the first place, that at the time when these Customs were written, to wit, about the end of the XI. Century, the Bread steeped in Wine for Celebrating the Communion, was practised; which showeth that in all likelihood, they were not come unto this use, until after the Condemnation of Berengarius, the fear of shedding, not having entered into their thoughts until that time, because they believed not that what was in the Cup was the very substance of the Blood of Jesus Christ, Unto all those to whom is given the Sacred Body, 
Antiquae cons●etud. Clunica. l. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. Spicileg.  he first steeps it in the holy Blood; because some of our Novices are so heedless, that if they should receive the Blood apart, they would be sure 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. ●● 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 putteth 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 Chalice, 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 crumb; 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 alleged 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 itself, 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 intent 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 expelled, 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 alleged. 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 practice 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 showeth, 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 Diocese of Verona, whereof he had been twice dispossessed; for he wrote what we are about to allege, 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. ●. p. 181.  as hath been showed, 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 Virtue and Efficacy of this holy Flesh, and of this precious Blood, which is inseparable from their Virtue 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 showed, 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 itself 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 join unto Ratherius, another Witness, which was also a Bishop in Italy, and which is lately given unto the public: 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 fit to have retained the others in their Dury. And in one of his Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese, going about to dissuade 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 allege the privilege 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 than 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 judgement 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 public 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 Chalice is the real Blood of Jesus Christ.  
Lutherick, Archbishop 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, Archbishop of Sans, sowed the Seed, and beginning of the Heresies of Berengarius. Whence it is, that Helgald, in the Life of King Robert, writeth, 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, joining 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 represents unto us to be purely spiritual, 
Ep. 23.  wherein he alleges the words of St. Austin: It is a Figure which commands us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord; and to represent unto our minds, sweetly and usefully, that his Body was crucified and broken for us: 
Ep. 1. ad Adeod. t. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 438. A. B Post poeniten. mulierum p. 521. E.  for I do not regard the Addition that some unadvised hand hath thereunto annexed, will the Heretic say. And these others of the same Saint; Him that dwelleth not in Jesus Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, doth not indeed eat his Flesh, although he eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his Damnation. 
Ibid. p. 522. B.  Unto which words, in all appearance, Berengarius had regard, when he said in his Letter unto Richard; If the thing were so, how should the Doctrine of the Eucharist come to my knowledge, which is in the Writings of Bishop Fulbert, of glorious Memory, 
Tom 2. Spicil. d'Ach. p. 510.  and which some esteem to be of this Bishop; but it is of St. Austin. If it be farther considered, that he declares that Jesus Christ is ascended into Heaven, and that he hath left us the Sacrament, 
Ep. 1. ad Adcodat. p. 437. C.  as a Pledge of his Presence; that he speaks of what we receive in the Sacrament, as of a thing which is broken into very small bits, and whereof a little portion is received; and that he distinguisheth, as Ratramn did, 
Id. Epist. 2. p. 440, 441.  and in the same words, the Sacrament, which he calls the body of Christ, from his true Body. If, I say, all these things be well considered, it must presently be concluded, that he was contrary unto Paschas. Yet nevertheless, I would not affirm that he exactly followed the Opinion of his Adversaries; not because he speaks of the Transfusion and Change of the Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ: for besides that, 
Id. Ep. 1. p 437 438.  he calls this Change, a Change of Dignity; that is to say, of Quality, which the Ancients often design by the name of Substance, as hath been shown; he compares the Change which happens in the Eucharist, unto that which came unto the Manna in the Wilderness, and unto that which comes unto Men in Baptism; and that he testifies, That there is also a Transfusion of Believers into the Body of Jesus Christ. 
Ibid.  But I judge so, because he seems to me to have embraced the Opinion of Remy of Auxerr, which was the same of John Damascen; who taught not that the substance of the Symbols was abolished, but that they were united unto the Divinity, to make one Body with the Natural Body of Jesus Christ; as hath been fully showed. And that these were the thoughts of Fulbert, it appears, if I mistake not, by what he saith, That the Pledge which our Saviour hath left us, is not the Symbol of an empty Mystery, but the true Body of Jesus Christ, Compaginante Spiritu Sancto; 
Id. ibid. p. 437.  or, as Remy speaks, Conjungente; that is to say, that the Holy Spirit unites, joins, and knits the Sacrament unto the true Body of Jesus Christ, in uniting it unto the Divinity. Let the Reader judge if I use any violence unto the words of Fulbert; and if I vary from his meaning.  
About the time that Fulbert of Chartres flourished, Bernon, Abbot of Augy, wrote his Treatise of things which concerned the Mass; to wit, about the Year 1030. and Fulbert died in 1027. In this Treatise he speaks of Making and confecrating the Body and Blood of the Lord; 
Cap. 1. & 2. t. 10 Bibl. Pat.  but the real Body (say some) and the proper Blood of our Saviour, not being possible to be made, because it was made a thousand years before Bernon wrote; nor be sanctified, because it was always holy; it must of necessity be understood of the Sacrament. 
Cap. 1.  And he shows it plainly, when he said, That this Body of Jesus Christ is broken. Which cannot be understood of his true Body, which is not subject unto this Accident; and that moreover he declares, 
Cap. 5.  That we are refreshed with the Wine which is in the Cup, in Type of the Blood of Jesus Christ.  
Nevertheless, the Opinion of Paschas establishing itself by degrees, Bruno Bishop of Angers, and Berengarius, born at Tours, but Archdeacon and Treasurer of the Church of Angers; a Dignity which in former times was not conferred, but upon persons of Worth and Learning. Bruno, I say, and Berengarius, not enduring that the Opinion of Paschas, which they looked upon as an Innovation of the ancient Faith, should get possession of the minds of the people, opposed it publicly; teaching that the Bread and Wine did not lose their substance by Consecration, to become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; but they only became, by the Blessing of Sanctification, the Sacrament of this Body and Blood. The truth is, Bruno, suffering himself to be overcome with fear, became silent a little after: for, say some, it often happens upon these occasions, that Men harken to the Counsels of the Flesh, rather than unto those of the Spirit. But as for Berengarius, he had more strength and courage; and opposed himself with more Resolution and Vigour unto the settling of the Doctrine which Paschas begun to teach in the IX. Century, but without any great success, until the XI. wherein it also found a great many Opposers.  
I am not ignorant that some Enemies of Berengarius have endeavoured to slander him, to render his Belief the more odious; but the truth is, he was reputed to be a very learned Man, grounded in Philosophy, and the knowledge of the Liberal Arts; and moreover, of a holy and unblameable Life. A fragment of the History of France, from the time of King Robert, 
Tom: 4. Histor, Franc. de scripror. Eccles. Platina in Joan. 15. Sabellic. Enead. 9 l. 2. Chron. tit. 16. c. 1. § 20  unto the death of Philip, saith, That his name was famous amongst the Professors of Divine Philosophy. Sigebert saith, That he was illustrious for the Knowledge of the Liberal Arts, and of Logic. Platina and Sabellicus reckon him amongst those which rendered themselves famous by their Piety and Learning. Bergomas, in the Supplement of Chronicles upon the Year 1049. observes, That he passed a long time, in the Judgement of Men, to be eminent in Learning, and in Holiness. Therefore the Archbishop Antonine declares, 
Tom. 2. Spicil. p. 747.  That he was very learned. And the Friar Clarius, in his Chronicle of St. Peter of Sans, gives him these two Epithets, of Admirable Philosopher, and Lover of the Poor. But in fine, the Belief which he maintained upon the Subject of the Eucharist, and which was directly contrary unto that of Paschas, found the people so disposed to entertain it, or rather, to declare openly for it, so that in all parts it was publicly professed. And this easily persuades me, that Berengarius did not so much infuse this Opinion into them, as he encouraged them by his Example to publish it, by rousing them up from the stupidness wherein they had lain for some time. For had this people believed no more of the Eucharist than just what Berengarius had taught, this Doctrine could scarce have made so great a progress in so little a time: but as it was instilled into them from Father to Son, Berengarius had no sooner opened his mouth, but that they embraced it, not regarding the fear that had till then discouraged them, seeing the Contradiction it found in the World, whilst that of Paschas therein received favour and encouragement. But because the Enemies of this Doctrine have looked upon Berengarius to have been the true Author of it, they have taxed him of infecting with the Venom of his Heresy all those which, by his example, had the courage to make Profession of it. It is with this prejudice that Matthew of Westminster saith, 
Ad Ann. 1● 87.  That he had almost infected all France, Italy and England. Matthew Paris and William of Malmesbury say, 
Matt. Paris. in Willielm. II. Will. Malms. 6. in Willielm. l. l. 3.  That all France was full of his Doctrine. So it is that Durandus of Troarn, an ancient Monastery in Normandy, also saith in a Treatise which he made of the Body and Blood of Christ, wherein he opposeth the Doctrine taught by Berengarius: It cannot be doubted but that the Doctrine of Berengarius was the same with that taught by several in the IX. Century, which opposed the Opinions of Paschas, as Novelties which until then had not been heard of in the Church. If then the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas was the ancient Belief of Christians, as we suppose hath been sufficiently proved, it must be granted, that Berengarius did not departed from it; and that those which followed him had been of old instructed therein: Therefore, as soon as he began to bublish it, they knew it; and without any difficulty, made Profession of it. But if Berengarius had Friends, he also had Enemies; if he had Followers, he had also those which opposed him. The first that attempted to write against him seems to be Adelman, which from Theologal of the Church of Liege, became Bishop of Bress. He had studied with Berengarius, under Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres; and having heard what Berengarius taught of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he wrote him a Letter, wherein having renewed the memory of their old Friendship, he shows, that it was reported of him that he taught, 
Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. ult. ed. p. 167.  That the Eucharist is not the true Body, nor the real Blood of Jesus Christ; but the Figure and Resemblance. Adelman endeavours to refute this Doctrine, but by Reasons which appear weak; and some also that do not very well agree with his Hypothesis: but Berengarius answered him in such a manner, as he might see, that he did not much value his Reproof, and that he was resolved always to defend his Belief; calling that which was contrary unto him, 
Apud Lanfran. t. 6. bibls. Pat. p. 192.  The folly of the people of Paschas, and of Lanfranc. By which words he showeth, that he looked upon Paschas as the Author of this Novelty, and Lanfranc as the Promoter of it; and that both the one and the other endeavoured to infuse it into the people, to the prejudice of their ancient Faith: For Berengarius pretended that his Doctrine was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and that that of his Adversaries was not known, but since Paschas his time; who having invented it in his Cell, brought it forth in the Year of our Lord, 818. Berengarius having thus silenced Adelman, 
Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 319.  his ancient Fellow-Student, Durandus Bishop of Liege, and by consequence, Adelman's Bishop; sounded an Alarm, in a Letter he wrote unto King Henry, against Bruno Bishop of Angers, and against Berengarius, his Archdeacon, as against persons which taught, that the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ, but the Figure of his Body; which this Prelate calls, Renewing of ancient Heresies. And to show with what Spirit this Bishop was acted, he exhorts the King to deliberate of their punishment, rather than to hear them in Councils. Moreover, I have called this Bishop of Liege, Durandus, after Baronius, and those which have given us the Library of the holy Fathers; but according to the truth of the History it cannot be so, because Durandus was dead before Bruno was Bishop of Angers. And indeed, Durandus died, Anno 1025. according to Segebert, and Bruno attained not unto the Episcopacy until 1047. Of necessity then, this Bishop of Liege must be some other than Durandus; and probably it may be Dietuvin, who was made Bishop of Liege in the Year 1048. about which time, he and Adelman might have writ the Letters above mentioned.  
Durandus, Abbot of Troam in Normandy, makes some mention, at the end of his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, of a Council assembled at Paris, by the Authority of the King, against Berengarius and his Followers, where the Doctrine of Berengarius, absent and unheard, was condemned: and it was there concluded, that he, and those of his Judgement should be prosecuted in all parts, and that they should be besieged where they should be found assembled, to force them to renounce their Belief, or be taken and put to death; a Remedy very contrary unto the temper of the Gospel, and unto the mildness of the Religion of Jesus Christ. But after all, this Council of Paris is no other than a fiction of the Author's brain. For what likelihood is there that Lanfranc, who wrote against Berengarius after this pretended Council, would have passed it over in silence, having so exactly mentioned all the Councils which were assembled against Berengarius; in some of which he was present himself. Moreover, 
Anonymus de damnatione Berengarii multiplici.  Father Chifflet hath printed an Anonymous Author, which specifies all the Synods wherein the Belief of Berengarius was condemned; at the last of which himself was present at Rome, Anno 1079. under Gregory the Seventh, without making any mention of that of Paris. Whereunto may be added, that the Date, and Character of the time doth not agree with the truth of History. Cardinal Baronius, in his Annals, 
Ad ann. 1035.  thinks King Henry had thoughts of assembling a Synod against Berengarius, but that he was hindered by the Bishop of Liege his Letters; which I cannot believe, after all that hath been said on this matter.  
We are informed by Lanfranc, that in the Year 1050. Pope Leo the Ninth assembled two Councils; one at Rome, where Berengarius, 
Lanfranc. de Eucharist. Sacram. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 193.  without being cited or heard, was condemned upon Letters which he wrote unto Lanfranc, and which were read in the Assembly: The other at Verceil, in September; where Ber●en garius was warned to appear, but he thought sufficient to send two Clergymen; in whose presence he was condemned a second time; and with him, the Book which John Erigenius had writ against the Opinion of Paschas, about two hundred years before.  
The Anonymous also failed not to begin the History of the divers Condemnations of Berengarius, by these two Councils of Rome and of Verceil. But these two Councils hindered not but that many wrote for him, as there were many that wrote against him; so it is expressed in Sigebert's Chronicle, 
Sigebert. in Chron ad ann. 1051.  of the Edition of Mireus, at Antwerp, Anno 1608. and it might also be seen in all the other Impressions, had not care been taken to suppress it. Many (saith he) disputed for and against him, both by Word, and in Writing.  
In fine, there is in Monsieur de Thou's Library, a Manuscript Copy of the Chronicle of Sigebert, wherein this is read; France is troubled by reason of Berengarius of Towers; who affirmed that the Sacrament which we receive at the Altar is not really the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but the Figure of his Body and Blood: for which cause, several disputed with much heat for and against him, by Word of mouth, and by Writing.  
As for Berengarius himself, he so little valued the anathemas of Rome and Verceil, that he spoke very slightly of Pope Leo the Ninth, and of his See; as it was seen formerly in Guitmond, his Adversary, before it was altered by the Expurgatory Indices: but that's in vain, 
Anonym. p. 363.  seeing Father Chifflet's Anonymous relates almost the same thing, and near hand in the very same terms, which I will save myself the trouble of transcribing, because they be something sharp, and full of Contempt. Victor, Successor unto Leo, seeing that Berengarius still persisted in his Opinion, and that he ceased not to publish it, notwithstanding the thundering of Leo's two Councils, caused one to be assembled at Towers, Anno 1055. wherein his Sub-Deacon Hildebrand, who was afterwards Pope, under the name of Gregory the Seventh, presided; and the Adversaries of Berengarius; Lanfranc, Guitmond, and the Anonymous, before mentioned, have writ, that Berengarius there presented himself, and dared not to defend his Cause; choosing rather to submit unto what Rome had determined in the matter. We not having the Acts of this Synod, it would be difficult to speak certainly of it, it not being just, wholly to give Credit unto what his Adversaries relate of him, which doth not appear to agree with the following part of the History: For Nicholas, the Second of that Name, was obliged to assemble another Council at Rome, five years after that of Tours: Berengarius there appeared; and if we will believe Lanfranc, and Chifflet's Anonymous, he dared not to defend his Belief. 
Chron. Cassin. l. 3. c. 33. Sigon. de Regn. Ital. l. 9 ad An. 1059.  But how shall we reconcile Lanfranc and the Anonymous with the History of Mount Cassin, and with Sigonius; for they observe, that his Enemies could not tell what to reply unto his Reasons; and that they were constrained to search in the Monastery of Mount Cassin for a Friar called Alberick, which Pope Stephen (saith Sigonius) had made Cardinal-Deacon; who being come, and not being able to answer Berengarius his Arguments, demanded a Weeks time to answer him: but, in fine, Threaten having greater efficacy than their Arguments; Berengarius being affrighted, signed the Revocation which Humbert, Cardinal of Blanch-Selva, had Order to draw up, and which I do not here examine, because I do not meddle with matter of Controversy, and which moreover the Latin Church at this time doth not much like of; and that it was for fear of death that he renounced, cannot be doubted after the Testimony of Lanfranc, his great Enemy; who thus speaks unto him in the Book he composed against him, You have in presence of the Council, 
Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 189.  confessed the Orthodox Faith; not for love of the Truth, but through fear of death.  
Therefore Chifflet's Anonymous doth observe a considerable Circumstance, and which, as I think, deserves to find place in this History of Berengarius: for he said, 
Anonym. ubi supra.  that Alexander the Second, which succeeded Nicholas, Anno 1061. did in a very friendly manner, by his Letters, advise and desire Berengarius to lay aside his Opinion, and not to scandalise the Church: But that Berengarius would by no means departed from his Judgement, and that he had the courage to declare so much unto the Pope by Letters. Thence it was that Gregory the Seventh, Successor unto Alexander, gave him Audience in two Councils; as the Anonymous observes, who assisted at the latter, assembled at Rome, Anno 1079. As for the former, held at the same place, he mentions not at what time; but so it is, that in the latter Council, there was drawn up another Confession of Faith, much milder and more moderate than that which had been made in Nicholas his time; and they obliged Berengarius to sign it. After which, 
Tom. 2. Spicil. p. 5●8.  Gregory gave him Letters of Recommendation; which Dom Luke d'Achery has caused to be printed in one of the Thomes of his Collections. This Gregory, I say, of whom 
1 In vita Hildebrandi.  Cardinal Benno, and the 
2 Ad Anno 1080.  Abbot of Ursperg do write; That wavering in the Faith, he made his Cardinals to keep a solemn Fast, to the end that God would show whether the Church of Rome, or Berengarius were in the truest Opinion touching the Body of our Lord.  
And it must be remembered, that this Synod of Gregory's was full of Contests upon this Subject of the Sacrament; there being yet a great many Prelates which defended the Opinions of Berengarius, against the Reality of Paschas; as appears by the Acts of this Council, related by Thomas Waldensis, and Hugh de Flavigny, 
Tom. 2. c. 43. Chron. Verd. ad Ann. 1078.  in the Chronicle of Verdun, which is in the first Tome of the Library of Father l'Abbe; who doth also give us the Abridgement, with this difference, That he assigns this Council unto the Year 1078. whereas it was held in the Year 1079. But in fine, The Acts produced by Waldensis, and what the Chronicle of Verdon alleges, doth testify that there were those in this Assembly which affirmed that the Eucharist is the Figure of the Body of Jesus Christ.  
But that nothing may be wanting unto the History of Berengarius, it is necessary to touch upon some Circumstances which have not yet been mentioned. In the first place, His Adversaries being enraged against him, have not feared to charge him with some Errors touching Marriage, and Infant-Baptism; as if he taught the Dissolution of lawful Marriage, and rejected the Baptising of young Children; but without any other Ground than mere Report; which, as the Poet said, is an Evil that flies, and increaseth in its Progress. It were to be wished that Christians were more cautious in censuring of one another, and that they would better consider the Love of Jesus Christ, which should not be Censorious.  
In the second place, Berengarius had to deal with Adversaries which made no Conscience of corrupting Tradition, and the Fathers, and to deny the most evident things. Lanfranc very confidently tells us, that there were formerly two Heresies which proceeded from these words of Jesus Christ; 
Lanfranc. de Euch. Sacram. t. 6. Bibl. pat. p. ●●3.  If you eat not the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you. They all believed (saith he) with one common consent, that the Bread and Wine was changed into the real Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man; but they were not agreed who this Son of Man was. Some thought that it might be meant of any Man whatever, whether just or sinful; and that the earthly substance, changed into his Flesh and Blood, was received in the Remission of Sins. Others conceived that this Son of Man was not any Man of the ordinary sort, but a holy, just person, separated by his excellent living, from the common sort of men, which was the Temple of God, in whom the Divinity resided: and they confidently and heretically maintained, that the Bread and Wine of the Altar might be changed into his Flesh and Blood. But (saith he) in the time of Pope Celestin, and of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, the Council of Ephesus was celebrated; where these two mortal Heresies were condemned, and the Faith was confirmed, whereby we believe, that the Bread is changed into the Flesh that was crucified, and the Wine into the Blood which flowed out of the side of Jesus Christ hanging on the Cross. To see the confidence wherewith this Prelate entertains his Readers with these two Heresies, and their Condemnation at the Council of Ephesus, one would take his Relation for a true History; and yet it is but a mere forged Fable: and the people of the XI Century did receive it upon Credit, to be as true as Gospel. It is the same Lanfranc that relates unto us as a true passage of St. Austin's, these words which had been before falsely alleged by Paschas; Receive in the Bread what was nailed to the Cross; and in the Cup, what issued out of the side of Jesus Christ.  
Durandus, Abbot of Troarn, animated with the same Spirit, 
Durand. Troarn. de. corp. & Sang Dom. p. 7  doth with an unsupportable Impudence, falsify a passage in St. Austin, upon the 98th Psalm; which saith, You shall not eat this Body which you see: You shall not drink the Blood which they shall shed that crucify me. And this Abbot makes no more ado but to make this holy Doctor say, For you shall eat this Body which you do see. And after this insolent Alteration, he cries out, overjoyed with his Victory, What is there more clear and evident; You shall eat this Body which you see?  
It is by the same Principle that Guitmond, Bishop of Antwerp, 
Guitmund. de veritate Euchar. l. 2. initio fere.  did formally deny that the Sacrament, in regard of its visible Species itself, was not subject unto Digestion, nor to Corruption, nor to be eaten by Rats: and assured, that though our eyes see it, yet it was not true. See here, after what manner the Enemies of Berengarius did act: Let it be judged, if it was lawful, and fit to be done by Christians.  
The third, in fine, consists in discovering if Berengarius persevered in his Belief until his death, and if he continued to teach it. William of Malmesbury, an English Historian, saith, 
Guill. Malmsb. hist. l. 3. c. 27.  That after having dishonoured the vigour of his Youth by the defence of some Heresies, he repent in his riper years. But because there are found in the History of Berengarius some things which do not very well agree with the Relation of this Historian, it will not be amiss to examine them. It is granted that Berengarius began to publish his Opinions about the Year 1035. at which time he must be about thirty years old; for it is not likely that he made any great stir before that Age. He defended his Cause at Rome in the Year 1079. that is, according to our Computation, in his 74th Year: which is directly contrary unto what William of Malmesbury saith; That after the first fire of his Youth, he repent in a riper Age. Moreover, it appears by a Letter from Lanfranc, unto Reginald, Abbot of St. Cyprian of Poitiers, writ very probably in 1087. or 1088. that is, the year of Berengarius his decease, or a year before; that the Conversion hinted at by the English Historian is but imaginary, seeing that in this Letter Lanfranc calls him Schismatic; and saith, 
Epist. 50.  That he believes and teacheth evil things of Jesus Christ. Besides, the Chronicle of St. Maixant makes this Observation upon the Year 1080. 
Tom. 2. Eibl. l'Abbe p. 212.  There was a Council assembled at Bourdeaux, wherein Berengarius gave an account of his Faith. According unto this Chronicle (for which we are obliged unto the Industry of Father l'Abbe) Berengarius did yet defend his Belief and Doctrine a Year after the Council held at Rome, under Gregory the Seventh, An. 1079. Unto all these Considerations may be added an Anonymous Author, who wrote, Anno 1088. which was the year of the death of Berengarius, a small Treatise, whose Title was, De Berengarii Haeresiarche Damnatione multiplici, Of the several Condemnations of Berengarius the Heretic: which showeth, if I mistake not, that he retained his Opinion unto his death. And Father Chifflet, who gave us this Anonymous; doth sufficiently show that he believes so, when he saith in the Preface, being offended with the Commendations given unto Berengarius, by Hildebert, that this Anymous made his Obsequies after a more discreet manner, 
Chifflet in pralat.  Prudentius ei funus duxit; to wit, in calling him Heretic unto his death. I would then conclude, after all that hath been said, that William of Malmesbury was deceived in placing the Conversion of Berengarius after the first vigour of his Youth, 
Guill. Malmsb. lust. l. 3. c. 27.  in a riper Age; and that the History of this Conversion is no more true, than what he related unto us of Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres; that as he was at the point of death, his House was thronged with people that flocked thither from all parts; and perceiving Berengarius amongst the Crowd, he made a sign that he should be driven away; protesting that there was by him a prodigious Devil, and that he infected a great many by his tongue, and by his hand: for none of Berengarius his Adversaries who had studied under Fulbert never taxed him with any such thing; not so much as Adelman, his Fellow-student under this famous Prelate. 
Tom. 2. Spicil. d'Ach. p. 741.  Moreover, 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 Guill●●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 advantageously as one could do of a man exceedingly recommendable for his Virtue and Learning, for the splendour of his Parts, and for the purity of his Conversation; and by Baldric, Abbot of Bourgueil, 
Tom. 4. hist. Franc. Quercetani.  and afterwards Bishop, or rather, Archbishop of Doll; for he and his Successors also, enjoyed the Privileges of Archbishop, until Innocent the Third, as their Predecessors had done since the middle of the IX. Century, to the prejudice of the Archbishop 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 gins; O Jesus Christ, just Judge! and afterwards he ended his days faithful, and truly Catholic. This Epitaph is read on his Tomb: it is the Epitaph of Hildebert of Mentz, whereof he citys 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, Archbishop of Bulgaria, who lived in this Century under the Dukes, and under the Commenes, Emperors of the East: the Roman Catholics 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, showeth, that the Bread which is sanctified at the Altar, is his real Body, and not the Anti-type, etc. 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, allege, 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 virtue 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 Virtue. 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 itself, they say, that he understood that it was not a vain and empty Figure, without any efficacy and virtue; 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 than 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 virtue and efficacy; because he declares, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the virtue 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 signify, 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 Catholics, 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 showeth 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.  Perfidious Stercoranist (saith he) you believe that the participation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, breaks the Fast of Love, and Ecclesiastical Abstinences; believing absolutely, that the Heavenly Food as well as the Earthly, is sent out backwards by the stinking and sordid ejection of the belly.  
Alger confirms the testimony of Humbert, 
Algerus de Sacram. l. 2. c. 1. t. 6, Bibl. Pat. p. 320.  and declares positively, That the Greeks are of the Opinion of those which he calls Stercoranists; that is to say, of those which hold that the substance of Bread doth remain after Consecration; and that in regard of the substance of it, it is subject unto the same fate of our common food, which was exactly the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas; and afterwards of Berengarius and his followers. 
Cellot in append. Miscel. opusc. 7. p. 5●  Father Cellot in his Notes upon an Anonymous Treatise in the Appendix of his History of Gotteschal, confirms the same thing, saying, That the Error of the Greeks consists in their saying, That the Ecclesiastical Fast is broken by receiving of the Eucharist; and that they believe the Sacrament is digested, and that it is evacuated, like (saith he) unto the Stercoranists; which we have in detestation. The same Cardinal de Blanch-Selva, 
Humbertus ubi supra. p. 247.  also reproacheth them, that they take not heed of the Crumbs of the holy Bread which fall to the ground, either in breaking or receiving of it, whereunto he adds, Some amongst you do eat the remainder of the Oblation like common bread, sometimes even unto excess; and if they cannot eat all, they bury it, or cast it into a Well. All which things do not well accord with the Doctrine, nor with the practice of the Latins. But this is not yet all we have to say of the Belief of the Greek Church in the XI. Century.  
In the Memorials of Sigismond Liber touching the affairs of Muscovy, Printed at Basil, Anno 1571. there is a Letter of one John, Metropolitan of Russia, unto the Archbishop of Rome, written as near as I can judge, in this Century, or it may be afterwards; for he makes some mention of the contention betwixt the Latins and the Greeks touching leavened or unleavened Bread. In this Letter he very amply declares, that what our Lord gave his Disciples was Bread: 
Sigismond. liber r●rum Moscovit. p. 32.  He did not give them Wafers (saith he) but bread, when he said, See the Bread which I give unto you. Leo Allatius in his Diatribe of the Simeons, makes mention of one Simeon, perfect of the Monastery of St. Mamant in Xerocerco, who flourished in the middle of the XI. Century, in great reputation of Holiness and Learning. He was indeed accused of holding some errors concerning the Vision of God in this Life, and of the Union of Believers with him; but that hindered not, but that he was followed by most of the Greeks; the errors now spoken of, did not regard the Sacrament, and had no relation unto the Eucharist. Therefore although he had some Enemies, yet neither he nor his followers were ever taxed to have erred in the matter of the Sacrament. This Simeon, at the time that the Doctrine of Berengarius was Condemned at Verceil, taught in the East, That the Sacrament was one thing, and that the Body of Christ was another thing; and that those which participated unworthily of the Sacrament, could not receive the Body of the Son of God. In fine, Allatius making up the account of the works of this Simeon, 
Allatius de Simeonibus p. 163.  speaks of a certain Hymn, the title whereof was, That whosoever liveth without the knowledge of God, is dead in the midst of those which live in the knowledge of him; and that those which participate unworthily of the Mysteries, cannot receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It were to be wished that Allatius had given us the whole Hymn, as well as the Argument; but however, this Argument contains a Doctrine manifestly contrary unto that of the Latins; in favour of whom, by consequence, it is very unlike that Theophylact should declare, seeing he was of the Greek Church, and lived in the XI. Century, at which time the Greeks believed and taught what is above written; yet let every body judge sincerely and freely, without any other interest than that of truth, which I endeavour to represent in this History, which informs us, that it was in this Age, that they begun to introduce the Communion under one kind; and to change the form of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Churches of the West, as hath been discoursed at large in the First Part.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
A Continuation of the History of the Eucharist, or the State of the XII. and XIII. Centuries.  
THe Opinion of Paschas having been in fine, publicly Authorised in the XI. Century, there needs no farther enquiry be made, to know if it obtained the Victory over its Adversaries, the thing being without any difficulty; the establishing of this Doctrine being a manifest condemnation of that which was opposite unto it; it will suffice then to understand what were the consequences, and to what effect so many Decrees, in favour of the Opinion of Paschas, and contrary unto that of which Berengarius and his followers, so stoutly maintained, did work upon the minds of men; for during all the XI. Century, the minds of Men were divided; and notwithstanding the decisions of several Councils, there was in all parts, infinite numbers of People, which made open profession of the Doctrine which Berengarius taught, and which was exactly that of the Adversaries of Paschas; therefore the very Enemies of Berengarius told us in the foregoing Chapter, That all France, Italy, and England, was full of his Doctrine. In fine, the party which rejected the Determination of Gregory the VII. against Berengarius, was so considerable, that Urban the Second was constrained to condemn anew, the Opinion of Berengarius in another Council held at Plaisance, Anno 1095. 
Berthold. ad aunum 1095.  as Bertholdus has observed in his Appendix unto Herman Contract; for relating all things that were translated in this Council of Plaisance, which was celebrated in his time, he saith amongst other things, that the Doctrine of Berengarius was there again condemned, after having been so several times before. But as the former Determinations could not impose silence upon the Disciples of Berengarius, I mean those which embraced the same Doctrine, which obliged Urban to condemn them again in the year 1095. seven years after the Decease of Berengarius; so also the condemnation of Urban the Second had not power sufficient to silence them, seeing that in the beginning of the XII. Century, Bruno Archbishop of Treves, expelled great numbers of them out of his Diocese, as is testified by Monsieur de Thou, in the Epistle Dedicatory of his History.  
It is true, that instead of the year 1060. whereto he assigns the action of this Prelate, it 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 Diocese 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 alleges against Wickliff, as a Disciple and follower of the Heresy 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 allegeth, and which is therein now to be seen, that no body can doubt but that 'twas of Honorius he spoke. Neither do I find, that any are at variance hereupon. The first testimony produced by Waldensis, and which Wickliff alleged for the defence of his Opinion, 
Honorius Augustod. in gemma animae l. 1. c. ●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 practise; 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 virtue of the Sacrament is that whereby the inward Man is satisfied; and by this virtue 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 Judgement 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 Catholics 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 virtue, 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 Catholics, 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 virtue, 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 virtue, 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 virtue; according to the language of Theodotus, of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Theophilact, etc. alleging, 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 Archbishop of Sevil, venerable Bede, and Rabanus Archbishop 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. Whence they conclude, that seeing the Bread of the Sacrament is not, by Honorius his saying, the natural Body of Jesus Christ: but as it is his mystical Body; that is to say, the Church; for he makes no difference betwixt them, it cannot be it properly, and by an Idendity of substance, as it is spoken; but only in Mystery, and in Sacrament.  
If there were only occasion to show who they were that admitted not of the Doctrine of the Real Presence, we might here instance in Robert de Duitz, near Cologne; because it is certain, by the confession of both sides, that he believed it not: but because we also search the Testimonies of those which followed the Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas, which was that of Berengarius; of which number we cannot affirm that Robert was, we will leave him as a man that was neither a follower of Paschas, nor of his Adversaries; but a Disciple of John Damascen, and of Remy of Auxerr; teaching, as they did, the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity, to make by this Union with the Divinity, one sole Body with the Body of Jesus Christ.  
It is not the same with a certain Abbot, called Francus; of whom the Centuriators of Magdebourg observe, 
Centur. 12. c. 5.  That he had no sound thoughts touching the Communion; affirming, that the real Body of Jesus Christ was not in the Sacrament. One would fain know who this Abbot was, of whom the Centuriators say nothing else; and to say truth, it is very hard, precisely to determine it: but because positive Proofs are wanting, Conjectures that have likelihood and probability may the better be admitted; therefore I will not fear speaking what I think of him. I conceive then, that it was Franco, Abbot of Lobbes, in the Country of Liege. There were two of this name in that Monastery, one of which lived in the time of Lewis, the Son of Charles the Bald; and he was reckoned the twelfth Abbot: but it cannot be him we seek for, because the Centuriators place him towards the middle of the XII. Century; therefore we must rather insist upon the other, who succeeded unto Lambert, about the Year 1153. which is just the time designed by the Centuriators; for Lambert succeeded unto Leonius, Anno 1140. and governed the Monastery thirteen years; 
De gestis Abbatum Lob. t. 6. Spicil. p. 621 622, 628, 629, 630, 631 & 633.  so that our Franco, or Francus, was chosen in his place, Anno 1153. or 1154. he was Head of the Monastery eleven years. And I the rather am induced to believe, that the Centuriators speak of this Franco, Abbot of Lobbes, because that he spoke nothing of the Sacrament, but what two of his Predecessors, Folcuin and Hertiger, had taught before, in the X. Century; as we have declared in writing what passed in that Age upon the Subject of the Sacrament.  
In the time that Franco was Abbot of Lobbes, Gautier of Mauritania was Prebend of Anthona; and he was chosen to go to Rome, to defend the Cause of the prebend's of Anthona, against the Abbot Franco, for a Prebendary which the Friars of Lobbes laid claim unto, as having been, time out of mind, in the Disposal of their Abbots. But so it is, that this Gautier is styled in the Continuation of the History of the Abbots of Lobbes, 
Ubi supra p. 631.  The most eminent, and chiefest of all the Doctors of France. Also, from Prebend of Anthona, he became Bishop of Laon. But that matters not: See here how he speaks of the Presence of Jesus Christ, whilst he was Bishop, in a Letter which he wrote, touching the Mystery of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; and wherein, expounding these words of the 3d. of St. John; 
Galterus Episcopus Laudun Ep. 2. t. 2. Spicil. p. 464.  No man ascended up into Heaven, but the Son of Man which came down from Heaven; he speaks after this manner; By the Son of Man we are here to understand the Word made Flesh; that is to say, the Son of God, which was omnipresent; and not the Body and Soul, that is to say, the Humane Nature which he had taken, and which was not yet ascended into Heaven: for the Flesh which he had assumed, was not present in all places; but in shifting place, it went from one place unto another; which our Saviour showeth in saying unto his Apostles, I am glad, for your sakes, that I was not there. The Angel declares the same unto the Women; saying, You seek Jesus, who was crucified: he is risen, he is not here. From thence it is (saith he) that St. Gregory saith, He is not here by the presence of his Body, which nevertheless, was never absent, in regard of the presence of his Majesty. And elsewhere; 
Id. ibid. Ep. 2. p. 468.  The Son of God (saith he) is on Earth by the presence of his Divinity, although he is in Heaven, at the Right Hand of the Father, by the presence of his Body, and of his Divinity; which he himself declared, being ready to ascend up into Heaven, in the presence of his Disciples; saying, I am with you unto the end of the World. Which words St. Gregory thus expounds; The Word made Flesh remains, and he departs: he goes in regard of his Body, but he remains in regard of his Divinity. And in all the rest of the Epistle, he proves by Authority of the Scriptures, and of the Fathers, the Omnipresence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, in opposition unto his Humanity, which he hath so represented unto us to be in one place, that it could not be at the same time in another.  
We may add unto these Witnesses, that which Father Chifflet gives us in the Preface which he hath made unto the Confession of Faith which he attributes unto Alcuin, Tutor unto Charlemagne; where, disputing against the Disciples of St. Austin, followers of Jansenius, he saith, that he might apply unto them what Hugh Metellus, Prebend of Thoul, had said above five hundred years ago, unto Gerland, Sacramentarian of the Sect of Berengarius: You rely upon the words of St. Austin, 
Chiffict Jesuita in praefar. ad confess. Alcuin.  do not put your dependence upon them, he is not of the same Opinion you are of, you are much mistaken: You assure us, with St. Austin, that the words of Jesus Christ unto his Disciples are figurative, for they declare one thing literally, and they signify another thing: you affirm what he affirmed, but you do not believe what he believed.  
It may then be concluded from what hath been said; and particularly, from the words of this Prebend of Thoul, that at the beginning of the XII. Century, those which were called Berengarians maintained a Doctrine contrary unto that which was established by the Decisions of Councils, which several Popes caused to be assembled against Berengarius in the XI. Century.  
But all these Testimonies are nothing in comparison of what happened in the persons of those called Albigensis; who refusing to submit and acquiess unto the Decission of Popes and their Councils, in favour of the Doctrine of Paschas, separated themselves openly from their Communion; and gave their Reasons for so doing in a Book which they published to that purpose in the vulgar Tongue, wherein they made this Declaration of their Faith touching the Eucharist; 
Hist. de Albigensis de Paul Perrin. l. 3. c. 4.  The eating of the Sacramental Bread is the eating of the Body of Jesus Christ figuratively; Jesus Christ having said, As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me. This Book, as is observed by him that inserted it wholly in his History of the Albigensis, and the Waldensis, was taken from a Manuscript, wherein was contained several Sermons of the Barbes; so it was that those people called their Pastors: it is dated in the Year 1120. which I find nothing strange, when I consider that in the Year 1119. Pope Calixtus the Second assembled a Council at Tholouse in his own presence, wherein certain Heretics were condemned, who rejected the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that is to say, which in all likelihood did not believe what the Latin Church believed. We are obliged for the Canons of this Council, unto Monsieur Baluze; who hath inserted them wholly in a Book of Monsieur de Marca's, touching the Liberties of the Gallican Church. In the third of these Canons this Ordinance is made, 
Apud Marc. de Concord. l. 8. c. 18. p. 344.  We expel out of the Church as Heretics, and condemn those, who making a show of piety, do not approve the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, etc. We command all Secular Powers to punish them: and we bind with the same Bond of Excommunication those which shall protect them, until such time as they shall repent. This Canon, as far as I see, concerns only these Albigensis; who not approving the Doctrine of the Latin Church upon the point of the Eucharist, separated themselves from their Communion, after it had condemned the Doctrine taught by Berengarius, and established that of Paschas in the XI. Century, although it had not admitted thereof before. And what confirms me in this Opinion, is what I find in the Chronicle of St. Tron, in the Country of Liege, touching Radolph, Abbot of that Monastery; and besides, Author of the Chronicle; viz. That being gone to Rome in Pope Honorius the Second his time, who was advanced to this Dignity in the Year 1125. and held the Chair five years, he had a design to travel into another Country which he doth not name; but that he was informed, that it was infected with the Heresy of the Sacramentarians; that is to say, the Doctrine which was condemned in the person of Berengarius. It adds, Moreover, 
Tom. 7. Spicil. d'Ach. p. 493.  he understood that the Country towards which he had a design to travel, in going farther, it was infected with the old Heresy of the Body and Blood of our Lord. This Radolph was Abbot of Tron, Anno 1108. and he wrote his Chronicle about the Year 1125. There was then at that time a Country, wherein Profession was made of a Belief, contrary unto that of the Latin Church, in the point of the Sacrament; and because this Abbot had received and approved the Decisions of Leo, Victor, Nicholas, and of Gregory, against Berengarius, and against his Doctrine, he calls the other Opinion Heresy; and not only Heresy, but the old Heresy; this is the very term he useth; which showeth, that the Belief which he condemns, was no new Invention, according to the Judgement of this Author: but that it had of a long time been much spoken of, and that it was publicly professed by great numbers of people, especially in the Country mentioned by him, which in all probability was the Country of Languedock, wherein the followers of Berengarius spread and published abroad his Doctrine, immediately after his death; not valuing the Prohibitions and Decrees of the Councils of Verceil, of Rome, and of Tours: On the contrary, seeing they authorised, and passed into an Article of Faith, an Opinion which they esteemed to be Novel, and contrary unto the ancient Doctrine of Christians, they separated, and broke off from the Latin Church; in whose Communion they had lived till that time.  
These people had for their chief Conductor, Peter de Bruis; who, after having defended and maintained this Faith and Doctrine, having preached and published it for the space of twenty years, in Languedock, in Gascoigne, and elsewhere, was at last Martyred and burnt at St. Giles in Languedock, by the care and diligence of the Latin Church; preferring rather to suffer death, and to seal with his Blood the Doctrine which he had taught, and which infinite numbers of people openly professed, than to return unto the Communion which he had forsaken.  
After Peter de Bruis, succeeded Henry; who, with some others, defended the Faith of these Churches, which, after his Name were called Henritians, as they had been also called Petrobusians, from the Name of his Predecessor. It is true, that those which had caused Peter de Bruis to be burnt, found means also to suppress Henry, by Order of Pope Eugenius; for Cardinal Alberick, 
Vita S. Bernardi. l. 3. c. 5.  Bishop of Osty, his Legate, having got him into his power, ordered matters so, that he was never heard of after, neither could it be heard of what manner of death he died: but we know very well that Pope Eugenius, being informed of the great progress made by Henry, after the death of Peter de Bruis, whose Martyrdom did only increase and heighten his Zeal for the Defence of the Faith; we know, I say, that the Pope sent Alberick, his Legate; who, with Gaufrid Bishop of Chartres, St. Bernard Abbot of Clervaux (who was at that time in great esteem) with some others, 
Baron. ad An. 1147.  who went towards Tholouse, to pluck up these Thorns, as Cardinal Baronius saith, St. Bernard wrote beforehand unto Alphonsus, Count of St. Giles in Languedock, who favoured Henry with his Protection notwithstanding the violent death which Peter de Bruis had suffered. 
Bernard. Ep. 240.  In this Letter St. Bernard saith several things against the Doctrine, and the Conversation of Henry; who, from a Friar that he was, had embraced the Opinion and Party of Peter, his Colleague; less modest therein than Peter de Clunie, his Contemporary, and also a great Enemy of the Albigensis, 
Contr. Petrobrus.  against whom he wrote under the name of Petrobusians; for he declares, that he will suspend his Judgement of what was reported of Henry, until he was more certainly informed of it. So that I cannot tell if it might not be applied unto St. Bernard, 
In Frideric. l. 1. c. 47.  in this occasion, what was said by Otto de Frisinge; That by a mildness which was natural unto him, he became, in a manner, over credulous. In fine, St. Bernard being come to Tholouse, 
Vita Bernard. l. 3. c. 5, 6.  he bestirred himself with much success (if we believe the Author's of his Life) having with his Sermons, attended with Miracles, instructed the Ignorant, confirmed those which wavered, restored them which had gone astray, and scattered the Gain-sayers, who dared not present themselves before him. Nevertheless, the consequence of matters did not answer the pretended success of this Voyage; for Historians writ, that the numbers of the Albigensis did mightily increase after this Voyage. It is what is precisely observed by Papyrius Masso, in his History of France: for, after having spoken of Henry, Successor unto Peter, of the Letter of St. Bernard, unto the Count of St. Giles, and of his Voyage unto Tholouse, he adds, Moreover, 
Hist. Franc. l. 3. in Philip. August.  neither the death of Peter de Bruis, nor the preaching of St. Bernard could hinder the progress of this Sect, etc. Tholouse, Albi, Carcassona, Beziers, aged, Castres', Lavaur, and almost all the Cities and Villages of Languedock had embraced it; 
In Chronico.  insomuch that William de puylauren's wrote in his Chronicle, that the Inhabitants of Castelverd made light of the Sermons of St. Bernard, and esteemed them erroneous.  
About the same time Arnold of Bress appeared in Italy, teaching the same Doctrine which Peter de Bruis and Henry of Tholouse did teach in France; 
Otto Frising. in Frideric. l. 2. c. 20.  which is the reason that Otto de Frisinge, amongst many other things he lays to his charge, accuseth him to have bad Opinions touching the Sacrament of the Altar: but in fine, either for that, and for the other things he taught, or for the liberty he used in speaking against the Court of Rome, against the Clergy and the Friars, he was burnt at Rome, Anno 1155. under Pope Adrian the Fourth, and his Ashes cast into the River Tiber, fearing, saith Otto and Guntherius, 
Gunther. de Gest. Frid. l. 3. De investig. Antich. l. 1.  lest the people which followed him should honour his body, as the body of a Martyr: and because Gerhohus Rescherspergensis, a Writer of the same Age, could not forbear saying, That he could have wished the Church had not been guilty of that man's blood, who might have been corrected with some milder and easier punishment; the Jesuit Gretzer, not relishing an expression of so much Humanity and mildness, said, 
Prolegom. in scriptor. count. Valdens. c. 4.  That Gerhohus spoke of the punishment of Arnold with no little dis-satisfaction.  
Five years after the death of Arnold of Bress, according to the testimony of Historians, Peter Waldo, a Citizen of Lions appeared; who having found whole Countries of people separated from the Latin Church, he adhered unto them, with those which followed him, to make but one Body and Society, by the unity of the same Faith and Doctrine; they were no better used than the others had been: for Waldo having declared himself publicly, in the Year 1160. I find, that in the Year 1167. there was caused to be burnt at Vezelay in Burgundy, near unto Lions, of which place Waldo was, some of his followers, under the name of Donarii, or Poplicani; which is one of the names given unto the Waldensis; which, in all likelihood, was turned by the Flemings into that of Pifles; for so it is they were called in Flanders. The History of Vezelay placeth the death of those persons, 
Tom. 3. Spicil. p. 644, 645.  which were seven in number, in the Year 1167. I know that all are not agreed of the time wherein Waldo began to appear, and that some make it to before the time we have mentioned. Nevertheless, because the commonest and most received Opinion agrees, that he appeared about the Year 1160. we refer it thereunto, as to the most probable Epoch, and that which is most generally consented unto by Historians. But if all agree not of the time, neither do they agree of the personal Qualities of Waldo; some representing him to be stupid, ignorant and unlearned; and others, on the contrary, not denying him to be well learned. In this diversity of Opinions, it appears very reasonable to prefer the testimony of those which lived near that time, before such as wrote a long while after; especially, seeing there is nothing that should render the former to be suspected: Therefore it is, that in this occasion I give the preferrence unto Reynerus, of the Order of preaching Friars; because he flourished in the XIII. Century, about ninety years after Waldo began to preach. So that if he lived but twenty years after, than Reynerus wrote seventy years after his death. Besides, Reynerus was a declared Enemy of the Waldensis, against whom he wrote; there is no likelihood then that he would flatter Waldo, 
Contra Valdens. c. 5.  nor attribute unto him what was not his Right. Now see what he saith; The Sect of the Poor of Lions, which were also called Leonists, began thus: Some of the chiefest Citizens of Lions being one day together, it happened that one of them died suddenly, in presence of the rest; which struck such a terror into one of the Company, that immediately he distributed great treasures unto the Poor, so that very great multitudes of people followed him, whom he taught to profess voluntary poverty, and to imitate Jesus Christ and his Apostles: and having some competent knowledge of Letters, he taught them the New Testament in the Vulgar Tongue. It is a sign, that if he understood not Greek, he, at least, understood Latin enough to expound the Latin Translation into the Language of the Country. Of this Waldo they were called Waldensis; and of the City of Lions, of which he was, Leonists, or the Poor of Lions, as before they had been called Petrobrusians, from Peter de Bruis; and Henritians, of Henry: and of some other Doctors they had, they were called Arnoldists, Esperonists, Josephists, Lollards: others at several times, in several places, and on several occasions, have called them Albigensis, Tholousians, Picards, Poplicani or Pifles, Bogomiles, Bulgarians, Patarians, Insabatas, Gazarians, Turlupians; and by several other names.  
As for their Doctrine and Belief, even those which have an aversion and hatred for their name and memory, do testify that it was conformable unto that of the Albigensis. The Waldensis, saith Mariana, are the same with the Albigensis, 
Mariana pr●f. in Lucam Tud.  seeing the Doctrine both of the one and the other, contains almost the same Articles; neither were they much distant in time one from the other: and therefore it is, that Emery, of the Order of preaching Friars, and Inquisitor of the Kingdom of Arragon, did not reckon the Albigensis amongst the other Heretics; which I observe to have been done by other Authors of that Age, for the same reason. Gretzer, who hated them no less than Mariana, speaks also in the same manner: 
Episc. praeixa scriptor. count. Valdens. c. 1.  There is a difference betwixt the Albigensis and Waldensis (saith he) in regard of the name, but not of the thing itself. And in his Prologomenies upon the the same Writers, he testifies, That there is no doubt, but the Tholousians and Albigensis, condemned, Anno 1177. and 1178. were not others but the Waldensis. Neither doth Monsieur de Thoul make any difference betwixt them, in the sixth Book of his History. Which sufficeth to show, that the Waldensis, as well as the Albigensis, had an Opinion contrary unto the Latin Church, upon the point of the Sacrament, seeing we fully proved it in regard of the Albigensis; from whose Belief and Faith, the Waldensis did nothing differ. What they say, may be read in a Treatise entitled, The spiritual Almanac; where they give an account of their Faith; particularly, upon the Subject of the Sacrament: for they say in plain terms, 
History of the Waldensis and Albigensis, of Paul Perrin, l. 1. c. 6.  That the bread which Jesus Christ took in his last Supper, which he blessed, which he broke, and gave his Disciples to eat, is in its nature true bread; and that by the Pronoun This, is shown, this sacramental proposition, This is my Body: not understanding these words identically, of a numerical Identity; but sacramentally, really and truly; and not measurably. And afterwards; The eating of the sacramental bread, 
Ibid.  is to eat the body of Jesus Christ in figure. Which is just the Language used by the Albigensis, in the Year 1120. as hath been showed. But besides their own Confession, we have the Testimony of their very Enemies; which suffer us to make no question but that they opposed themselves against the Decrees of Councils held under several Popes, against Berengarius. Radulphus Ardeas, an Author of the XII. Century, or of the XI. makes this Observation, 
Hom. in Dom. 8. post Pentec.  They say that the Sacrament of the Altar is mere bread. Caesarius of Heisterback, 
In Dialog.  They blaspheme the Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ; 
Contr. Vald. c. 6.  to wit, because they did not acquiesce unto the determinations of the Latin Church. And Reynerus, They say that the Body of Jesus Christ is but bread; but the proper body, they call that the true Body of Jesus Christ. 
De erroribus Begehard.  Conradus de Montepuellarum, Prebend of Ratisbon, They blaspheme (saith he) against the Sacrament, saying, That the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot be contained under so small a quantity of bread: and against the Priests; calling them, through derision, 
Contra Vald. c. 8.  God-makers. Eurard of Bethune saith the same; They are so far from saying, that what Christ called his Body, is his Body, that they deny it, 
Contra Vald. c. 11.  as Successors of Judas. Ermengard wrote somewhat to the same effect, touching the same Waldensis: it is the same Slander which is made against them by Guy of Perpignan; 
Lib. de haeres.  saying, That they denied that the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ was under the Sacrament of the Altar. 
Tom. 2. c. 19  And Thomas Waldensis, speaking of Bruno and Berengarius; They erred (said he) like those. He observes, moreover, That when the Host was lifted up, they lifted their eyes up unto Heaven; saying openly, that they worshipped the Body of Christ where it was, 
Contra Vald. c. 10.  and not where it was not. Coussard, a Divine of Paris, speaks of them also in these terms, They say that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not the real Sacrament, but consecrated bread, which is called the Body of Jesus Christ by a Figure; as it is said, that the Rock was Christ. Therefore the Inquisitor Emery, 
Director. part 2. q. 14.  chargeth it upon them as an Error, when they said, That the Bread is not transubstantiated into the true Body of Jesus Christ, nor the Wine into his Blood. And because the Albigensis and Waldensis, to show that they could not conceive that the Eucharist was the real Body of Jesus Christ, were wont to say, that how big soever it had been, it could not subsist still; because the numbers of Communicants would have consumed it since the time they participated thereof. Peter de Vaux-Sernay writes, that they taught publicly, and infused this Doctrine into the ears of the simple. 
Hist. Albigens. c. 2.  That the Body of Jesus Christ, if it had been as big as the Alps, had been consumed long since, and reduced unto nothing, by those which eat thereof. And I find in the Chronicle of the Senonian Monastery, at the Mount de Vauge, in the Diocese de Toul, that a Person of Quality, upon that very consideration, rejected the Doctrine of the Real Presence and Substantial Conversion; for being sick of his last Sickness, at the end of the XII. Century, they going about to persuade him that the Sacrament was the real Body of Jesus Christ: 
Tom. 2. Spicil. p. 405.  And how (saith he) can that be? For if this Body were as big as a great Mountain, it would have been eaten by the people a thousand times. There be some which observe also that Berengarius was wont to jest by the like words at the Confession of Faith which they would have him make, and wherein they made him confess amongst other things, 
Petrus Clunia. contra Petrobrus.  That the Body of Jesus Christ is truly handled by the hands of the Priests, that it is broen and eaten by the teeth of Believers. I will join unto all these Considerations, that we find in the History of Roger de Hoveden, by the relation of Peter, Cardinal of St. Chrysogan, and Legate of Pope Alexander the Third, in France, touching his proceed against the Waldensis at Tholouse; and principally, by the Declaration of Henry, Abbot of Clervaux, upon the same Subject; That one of the eminentest amongst them, called Peter Moran, being pressed to declare ingenuously what he believed concerning the Sacrament of the Altar; answered, 
Apud Baron. ad An. 1178.  That the holy Bread of Life Eternal, consecrated by the Ministry of the Priest, and by the word of our Saviour, is not the Body of Jesus Christ. A Declaration which fully justifies that it was the true Belief of the Albigensis and Waldensis; and showeth that they were deceived which said, that they did not deny that the Eucharist was the true Body of Jesus Christ, but when him that celebrated and consecrated was sinful and unworthy to consecrate: for they denied it simply and absolutely, without enquiring into the good or bad qualities of him that officiated. And the most considerable Doctors of the Latin Communion do confess, that they had the same Belief that Berengarius had of the Sacrament: and it cannot justly be any way questioned, after all the many Testimonies which have been instanced.  
It is true that the Albigensis and Waldensis have been taxed and charged with many reproaches, and there has been many grievous Accusations laid to their charge, both referring unto their Doctrine and their Manners. As to their Doctrine, I think that their Belief ought to be judged according to their Confessions of Faith; which being public Declarations of their Opinions, makes all the Accusations contrary thereunto, to be void; because we cannot judge of the Faith of a Society, and of a Communion, but by the Confession which it makes; to the prejudice whereof, nothing more can lawfully be charged upon it. It seems to me to be the true means, certainly to judge of the Belief of those of whom we speak, and of the Accusations which have been laid to their charge. Peter of Clunie, writing against the Petrobrusians, that is to say, against the Disciples of Peter de Bruis, or against the Albigensis, saith, That the report is, 
Peter Clunie contra Petrobrus.  that they believe neither in Jesus Christ, nor in the Prophets, nor Apostles; and that they deny the Old and New Testament, that they reject the whole Canon of the Scriptures. Which, nevertheless, I will not believe (saith he) nor accuse them of things so uncertain. Which Proceeding so far appeared very just and reasonable; for a Christian's Charity should not be suspicious. And, in fine; see here what they declared in the Year 1120. 
Hist. of Albing. by Paul Perrin c. 1. l. 3.  forty years before Waldo appeared. It is evident (say they) both by the Old and New Testament, that a Christian is obliged by the Commandment enjoined him, that he should departed from Antichrist: which they prove by sundry passages of Esay, Jeremiah, Ezekiel; of Leviticus, Numbers, Exodus, Deuteronomy; of St. Matthew, St. John, and the Revelations. The report was also, as the same Peter de Clunie saith, That they denied that little Children, under a reasonable age, could be saved by the Baptism of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, I only can find this in their Confession; 
Ubi supra c. 4.  What is not necessary in the Administration of Baptism, are the Exorcisms, blowing, the sign of the Cross upon the breast and face of the Infant, the Salt which is put into the mouth, and the Spittle put into their ears and nose, etc. And about eighty or ninety years after Waldo began to appear, Reynerus, one of their greatest Enemies, 
Cap 5. & 3.  gives them this Testimony; They commonly have by heart the Text of the new Testament, and good part of the old; they have the old and new Testament translated into the vulgar Tongue; and so they do teach and learn it. I saw and heard one of their Peasants, who repeated, word by word, the Book of Job; and several others of them, who repeated perfectly all the New Testament. And elsewhere; 
Cap. 4.  all other kind of Sects (saith he) are monstrous, by reason of the Blasphemies which they audaciously offer against God: but as for the Sect of the Leonists (that is to say, the Waldensis) they have a great appearance of piety, because they live uprightly and justly in the sight of Men, and have a sound Belief for all that concerns God, and of all the Articles which are contained in the Creed. If those people had good and sound thoughts touching God, and a right Belief of all the Articles of the Apostle's Creed, as their very Adversaries do confess, as well as their own Confession of Faith, it is impossible they should either be Arians, or Manicheans. It must then be said, that those which charged them with both these Heresies, were very ill informed of their Belief. And to say the truth, Reynerus, their Persecutor, hath spoken so much in their commendation, that he sufficiently warrants them from the impiety of Manes, and the Heresy of Arius. Also in the same Treatise, he carefully distinguisheth them from the Catharians, and Manicheans; 
Cap. 6.  for he saith, That there was not in the whole World above four thousand Catharians, Men and Women; but as for the Believers, they were without number: for so it is he calls the Walaensis; 
Cap. 1. & 12.  as also doth Pilichdorphius, who wrote against them; and observes that the Waldensis rejected several Sects of Heretics which were then in the World. 
Hist. Albin. c. 2. In Prol. chron.  And Peter de Vaux-Sernay, and William de Puy-Lawrans, Authors of that Age, make a difference betwixt the Albigensis and the Waldensis, and the Manicheans and Arians. Thence it is that neither Pilichdorfius, nor Bernard, Abbot de Foncaude, nor Emery, do not accuse them of Manicheism, nor of Arianism, in the List of the Errors which they impute unto them, which consists chief in denying most of the Doctrines of the Latin Church, which the Protestants do also reject. Certainly William de Newbridge, although their great Enemy, cleareth them from all suspicion of these two Impieties; 
Rerum Angl. l. 2. c. 13.  when speaking of the Albigensis under the name of Publicans, which passed from Gascoigne, into England, he saith, Being examined by order upon the Articles of their Faith, they answered very well as to what regarded the Essence of the chief Physician, but ill as to the Remedies whereby he is pleased to heal humane Infirmities; that is to say, the Divine Sacraments.  
All these considerations makes me not approve the proceed of Mariana and of Gretzer, who, to make believe that these Christians were really guilty of the abominations of Manes, and the Blasphemies of Arius, have changed the title of certain Authors which they have published, and which have written not only against the Albigensis and Waldensis, but also against others; for instance, Luke 〈◊〉 Tude had given this Title unto his Book, Of the life to come, and of Controversies of Faith. But Mariana, to make the Readers believe this work only regarded the Albigensis, hath given it this Title, 
In Ep. ad Carvajalium Cauricus Episcop.  Against the Error of the Albigensis; And in his Letter unto Carvajalius, I purpose (saith he) to publish Luke de Tude his Dispute against the Heretics of his time, that is to say, the Albigensis (for this Sect was strong in the days of Luke:) Reynerius had thus entitled his Book, A Treatise touching Heretics: And Gretzer hath given it this inscription, Against the Waldensis; Although the Author doth testify that he writeth also against others; which were of Opinions different from those of the Waldensis: And whereas Everard de Bethuna was content with this Title, Antihaeresis, that is to say, against Heresies. In which Treatise he refutes chief the Mannicheans without naming them; the same Gretzer hath made no scruple to entitle it, Against the Waldensis; Bernard de Foncaude gave this name unto his Treatise, Against the Waldensis, and against the Arians; so evidently distinguishing in that manner, the Waldensis from the Arians; but Gretzer contented himself with this only, against the Waldensis. In fine, Ermingard had placed this Title to his Book, Against the Heretics which believe and say, that this World and all visible things are not the work of God, but of the Devil; that is to say, against the Manicheans; and Gretzer hath placed over each page, against the Waldensis. But this kind of conduct is so far from rendering those people more odious, according to the intention of those which do it, that on the contrary, it serves to justify them; and to make the reproaches which they have been charged with, to pass for malicious slanders. I will not here insist upon their taxing the same Albigensis and Waldensis, of denying Marriage; because, besides their positive Declaration on this matter, their very Enemies confess, that they do even condemn the abuse and intemperance of Marriage; so it is that Reynerus their persecutor speaks, who had often assisted at their Examinations; 
Cap. 5.  They condemn Marriage (saith he) in saying, that married persons sin mortally, if they marry without hopes of begetting Children. Coussard also makes this remark, They say that Marriage is sworn Adultery, 
Coussard. fol. 60.  if it be not accompanied with Continency; that is to say, if the bounds of reasonable moderation and natural usodesty be not observed.  
Wherefore then, may it be asked, were the Albegensis and Waldensis accused by some of being Manicheans? for what appearance is there that they should have been accused of this cursed Heresy, if they had been no way guilty of it? Unto this the Protestants, which undertake to defend their Innocency, will not fail to answer, that it happened unto them as it did unto the primitive Christians, who were charged with grievous crimes, and unheard of wickednesses, although the World was never blessed with more pure and innocent Souls. The thing appears sufficiently by the testimonies of their very Enemies; who were constrained to confess they were neither Manicheans, nor Arians; but only Adversaries of the Doctrine and Worship of the Latins; and so their Innocency itself is sufficiently vindicated, if it were so that we could not discover the motive of these Accusations. Nevertheless, it is very probable they were induced to lay these Accusations unto their charge, because there was in their time in France, and elsewhere in the West, great numbers of Manicheans, Catharians, Arians, and other Heretics; so that inhabiting many times in the same places, some through ignorance, as the common people; and others through Malice, as the Doctors; made no difficulty of charging them with the Impieties of these Heretics, who lived at the same time, and in the same places: And it was so much the easier to make the people believe it, in seeing these Heretics to be opposite unto the Latin Church, as well as the Albigensis and Waldensis, although by very different motives: that they easily thought they had been all united together against her; and by consequence, of the same Belief, and of the same Opinion. It is true, that the same Authors which wrote against the Albigensis and the Waldensis, whom we have already mentioned, wrote also against the Catharians, Manicheans, Arians, and other Heretics; which showeth that there were considerable numbers of them at the time that they wrote against the Waldensis. And as for the Catharians and Manicheans in particular, we cannot doubt but that Italy, France and Germany was infected with them, 
Ad An. 10 22.  after what several Historians have written. Nicholas Vignier reports in his Ecclesiastical History, the Testimony of a certain Author, who writes, that these Catharians, or Manicheans had passed from Bulgaria and Slavonia, into Italy; and saith, that they were very numerous in Lombardy; from whence they passed afterwards into France. Wherefore, about the Year 1017. some of them were put to death at Orleans, in the presence of King Robert, and of Constance his Wife, after Judgement being given by the Prelates, assembled in that City for retrieving these miserable Creatures from their impieties; but it was in vain, for they therein persisted to the last gasp, excepting one of them who was a Clergyman of Orleans, and a Nun; which acknowledged their error: but as for all the rest, especially two Priests of the same City, Stephen and Lisoius, they were burnt alive; which, if my memory fail not, is the first Execution unto death practised against Heretics, ever since what had been done against the Priscilianists, in the days of St. Martin, Bishop of Tours, in the iv 
Tom. 2. Spicil. p. 670, 671, etc.  Century. Dom Luke d'Achery hath inserted in one of the Tomes of his Collections, the Acts of this Synod of Orleans held against the Manicheans. Several Historians make mention of this Execution; and have observed, that ten of the prebend's of the Church of Holy Cross of Orleans, who seemed to have more piety than the rest, were chief comprised in this Condemnation. 
Tom. 2. Bibl. l'Abbe p. 180, 181.  Amongst others, the Friar Ademar, who wrote his Chronicle at that time, and who, besides these Manicheans at Orleans, makes mention of several others which were discovered at Tholouse: and he observes with other Authors, that there were great numbers of them in several Countries in the West. But I cannot tell but the knowledge of another Assembly, convocated against the Manicheans, is due unto Ademar; 
Ibid. p. 184.  for thus he speaks at the end of his Chronicle, Of late Duke William assembled at Charrou a Council of Bishops and Abbots, to suppress the Heresies which the Manicheans went dispersing about. And Herman Contract writes, upon the Year 1052. 
Hom. Domin. 8 post Trinitat.  that the Emperor Henry caused several to be hanged at Goslar. And Radolphus Arden's, at the end of the XI. Century, doth in his Sermons at Again in Guienne, vigorously pursue the Manicheans. The Manicheans then, to reassume our History, being in so great numbers in France, in the time of the Albigensis and Waldensis; these latter might, through ignorance or malice, be charged with the Errors of the former.  
But having shown what the Enemies of the Waldensis and Albigensis wrote of their Doctrine, and what they themselves declared in their Confessions, it will be requisite to say something of their Life and Manners. If we inquire of Reynerus, their Persecutor, 
Cap. 7.  he will informs us, That they were to be known by their life, and by their words; because they were modest and civil in their manners, without pride in their Apparel; which was neither vile, nor over-costly. That to avoid lying, swearing and fraud, they gave not themselves much unto Merchandizing: that they had no great desire of gathering much Wealth, contenting themselves with things necessary: that they were sober and chaste; not frequenting Taverns not Dances, nor other vanities of this nature: that they suffered themselves not to be overcome with passion: that they laboured continually, and were always employed in teaching others, or instructing themselves: that they spoke but little, and modestly: that they would not suffer jesting, nor sharp reflections; avoiding indiscreet words, censusuring, lying and swearing. And another Author without name, which wrote against them, whom the Jesuit Gretzer hath printed with Pilichdorfius, testifies of their Teachers, whom he calls Arch-heretics: That they shown them the good examlpes of Humility, Liberality, Chastity, Sobriety; of Peace, Mildness and Charity. Therefore others have left upon Record, 
●●cob. de Repiria in coll●crand. de urb. ●olos. Gaill de Podio ●aurent. prolog. Chron. in the Ecclesiastical Histo●● of Nicholas Vignier, upon the Year 1●●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 traveled 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 Lions, 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 Lions; 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 Heresy hath subsisted in this Diocese, 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 Heresy 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 Lions, 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 Croisadas raised against the Albigensis, and the Waldensis, during the greatest part of the XIII. Century.  
But as we writ 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, Archbishop of Canterbury in England, and Legate 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.  clothed 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 praecep●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, chief 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 public 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 virtue. 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 itself 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 thing else; denying Transubstantiation; as Bernard of Luxemburg, 
Lib. 4. ad Ann. 1215.  Prateolus and Alphonso de Castro have observed; and after them, Gennebrard in his Chronology. It is true, he was accused of denying the Resurrection of the Dead, Heaven and Hell; and of believing several other things which were not justifiable: but because these Accusations are brought by those which approved not his Judgement touching the holy Sacrament, the Reader may judge what credit they ought to have against the memory of this Man, whilst I shall observe that Pope Innocent the Third, in his Council of Lateran, in the Year 1145. condemned Amalarick, even after he was dead; and if we believe Gaguinus, he died of grief for having been forced to retract, but upon another Subject than that of the Sacrament, whereof this Historian maketh no mention; neither doth Innocent the Third declare for what Error it was that he condemned him. 
Cap. 2.  We reject also (saith he) and do condemn the most pernicious Tenent of the wicked Amaury, of whom the Father of Lie hath so blinded the Understanding, that his Doctrine ought rather to be accounted an Extravagance, than a Heresy. After which, they fell upon the Ashes of this Man; for his Body, 
Gaguin. ubi sapra.  which had been buried behind St. Martin's Church in Paris, was dis-interred, and burnt.  
The same Innocent the Third, in the same Council, approving the word Transubstantiation, which Stephen, Bishop of Autun, had invented, and the thing designed by the word, made this Decree; 
Cap. 1.  The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really contained under the Species of Bread and Wine, in the Sacrament of the Altar; the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood. I say, Innocent made this Decree, because, in effect, that was practised in this Council, which was not usually practised in Councils before. I mean, that the Prelates of the Assembly had not the liberty of giving their Voices and Consent; seeing they neither proposed, nor deliberated, nor gave their Opinion, nor made any Constitutions, which are there in great numbers: but they were presented unto the Council ready cut and dry; it not appearing that the Advice of the Assembly was taken upon each of them, as is usually done in all free and lawful Councils. Matthew Paris, an English Historian, speaks in these terms; 
Ad Ann. 1115.  Every body being assembled at the place abovesaid, and each one, according to the custom of general Councils, having taken his place; the Pope having first made a Speech of Exhortation, there were sixty Articles read in open Council, which seemed tolerable unto some, and burdensome unto others. Godfrey, a Friar of St. Pantaleon at Cologne, said, That there was nothing worthy of memory acted in this Council, if it were not, that the Eastern Church submitted itself unto the Church of Rome; which had not been heard of before. Nauclerius and Platina, in the Life of Innocent the Third, say the same, seeing they writ, 
Ad Ann. 1115.  That several things were there put into deliberation; but yet, nevertheless, nothing was clearly nor openly determined. After all, the Decree of Innocent, in favour of the Real Presence, regarded not only Amaury of Chartres, who taught the contrary, but also the Albigensis; as Binnius doth confess in his Notes upon this Council, and as I do infer from a Conference which the Legates of Innocent the Third had nine years before, with some of the Pastors of the Albigensis, in the City of Montreal, near Carcassona; where Arnold Hot, which spoke in behalf of the Albigensis, 
History of All 〈◊〉 by Paul Per●in. l. 1. c. 2.  proposed this Thesis; That the Mass and Transubstantiation were the inventions of men, and not the Command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. The Acts of this Conference were seen, and in his possession that wrote the History. But in fine, Innocent the Third, seeing he could not prevail over those people by Dispute and Argument, he had recourse unto more violent Remedies; I mean, public and downright Persecutions; even so far as to grant unto all such as would take Arms against them, and destroy them, the same Indulgences which were granted unto those which crossed themselves for the recovering of the Holy Land from the Turks: 
Concil. Lateran. sub Innocen. 〈◊〉. c. 3.  That the Catholics (saith he) that cross themselves for the exterminating of Heretics, shall enjoy the same privileges and Indulgences, which is given unto those which go to the Recovery of the Holy Land. 
Tom. 7. Spicil. p. 210.  And Dom Luke d'Achery, in one of the Tomes of his Collections, hath given us the Sentence of the Council of Lateran, or rather of Innocent, by advice, as he saith, of the Council, wherein he granteth unto the Count de Mountford all the Lands which the Crusado had taken from the Count of Tholouse, 
Tom 2. Spicil. p. 610. 612. 619.  and from the Albigensis; especially the Cities of Tholouse and Montauban, as being most infected with this Heresy: according unto which, he assembled and held a Council at Avignon, in the Year 1209. by Hugh, Bishop of Ries in Provence, his Legate: where it was concluded, that the Heretics should be expelled, according to the Oath which he caused the Consuls of Montpellier to take the same year; 
Ibid. p. 611 etc. & p. 63●, etc.  the which was again renewed in a Council held at Tholouse, Anno 1228. and in another at Albi, Anno 1254. Which showeth plainly, that Languedock was still full of Waldensis and Albigensis, as well as several other parts of Gascoigne.  
I pass over at this time the Ordinances of Honorius the Third, Successor unto Innocent, and of Gregory the Ninth, which took Honorius his Chair, touching the Adoration of the Host; nor of the Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament, by Urban the Fourth; because we shall be obliged to speak of it in the Third Part of this Work. But I will insist upon the consideration of one thing which I cannot pass over in silence, without prejudicing this History: it regards Guy le Gross, Archbishop of Narbonna; who going to visit Pope Clement the Fourth, formerly his intimate friend, being at his Court, and there discoursing with a man of Learning, could not forbear declaring unto him his Opinion touching the Eucharist, which was directly contrary unto Transubstantiation; whicy Pope Clement having understood after his Return, wrote unto him, and represented, that he was of an ill persuasion, and that he must recant it. And it appears by this Pope's Letter, that the Archbishop maintained, that this Opinion was very common amongst the Doctors of Paris. The Letter was taken from the Register of Manuscript Letters of Clement the Fourth, about fourteen years ago. Aubertin, a Protestant Minister, inserted it in the third Book of his Latin Treatise of the Sacrament, it being communicated unto him by one of his friends; and I having been informed of late by a person of good Reputation, who saw it before it was published by Aubertin, that it is for certain in the Register, I will make no scruple of representing it here in our Language, that the Reader might judge of what consequence it is in regard of the matter which we examine. See here then what Pope Clement wrote unto this Archbishop. 
In Registr. manuscript. Ep●●● Clement. ●●.  The more sincere our love is unto you, the more we have been touched in hearing certain things of you, which agree not with the gravity of your Office; considering especially that they endanger your Dignity, and your Honour. I writ unto you familiarly, and unknown unto any body, excepting him that writes the Letter, to let you know that I am informed, whilst you were in our Court, and discoursed with a certain Doctor touching the Sacrament of the Altar, you said unto him, that the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ was not essentially in the Eucharist, no otherwise than the thing signified is in the Sign: And that you said, moreover, that this Opinion is in great esteem at Paris. This discourse being secretly whispered amongst some persons, and being at last come to our knowledge, I was much troubled at it; and I could scarce believe that you would have spoken things which contain manifest Heresy, and which are contrary to the truth of this Sacrament, wherein Faith doth operate with so much the more benefit, as it surpasseth Sense, captivates the Understanding, and subjects Reason under its Laws. Therefore I counsel you not to be wiser than you should: and not to impute to the Doctors of Paris, Opinions which they believe not; but that you humbly confess, and firmly believe what the Church believeth, and what the Saints preach and teach, viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, although he be locally in Heaven, is truly, really and essentially, under the Species of Bread and Wine, after the Priest hath pronounced the sacred words, according to the usage of the Church. And if by hazard you remember him or them, unto whom you have said it, revoke it either verbally, or by writing, to the end that those which suppose that you believe what ought not to be believed of this great Mystery, might harbour no ill Opinion of you. At Viterba, the 5th of the Calends of November, Anno the 3d. that is, of his Popedom; which answers unto the Year of our Lord, 1268. This Prelate being disheartened at the reading of this Letter, and fearing the loss of his Office and Honour, denies having spoken what the Pope taxed him with; and under obscure and intricate terms, made profession of believing what the Church of Rome believed concerning this Mystery; yet in such a manner, that he saith certain things which agree not very well with this Doctrine, 
In Registro Epist. Clemen. supra cit. Ep. 519.  and which seem to testify that this Archbishop of Narbona dared not freely to declare his thoughts. The Body of Jesus Christ (saith he) is understood four several ways: 1. It is so called in regard of the resemblance, as the Species of Bread and Wine, and that improperly. 2. It is taken for the material Flesh of Jesus Christ, which was crucified and pierced with a Lance, and which was first taken from the blessed Virgin: and this signification is proper. 3. For the Church, or for its mystical Unity. 4. For the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ, which is Meat indeed. And it is said of those which eat this Flesh spiritually, that they do receive the truth of the Flesh and Blood of our Saviour. This Prelate maketh a difference of the spiritual Flesh of Jesus Christ which he proposeth as the Food of Believers, from the Flesh of our Lord, taken properly, and in its true signification: I cannot tell if his Opinion and Judgement may not thereby be determined; which I leave unto others to do. Whereas it is read in the Pope's Letter unto this Archbishop, that he said that his Opinion, contrary to the Doctrine of the Real Presence, was famous and frequent at Paris, it is not without great probability, if it be considered that two years after, that is to say, Anno 1270. which was the year of the death of St. Lewis; Stephen, Bishop of Paris, condemned, by advice of the Doctors of Divinity, those which held, 1. That God doth not make the Accident to subsist without its Subject, 
Tom 4. Bibl. Pat. p. 924.  because it is of his Essence, that it should be actually in its subject. 2. That the Accident without a Subject, is not an Accident, unless it be equivocal. 3. That to make the Accident be without the Subject, as we believe it is in the Sacrament, is a thing impossible, and implies a Contradiction. 4. That God cannot make the Accident to be without the Subject, nor that there should be several dimensions together. Maxims which being inconsistent with Transubstantiation, declare, if I mistake not, that those which held them were far from believing it; which I refer to the judgement of the Reader, contenting myself in warning him, 
Tom. 2. Spicil. p. 795. anno 1236.  that instead of the Year 1227. which is marked at the beginning of this Anathema, it should be the Year 1270. that about thirty years before, to wit, the Year 1236. there were taken in divers parts of France, Flanders, Champagne, Burgundy, and other Provinces, great numbers of Waldensis, under the names of Bulgarians and Pifles; and that all those which would not renounce their Faith were burnt alive, and their Goods confiscated, as the Chronicle of St. Medard of Soissons doth testify; where it is observed, that before that time it was so practised for three whole years together, and that the same course was held the five years following without intermission; to wit, until the Year 1241.  
What I have now said of the Letter of Clement the Fourth, unto the Archbishop of Narban, and that of this Prelate unto the Pope, and of the Condemnation of certain Maxims which were condemned by Stephen, Bishop of Paris, will receive much light from the History of what passed in the University of Paris in the Year of our Lord, 1304. And see here what it is.  
John of Paris, of the Order of Preaching Friars, that is, of Dominicans, taught a manner of existing of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, different from that which was commonly received in the Latin Church. He does not indeed condemn the manner of existing of the Conversion of Bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, which was the Opinion generally received amongst the Latins; but he pretends that it is no Article of Faith, not having been determined by the Church no more than that which he meant to establish; and that therefore it was at every bodies free choice to embrace either the one or the other, although he judged his safest, and subject unto less inconveniences. And he makes it consist in the Assumption of the Bread by the Divinity, and in that the substance of Bread remains in the Sacrament.  
Thereby he explains the Retractation they made Berengarius make under Nicholas the Second; to wit, That the Body of Jesus Christ is broken by the hands of the Priest, and ground by the teeth of Believers; not only in Sacrament, but in the verity itself. And he explains it in saying, that this should be understood by the Bread which was taken by the Divinity; although that by a Communication of Idioms, what befalls the Bread, should be attributed unto the Body of Jesus Christ. It is by this same Communication of Idioms that he explains these words; The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ, the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, and the eating of his Flesh: for he pretends that the glorified Flesh of our Saviour cannot be eaten, it being immortal. Caro Christi glorificata non est manducabilis, impassibilis existens. And answering this Objection which might be made against him, That if the substance of Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar, as he did teach, it would follow that it should be adored with the worship of Latrie, which would be more Idolatry: he saith, it would be Idolatry, if the Bread were adored in its own form (that is to say, in itself;) but that there is no Idolatry, being adored in another (that is to say) in the Divinity, which hath taken it and hath united it unto itself.  
But what I find more remarkable in this History is, that the Faculty of Divinity of Paris did not condemn the Sentiment of this Doctor; on the contrary, it formally declared, that it held for a probable Opinion both the one and the other manner of making exist the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. I say, that which John of Paris established, and the other which depended on the change of the substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ; that it approved of both the one and the other; saying nevertheless, that neither of these two ways had yet been determined by the Church, and that neither of them, by consequence, was an Article of Faith: that if this Doctor had spoke otherwise, he had spoke amiss; and that those which speak otherwise, do not say well; and that whosoever should affirm definitively, that either the one or the other of these two manners of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament should precisely be esteemed matter of Faith, that is, that it is a point of Faith, should incur Sentence of Excommunication.  
And the more particularly to satisfy the Reader's curiosity, I will recite in proper terms the Title of this little Treatise of John of Paris, his design, his protestation, and the Judgement of the Faculty of Divinity; to the end he may consider what was in that time the disposition of Christians in the West in regard of the Sacrament; and how the most famous of all Faculties of Divinity did esteem that the Church had not yet determined any thing touching the manner of the presence of Jesus Christ in this Mystery. But first of all, I must inform the Reader, that what we are going to allege, was taken out of a Manuscript which is in the Library of St. Victor of Paris; the which is well known unto several persons which have seen it as well as myself; and hath for Title what follows.  
Determinatio Fratris Johannis de Parisus Praedicatoris, de modo existendi corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris, alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia.  
Intendo dicere veram existentiam & realem cor●oris Christi in Sacramento Altaris, & quod non est ibi solum in signo, & licet teneam & approbem illorum solennem opinionem, quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento Altaris per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum, & quod ibi maneant accidentia sine subjecto, non tamen audeo dicere quod hoc cadat sub fide mea; sed potest aliter salvari vera & realis existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris.  
Protestor tamen quod si ostenderetur dictus modus determinatus esse per sacrum Canonem, aut per Ecclesiam, aut per Concilium generale, aut per Papam qui virtute continet totam Ecclesiam, quicquid dicam volo haberi pro non dicto, & statim paratus sum revocare, quod si non sit determinatus, contingat tamen determinari, statim paratus sum assentiri.  Judicium Facultatis Theologiae. 
In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est, utrumque modum ponendi corpus Christi esse in altari, tenet pro opinione probabili, & approbat utrumque per— & per dicta sanctorum, 
There wants a word in the Manuscript.  dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam, & ideo nullum cadere sub fide, & si aliter dixisset, minus bene dixisset, & qui aliter dicunt, minus bene dicunt, & qui determinate assereret alterutrum praecise cadere sub fide, incurreret sententiam Canonis Anathematis.  
But that nothing may be wanting unto this History, the Reader may take notice, if he please, that the Bishop of Paris, assisted with some Bishops; and with the Faculty of the Common Law, did condemn the Opinion of this Doctor of whom we speak: he made his Appeal unto the Pope, and went to Rome to make good his Appeal. Being there arrived, Judges were assigned; but before any Judgement was given, he died. So it is we are informed by the Continuator of the Chronicle of William de Nangis, which is found in a Manuscript in the Library of St. German de Pres; whence I have taken what concerns the History of John of Paris, and which I will represent in the words of the Author which continues this Chronicle unto the 1368. and who speaks thus upon the year of our Lord, 1304.  
Frater Johannes de Parisiis ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum, Magister in Theologia, vir admodum literatus & ingenio clarus, circa veram existentiam corporis Christi in Sacramento Altaris, novum ponendi modum introducere conatur, dicens videlicet non tantum hoc esse possibile commutatione substantiae panis in corpus Christi, verbo adesse suppositum ipsius mediante corpore quod est pars humanae naturae: verum etiam hoc esse possibile per assumptionem substantiae panis vel panietatis in Christo, nec credebat communem modum ponendi quem communis doctorum tenet opinio esse necessario tenendum, seu ab Ecclesia determinatum; quinetiam praedictus possit teneri tanquam popularis, & fortasse, ut dicebat, magis rationabilis & congruens veritati Sacramenti, & per quam magis salvatur apparentia circa species sensibiles remanentes, caeteris Theologiae doctoribus contrarium astruentibus, 
* I think Primum should be read here, rather than Secundum.  secundum modum tanquam ab Ecclesia determinatum, praesertim per decretalem Papae de summa Trinitate, & fide catholica firmiter credimus necessario tenendum, ac secundum tanquam veritati fidei & etiam Sacramenti dissonum merito reprobandum; examinata itaque opinione praedicta dum ea quae dixerat retractare nollet, sed magis videretur pertinaciter sustinere, a Guillielmo Parisiensi Episcopo de consilio fratris Egidii Bituricensis Archiepiscopi provecti Theologi, & Magistri Bertrandi de Sancto Dionysio praesellenti doctore, & Aurelianensis Episcopi, ac Guillielmi Albianensis Episcopi, necnon & doctorum in jure canonico pariter & duorum ad hoc specialiter vocatorum, perpetuum super hoc silentium dicto fratri sub poena excommunicationis impositum est, lecturaque pariter & predicatione privatur: Verum cum ob hoc ad sedem Apostolicam appellasset, auditoribus sibi datis in curia, sed infacto negotio de medio sublatus est.  
It appears by what hath been said, especially by the Judgement of the Faculty of Divinity, that it was not believed at the beginning of the XIV. Century, that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was an Article of Faith, notwithstanding the Decree of Innocent the Third, at the Council of Lateran, Anno 1215. and no more but a probable Opinion: and that it was in every bodies free liberty to follow it, or not. Which will not a little confirm the Protestants in the belief they are in, that the Doctrine of the Real Presence did not pass into an Article of Faith, until the Council of Trent; after the Ordinances whereof, they esteemed that there was an indispensable necessity of separating from the Communion of the Latins; and will make them at the same time say, that this sole Consideration which we have made upon the History of John of Paris is sufficient entirely to ruin the foundation of the two famous Books which have appeared of late years, wherein they have pretended to show that Transubstantiation has always been esteemed in the Church to be an Article of Faith. And there is no question but they are much confirmed in this Sentiment, when they shall see that the Cardinal d'Aylli, which assisted at the Council of Constance, at the beginning of the XV. Century, speaks of Transubstantiation, as of an Opinion; and also saith, that it cannot be clearly inferred from the holy Scriptures, nor, as he thinks, from the determination of the Church, that the substance of Bread doth not remain in the Sacrament: nevertheless, he embraceth the Opinion that holds so, as that which is most favoured by the Church, and which is most generally received amongst the Doctors. 
Petrus de Aylliaco Cardin. Camerac. in 4. sent. q. 6.  See here his words; Quarta opinio & communior est quod substantia panis non remanet, sed simpliciter desinit esse. Ejus possibilitas patet, quia non est Deo impossibile, quod illa substantia subito desinat esse, quamvis non esset possibile creata virtute. Et licet ita esse non sequatur evidenter ex Scriptura, nec etiam videre meo ex determinatione Ecclesiae; quia tamen magis favet ei, & communi opinioni sanctorum & doctorum, ideo teneo eam.  
But having reported what passed in the West during the XII. and XIII. Centuries touching the holy Sacrament, according unto our method, it will not be amiss to say something touching the Eastern Church. Genebrard in his Chronologies makes mention of a certain Friar called Basil, of whom he observes, That he reestablished the Error of Berengarius; for although he speaks of the year 1087. nevertheless, 
Ad annum 1087.  according to the testimony of Zonarus, reported by Cardinal Baronius, he dogmatized for the space of 52 years, we may put him into the number of the Authors of the XII. Century. It is true, the same Zonarus reports in Baronius, that the Emperor Alexius Comeneus caused him to be burnt as an Impostor; so that if he was put to death for the Opinions which Genebrard imputes unto him touching the Sacrament, it cannot reasonably be doubted, but the Greek Church was in the XII. Century, of the same belief that the Latin Church was of; But seeing this man was accused of several Impieties, 
Apud Baron. ad annum 1118. N. 27.  as of denying the Trinity, of rejecting the Books of Moses, of teaching that the World was made by wicked Angels, that Michael the Archangel was Incarnate; of denying the Resurrection, and of holding many other things alike wicked and abominable: I suppose that as the Protestants can draw no advantage in favour of their Opinion from the belief of this man, if it be true that he believed what Genebrard relates of him; so in like manner, have the Roman Catholics no cause to boast of his Condemnation, which was grounded upon several Impieties, which sufficiently declare that he was a Manichean. Leo Allatius represents this Basil as Chief of the Sect of the Bogomiles, whose Heresy was composed of that of the Manicheans and Messalians; and what this Author saith of them, may be seen in the second Book De perpetua consensione Orientis & Occidentis, cap. 10. p. 636.  
But at the beginning of the XIII. Century, the mind of the Greeks was extremely agitated upon the subject of the Sacrament, some affirming, that the Mysteries were corruptible; others justifying the contrary. The reason of these latter was, because the holy Sacrament is a Commemoration of our Lord's being risen again for us; alleging to this purpose, some passages of the Fathers, which seemed to favour their Opinion. But the others, on the contrary, denied that the Sacrament was a Confession of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, saying, it was only a Sacrifice, and by consequence, he was therein corruptible, as before his Passion, and without Life and Soul. I said that the Spirits of men was much agitated at the beginning of the XIII. Age; for the Dispute had already been begun, even in the XII. Century.  
Therefore Zonarus a Greek Friar who lived at that time, I mean in the XII. Century, speaks of it in one of his Letters, and resolves the question in embracing both parties. 
In notis Vulcanii ad Cyril. Alexandr. t. 6. libr. adversus Antropomorp ex Zonara, ep. 32. L. 3. de robus gestis Alexii.  He said, That the Bread is the Flesh itself of Jesus Christ mortal and buried; and for this reason it is corruptible, ground and broken to pieces by the Teeth; but that afterwards being chewed, eaten, and gone down into the Stomach, as it were into a Sepulchre, it becomes incorruptible, because the Body of our Lord remained not long dead and buried, but risen again soon after. As for Nicetas Choniates, who wrote just at the beginning of the XIII. Century, and that makes mention of this Dispute; he sufficiently testifieth, that the Patriarch Camaterus embraced the Opinion of those which maintained, that the Mysteries were corruptible. I shall not examine which of the two parties were most reasonable; for to speak my thoughts plainly, those people strove in vain and to no purpose, after curious questions, fit rather to engender strifes and quarrels, than to edify and instruct Christians. I shall only desire the Reader seriously to consider, if either or both of these Opinions, can agree or hold with the Doctrine of the Latins; for those which held that the Mysteries were incorruptible, allege for their reason, That the Sacrament is a Confession and Commemoration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, instead of saying that it is the glorified Body itself of our Lord: And the others which affirm that it is corruptible, say, That the Bread of the Sacrament is the dead Flesh of Jesus Christ; which cannot be in the reality of the thing, because all Christians do confess, that our Lord dyeth no more; and that his state of Death and Crucifiction, hath been past above XVI. Ages ago; whereby may be judged the disposition of Zonarus, which held of both sides, and of the strange manner wherein he explains himself.  
I know not if I should make mention of one Samonas' Bishop of Gaza, who is placed in the XIII. Century; for all do not receive his testimony, which is wholly favourable unto that of the cause of the Latins, seeing he saith in a Dispute against Achmet a Sarrazin, 
Tom. 12. Bibl. patr. p. 524, 525, 526.  touching the Eucharist, That the Bread and Wine are not the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but that they are by Consecration changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and that the Division which is made, (to wit, by means of breaking it) is of sensible Accidents. Were there nothing to be objected in the Nature of a Witness, it could not be denied but this Greek Bishop was of the Belief of the Latin Church. But the Protestants do deny that ever there was any such Dispute; affirming, That no Author hath made any mention of this Samonas, because at that time there was no Greek Bishop at Gaza, nor in all Pallastine, being possessed by the Sarrazens, having expelled the Latins; which had before settled Bishops of their own Language. And in fine, because the greatest part of this Writing was taken word for word from the Dispute of Anastatius the Sinaite, against the Gaianites; whereof mention hath been made in the History of the VII. Century. Whereunto may be added, that this pretended Samonas, speaketh formally of the Union of the Bread and Wine, unto the Divinity, which is just the Opinion of John Damascen; as also what he saith, 
Ibid. p. 525.  that the Bread and Wine is taken, that is to say, that the Divinity joins and unites them unto itself.  
All the Protestants do not indeed say, that there was not any Greek Bishop in all Pallastine in the XIII. Century; but they all agree to say, That it belongs to the Roman Catholics to prove that there was at that time at Gaza a Greek Bishop called Samonas, seeing they produce him as a Witness; and is such a Witness as no Writer makes any mention of.  
In the same Tome of the Library of the Holy Fathers, there is a Confession of Faith made by Nicetas in the XIII. Century in favour of those which should be converted from Mahumetism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ, wherein he saith, 
Tom. 12. Bi●●. Patr. p. 53●.  That Christians do sacrifice Mystically, Bread and Wine; and that they participate thereof in the Divine Mysteries. He adds nevertheless, That he believes, they are also truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, having been changed by his Divine Power in a Spiritual and Invisible manner, above and beyond all Natural comprehension, only known unto himself. And it is so also (saith he) that I intent to participate thereof, for the sanctifying of Body and Soul, for Life Eternal, and for inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven. This Author saith, That what Christian's sacrifice and receive at the Holy Table, is Bread and Wine; that this Bread and Wine are in truth the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, having been changed by his Divine Power, not unto all Communicants indifferently, but only for them which Communicate with a true and sincere Faith: Let the belief of this man be guessed at, after all this.  
But now I call to mind that I had almost forgot two Witnesses of the Greek Church of the XII. Century; one of the Ages, whose History we examine in this Chapter, to wit, Euthymius and Zonarus; 
In Matth. 26.  The first saith thus, Our Lord did not say, These are the Signs of my Body and of my Blood; but he said, This is my Body and Blood. And again, As our Saviour Deified the Flesh which he assumed supernaturally, so also he changeth these things into his quickening Body. Words which Roman Catholics mightily prize and value, thinking that they favour their Hypothesis. But it must not be concealed also, that in another Treatise, Euthymius testifies, that he follows the Opinion of Damascen touching the Sacrament; alleging to this effect a great passage out of his 4th Book of Orthodox Faith. 
Panopl. part 2. titul. 21.  Now the Opinion of Damascen was neither that of the Roman Catholics nor the Protestants, as hath been showed in the 12th Chapter. And Euthemius seems to assure so much in the words but now alleged, when he compares the change befallen unto the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, unto that happened unto the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ, when it was taken into the Unity of one person by the Eternal Word; besides that in the same place, whence both the mentioned passages were taken, he said, That not the nature of the things proposed should be considered, but their virtue; which shows, that he believed with Damascen, that the substance of the Symbols do remain.  
As for Zonarus, another Greek Friar; we have already seen how he embraced as well the side of those which held that the Mysteries were corruptible, as those which supposed them to be incorruptible; besides, he expoundeth elsewhere the 32. Canon of the Council in Trullo, 
In Concil. 6. in Trullo can. 32.  The Divine Mysteries, (saith he) I mean, the Bread and the Cup, represents unto us the Body and Blood of our Saviour; for giving the Bread unto his Disciples, he said, Take, Eat, This is my Body; and giving them the Cup, he said, Drink ye all of it, This is my Blood.   

CHAP. XIX.  
An Account or Narrative of the XIV. and XV. Centuries.  
DUring the Papacy of Boniface the VIII. who had so great a contest with Philip the Fair, one of our Kings, there was in Italy great numbers of Waldensis, who were called Fratelli, because they styled themselves Brethren, as the Primitive Christians, who frequently so denominated themselves, where it was, that the whole Body of the Church was called the Brotherhood; and what induces me to believe that these Fratellis were Waldensis and Albigensis, many of whom retired themselves into the Valleys of Piedmont, at the time that Waldo and his Adherents were driven away from Lions, is, that an uncertain Author which wrote against them, when they were most spoken of, and which is Printed with Reynerius and Pilichdorffius, observes amongst other things, that they called themselves Brethren; 
Bibl. Patr. t. 4. edit. 4. p. 819.  By this and other Writings (saith he) it is necessary to prevent the Heretics the Waldensis, etc. amongst them they call the Heretics, Brethren. It is then of the Waldensis, in all probability, that Platina, Secretary unto the Popes, doth speak in the life of Boniface the VIII. when marking the year 1302. that is to say, the second year after the Institution of the Jubilees by Boniface, 
In Bonifacio VIII.  There are some that writ that at that time, Boniface caused to be dis-interred and burnt, the Body of one Herman, which was reputed at Ferrara to be a Saint, 20 years before; but having made a strict inquiry into his Heresy, I am inclined to believe, that he was of the number of the Fraticelli, which Sect increased very much at that time. 
In Clement. V  And in the Life of Clement V at Novara, (saith he) Dulcin and Margaret invented a new Heresy, which allowed Men and Women to cohabit together, and to satisfy their filthy lusts. These were called Fraticelli. Clement set about suppressing of them, and speedily dispatched thither Soldiers, under the conduct of an Apostolical Legate, who finding them settled in the Alps, destroyed them, some by the Sword, some by Famine, and some by Cold and other Cruelties. And as for Dulcin and Margaret, being taken alive, they were dismembered; and having burnt their Bones, the Ashes was fling into the Air. 
Decad. 2. lib. 9 ad ann. 1307.  Blondus saith the same with Platina. Sabellius writes, that some seem to make a distinction from these latter and the former; but in the main, speaking of those which were called Fratelli, Fraterculi, Fratricelli, whom as he saith, were spread abroad into several Cities of Italy, in some whereof, there was some remaining in his time, that is to say, 
Enead. 9 l. 7.  in the last Century: He reproacheth them of Nocturnal meetings, putting out of Candles, unlawful lying together, the cruel murder of Children, begotten and born in these Criminal Copulations: In a word, all that was charged upon the Primitive Christians, although the most innocent and pure of all mankind, as hath been observed in our First Part; and according unto what is said by Minutius Felix in his Octavius. Whereto might be added what is written by Monsieur de Thoul, in his History, that the same Crimes were imputed unto the Protestants of France, when they separated themselves from the Communion of the Latins. I say then, to return unto those which were called Fratelli, that if they were Waldensis, as it is most probable they were; without great injustice, the testimony of Sabellicus, a late Author, ought not to be preferred before Authors of the same Age, and their Enemies, who in the precedent Chapter, as hath been showed, have declared very favourably of their Life and Conversations, what aversion soever they had against them. And as touching their Faith, they fully acquitted them from all suspicion of Arianism, or of Manicheanism; and declared, that they had sound and good Opinions as to what regarded the Essence of God, and all the Symbol of the Apostles Creed. But let us yet see what this Anonymous Author will tell us, which but now informed us, 
Bibl. Patr. Tom 4. part 2. p. 8. 19, 820.  that they called one another Brethren; for having observed, That they preached in private, unto a few persons, in some Corner of a House, and for the most part by Night, (in all likelihood to avoid persecutions) he adds, That they pronounced pernicious Doctrines against the truth of the Roman Church, under a pretext and show of sweet and holy Doctrines, etc. Therefore although they teach some truths, as these, That it is not lawful to Steal, nor commit Adultery, nor Slander, nor Cheat, nor Lie, etc. yet they instill amongst these guilded Sentences, the wicked poison of Heretical Articles, which have been condemned by the Holy Church of Rome; they seduce the ignorant, hinder Souls from Salvation, and introduce infinite Evils. And proceeding afterwards to the particularising these Heretical Articles condemned by the Church of Rome, 
Ibid. p. 820, 821, 825, 827.  they are found to be the same which are disowned by the Protestants at this day; for instance, The Invocation of Saints, Humane Traditions, Indulgences, and some others; as we were informed in the foregoing Chapter; and by their Confessions of Faith, and by the Testimonies of Writers of their times, their Adversaries, That they believed of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the very same that those called Calvinists do believe of it. I do not here say any thing of the Bull which Clement the V made for the observation of the Feast of the Sacrament, Instituted by Urban the iv nor of the Institution of the Procession, because I shall be obliged to speak of them when I come to treat of the Worship.  
I will only observe, that besides the Waldensis and Albigensis, there was at Herbipolis, about the year 1340. one Conrade Hagar, who as appears by the Bull of Otho, Bishop of the place, as Hospinian observes, confessed that during the space of 24 years, 
Hist. Sacram. l. 4. c, 13. cate-log. testium verit. l. 18.  he had believed and taught, that the Mass was not a Sacrifice, that it was not profitable unto the Quick nor the Dead; and that therefore no body ought to Celebrate it.  
But that was nothing in regard of the noise which John Wickliff, Doctor in the University of Oxford, and Professor in Divinity, made in England about the middle of the XIV. Century. The Friar Walsingham who hated him mortally, for having spoken freely against those of his Order, and who represents him as having many followers at Oxford, and elsewhere, chargeth him amongst other things of teaching, 
In Edwardo III ad an. 1377 T. 2. c. 19 & 20.  That the Eucharist after Consecration, is not the real Body of Jesus Christ, but the Figure. And Thomas Waldensis, He believes absolutely (saith he) that the Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist; and that after a kind of Figurative Speech, it is the Body of Jesus Christ; that the Body of Jesus Christ is only in Heaven, as to its nature and substance, and in the Sacrament figuratively; as John Baptist was said to be Elias, the Rock Christ; and the seven Ears of Corn, seven years. And Widford, which undertook to refute Wickliff, by order of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, lays down for the first Article he intended to handle, 
In sasciculo rer. expetend. & sugiend. p. 96. Apud Usser de success. & statu Christ. Eccles. c. 3.  That the substance of Bread remains upon the Altar after Consecration; and that it ceaseth not to be Bread. And Wickliff affirmed in a Manuscript Treatise of Thomas Waldensis, which was in the hands of Dr. Usher Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland, That from the beginning of the XI. Century, all the Doctors had erred in the point of the Sacrament of the Altar, except Berengarius and himself, and their followers. It must then be granted, that the Doctrine of John Wickliff upon the subject of the Sacrament, was the same with that of Berengarius; and by consequence, directly contrary unto that of the Latin Church; a Doctrine, which according to the testimony of Walsingham, he taught publicly, in his Lectures, in his Sermons, and in his Writings; maintaining, as is elsewhere showed by this English Historian, That after the Consecration made by the Priest in the Mass, 
In Richard H. & add an. 1282.  the Bread and Wine doth therein remain as they were before. Pope Gregory the IX. had indeed condemned the Doctrine of Wickliff as Heretical, in the year 1377. and had certified so much by Letters unto the University of Oxford, unto the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and unto King Edward himself, commanding them to order matters so, 
In Richardo II.  That Wickliff should be apprehended and put into prison: But Walsingham, who every where Vomits Thunder and Lightning against him, testifies, that the Bulls of Gregory had no effect; the University having consulted whether it should receive these Bulls honourably, or reject them with scorn, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, carrying themselves very negligently and coldly, either of their own inclination, or by reason of the People, which favoured him, or it may be for both together; as for the King, we do not find that the Pope's Letters made any Impression upon his spirit; 
In Epist. ad Mart. V.  on the contrary, this Historian informs us, That the Lords and Princes of the Kingdom did favour Wickliff: Which Thomas Waldensis interprets of the King himself, and of his Son, of the Duke of Lancaster, and several other great Lords of the Kingdom. Therefore it is not to be wondered at, if Walsingham says, That the Princes and great Lords protected him; the which he repeats over again in the Life of Edward the Third. And he observes in that of Richard the Second upon the year 1381. that he seduced great numbers throughout the whole Kingdom, and that he had Agents which he employed therein, he neglecting no opportunity himself on his own part. Amongst those which sided with him, 
In Richardo H. ad an. 1381  he makes mention of one William, which preached at Leicester on Palm-Sunday, That the Sacrament of the Altar was true Bread after Consecration. And as the Bishop of Lincoln disposed himself to punish him in depriving him of the liberty of Preaching, the People appearing in his behalf, so affrighted the Bishop, that he durst proceed no farther against him. After which, he mentions several other Learned Men that professed the same Faith, and which Preached it boldly and publicly; not only in the Cities and Villages, but also at the University of Oxford, on the Eves of holidays; particularly Nicholas Hertford, Chancellor of the University, 
Ibid.  and a certain Prebend of Leicester, All these (saith he) and several others their Adherents, published their sin like Sodom, and did not hid it; and not being content to have evil Opinions touching the Catholic Faith, and other points wherein they erred, they drew the People into the Precipice of their Error, by public Sermons.  
William, Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing that infinite numbers of people departed daily from the Communion of the Church of Rome, assembled his Suffragan Bishops, and some other Assistants, which, as Walsingham saith, had not followed after Baal; with several Professors of Divinity; and in this Assembly, caused to be condemned twenty Propositions of Wickliff's: who, notwithstanding this Condemnation, did not forbear teaching and writing as before; as is testified by Thomas Waldensis. 
Prologue. t. 2. doctrine. 12.  But it may not be passed over in silence, that amongst these Propositions of Wickliff, which were condemned, the first of which denied Transubstantion, the seventh imports, That God ought to be subject to the Devil: a most horrible Proposition, which I think, could not proceed out of the mouth of any man that bears the name of a Christian: Therefore it is but charity, not too easily to give credit to these kinds of Accusations, without having convincing proofs of it. Of all Wickliff's Works, 
Vid. l. 2. c. 13. & l. 4. c. 3.  there is but one printed that I know of, entitled Trialogus: Now in this Treatise there is contained several things which absolutely destroy this devilish Proposition. Moreover, if Wickliff presented unto the English Nobility, assembled in Parliament at London, the Propositions now spoken of, as the Friar Walsingham doth testify; Is it probable, that having a design to invite them to embrace his Opinions, as the same Historian doth intimate, he would have proposed such a Thesis, which had been sufficient to have exasperated them against him; and rather have made them his Enemies, than his Protectors? Neither do I find that Widdeford, who reports and opposeth all Wickliff's Articles, which Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope's Legate, condemned four years after, in a Synod at London; I say, I cannot find that he maketh any mention of this blasphemous Proposition, That God should obey the Devil. Let the Reader give his Judgement thereupon; as for my part, I will prosecute the course of my History, in saying, that Wickliff departed this life in the Year 1385. in the Parish of Lutleworth, whereof he was Curate, after having composed and written several Books and Treatises; for Aeneas Silvius, who was afterwards Pope, under the name of Pius the Second, 
Cap. 35.  writes in his History of Bohemia, That it was supposed they were above two hundred Volumes. The Friar Walsingham, 
1 Ad an. 1387.  who was his sworn Enemy, by reason of the Thesis which he published against the Friars, describes his death in such a manner, as sufficiently expresseth his passion and resentment; 
2 In Ricard. II. ad an. 1385.  grounding his relation upon hear-say, As it is reported: Nevertheless, he is not ashamed to say, that he died distracted, and that he was damned; 
In hist. Bohem. c. 35.  quite contrary unto John Hus; who, by the relation of Aeneas Silvius, That he had rendered himself famous by the reputation he had acquired by a holy and pious life: for he often said in his Sermons, 
Ibid.  That he desired to go after his death, unto the same place where the Soul of Wickliff was gone: making no doubt but that he was a good and holy man, and worthy of Heaven.  
The Doctrine of Wickliff did not expire with his person; for Nicholas Herreford, Doctor in Divinity, defended those which were his followers, and which professed the Doctrine which he had taught, as 
1 In Ricard. II. ad an. 1387.  Walsingham doth write; 
2 Ad an. 1389. in Hypodigm. Neust. & add an. 1395.  which he represents unto us to have been in very great numbers, under the name of Lollards, in all that Age: And doth moreover observe, that most of the English Prelates connived at what they taught; so that being besides, favoured by several persons of Quality, they made open profession of their Faith, so far, as they affixed publicly upon the Doors of St. Paul's Church, in London, certain Theses which were no ways favourable to the Doctrine of the Latin Church, nor to its Clergy.  
At the same time there were several Waldensis at the Straits of the Alps, which divide France and Italy; as we are informed by 
1 Contr. Vald. fol. 2.  Claud de Cecil, Archbishop of Turin, and of a Bull of Clement the Seventh, granted at Avignion, against them, in the Year 
2 His Bull is in the Chamber of Accounts at Grenoble.  1380. and put in Execution by one Francis Borelli, Inquisitor of the Order of preaching Friars; who persecuted them cruelly for several years, and put many of them to death. I know not whether the University of Paris intended not to speak of the same Waldensis, in the Letter which it directed unto Charles the Sixth, in the Year 1394. 
3 Tom. 6. Spicil. p. 97.  complaining, amongst other things, That the Heretics which have already began to appear, finding none to punish them, do make great progress; and not only scatter abroad there pernicious Heresies publicly, but also in private.  
The XV. Century proved more fatal unto the Waldensis and Lollards in England; for from the first year, the Persecution was begun against them, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament which gave power to put them to death, if they recanted not their Religion; as 
4 In Hypodig. Neustr. ad an. 1401. & in Henrico IU.  Walsingham doth testify. But notwithstanding all this they lost not their courage, nor abandoned the Doctrine they had until than professed. On the contrary, the 
5 In Henr. IU.  same Historian observes, that the year following they proposed several Thesis', but privately, for fear of the punishment which had been appointed; Theses, which were nothing favourable unto the Doctrine of the Roman Church, which renewed the Persecution against them; during which, several of them were burnt alive; which this Friar saith, was done in the Years 1410, 1414, 1417. even insulting after a most unchristian manner, at the death of these people, as did also Thomas Waldensis; who speaking unto King Henry the Fifth, doth mightily commend the continual punishments which was inflicted upon them; 
In Prologue. t. 2. doct. 11. & ad initium prologi.  saying, That Prince proceeded according to the Command of Jesus Christ; who nevertheless, requires not Consciences to be forced, but persuaded; and whose Gospel is made up of love, and of mildness.  
But whilst these things were acting in England, there was in Bohemia infinite numbers of people that made open profession of the same Doctrine, for which the Lollards were persecuted in Great Britain; for besides the Waldensis, which had retired themselves thither a great while before, by reason of the Persecution stirred up against them in Picardy; as Dubravius, Bishop of Olmuz, informed us in the precedent Chapter. At the beginning of this Century, there was made in that Country a considerable Separation from the Roman Church, according to the Testimony of the same Dubravius, and of Aeneas Silvius, in their Histories of Bohemia. 'Tis true, this Separation was not alike in all; for some only desired the Restitution of the Cup unto the people, being of accord in all other points with the Latins; and those, for this reason were called Calixtins: but as for the others, they disowned the same Doctrine of the Communion of the Latins, which the Waldensis and Wickliffites had opposed, and did still oppose; and because, as some allege, these latter joined themselves unto the Waldensis, which had been settled a long time in this Kingdom, and used to assemble themselves in the Mountain of Tabor, they were called Taborites; as Dubravius hath observed. But let us hear what this Prelate intends to say touching this Separation; when having spoken of the Jubilee celebrated at Prague, in the Year 1400. he adds, Unto this time the Christian Religion, 
Lib. 23. hist. Bohem.  which had been once received by the Bohemians, with all the Ceremonies of the Apostolic See, had continued steadfast in Bohemia, in its purity; but after that time, it began to falter and decline, as soon as John Hus, which in the Language of the Country, signifies a Goose, began to make a noise amongst the Swans; and by his sound, to conquer the sweetness of their singing, by the assistance of a Faction which made itself considerable. In fine, the progress was so great, that he writes, That the Taborites so ordered matters, 
Ibid. l. 24.  that in the City of Prague there rested no sign of the ancient Catholic Religion. Also the Friar Walsingham testifies, that the Emperor Sigismond returned from Constance, into his own Territories, after the Council had elected Pope Martin the Fifth, 
In Henr. IU.  To employ all his strength to ruin the Enemies of Religion, and the Heresy of the Lollards, which were mightily increased in the Kingdom of Bohemia, by the lukewarmness and support of his elder Brother. Dubravius proceedeth farther; for after the Coronation of Sigismond at Prague, 
Ubi supra l. 26  he proposeth the Tenets of the Taborites, but after a manner that is not exactly conformable unto their Confession of Faith; by which, nevertheless, their Belief ought to be judged; because it is in those public Acts, that for the most part is declared what is believed in matters of Religion. And treating of Moravia, upon the Year 1421. he observes, that Country was not then infected with the Heresy of the Taborites; but in that same year, they began there to establish themselves; Renewing (saith he) the ancient Error of the Picards (that is to say, of the Waldensis) to wit, that none ought to kneel unto the Sacrament of the Altar, because the Body of Jesus Christ is not there; having ascended up into Heaven, both in Body and Soul; and that there remains only the Bread and Wine. I know very well that the Bishop of Olmuz chargeth them in the same place, of teaching that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist is such Bread and Wine as each particular amongst the people may take with their own hands: that the hand of the Priest is no more worthy than that of a private Lay person: And to vomit (saith he) other Blasphemies against the real Body of Jesus Christ. But because the quite contrary doth appear by their Confession of Faith, I know not whether it would be reasonable to admit of this Accusation, coming from the Pen and hand of an Enemy.  
Aeneas' Silvius, 
Cap. 35.  who was afterwards Pope Pius the Second, speaks of those people at large in his History of Bohemia: he relates several things of them, agreeing with the Doctrine of the Protestants, but he also mentions other things which the Protestants do not approve; the which, in all probability, were unjustly imputed unto them, because there is not the least sign of it to be found, 
Cap. 10, 11, 12, 13. ●bi supra.  neither in the Confessions of Faith made by the Waldensis, inserted by Paul Perrin, in their History; nor in that of the Taborites; Which, by the testimony of Aeneas Silvius, had embraced the impious and wicked Sect of the Waldensis. Of necessity then, their Belief must be the same with the Protestants, because that of the Waldensis did agree with it, as may be judged by all that hath been hitherto spoken. But in fine, the Question is, to know the Belief of the Taborites touching the holy Sacrament: but what can better inform us, than their own Confession of Faith, drawn up in the Year 1431. by John Lukavitz; wherein they declare, 
Confess. Tabor. Joan. Lukavits  that their Belief touching the Eucharist is, That the Bread remains in its nature true Bread; and that it is the Body of Jesus Christ, not by a material Identity, but Sacramentally, really and truly. Then they reject the Opinion of those which say. That the same Body of Jesus Christ which is in Heaven, is also in the Sacrament, 
Ibid.  with all its essential and accidental Proprieties; Because (say they) this would be a means to presuppose, that the substance of Bread should cease to be, and that it should be converted substantially into the Body of Jesus Christ. Moreover, they formally deny the Adoration of the Eucharist.  
If John Hus was of the same Opinion of those which were called Taborites, it must be owned, after so express a Declaration as they made, that he opposed the Doctrine of Transubstantion. If we give credit unto what is reported in the Acts of the Council of Constance, we cannot question but that he was contrary unto this Doctrine. In fine, The Council doth condemn thirty Articles of John Hus; in the 
1 Concil. Constant. sess. 15.  twenty fifth whereof they make him say, that he doth approve of forty Articles of Wickliff's; the 
2 Ibid. sess. 8.  three first whereof are directly contrary unto Transubstantiation. Moreover, there is to be found in the Proceed made against him, that he had preached and taught, 
3 Ibid. sess. 15.  That after consecrating the Host at the Altar, the material Bread did remain; that the substance of Bread remains after Consecration, and that the Opinion which the Church holdeth of the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ, is erroneous. Therefore Pope Martin the Fifth, 
Ad finem Concil. Constant.  in his Bull of Approbation of the Council, doth not fail of representing John Hus, as approving the Articles of Wickliff, before spoken of. 
Ibid.  He declares also, that Jerom of Prague was of the same Judgement; that is to say, in an Opinion contrary unto the Church of Rome: which the Council doth also observe, in the twenty first 
1 Ibid. sess. 21.  Session. And Gobellin Persona, Official of the Diocese of 
2 Cosmodrom. a that. 6. c. 95.  Peterborough, who lived at that time, thought that he ought not to say the contrary, after the Declaration of the Pope, and of the Council. But if we consult the Works of John Hus, printed at Noremberg, Anno 1558. with his Martyrdom; and that of Jerom of Prague, for so it is that their death is therein styled; we shall find that he always believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that of Concomitance: and the reading of Wickliff's Works, for whom he had an extraordinary kindness; calling him always, Evangelical Doctor; could never make him alter his mind, nor work upon his spirit the same effects which it wrought upon the Taborites. In fine, in his Treatise Of the Blood of Jesus Christ, against the false Apparitions of it, which at that time was frequently published in all parts, he said, 
Tom. 1. fol. 155  That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament, truly and really, after what manner soever it ought to be here below in the Church; that is to say (as appears by the scope of the whole Discourse) invisibly, and not visibly; as the Autors of these miraculous Apparitions would have it be believed. And in the same Treatise, 
Ibid.  he accuseth of Incredulity those which believed not what he said of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. He supposed, 
Ibid.  That Accidents do subsist without their subject in the Sacrament: confesseth that there is no contradiction in saying, That the Body of Jesus Christ is here sacramentally, 
Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. p. 158. Ibid. fol. 161.  and at the same time in Heaven locally. He affirms for truth, that his Blood is truly and really in the Sacramen: confesseth, That Jesus Christ is hidden in the Sacrament. And amongst many Inconveniences which he fears these feigned Apparitions of the Blood of Christ might produce, 
Ibid. fol. 162.  he puts this down as the fifth; That it may be, there are some which question whether the Blood of Jesus Christ be in the venerable Sacrament, because it doth not visibly appear unto them. And a little after, he saith, That we adore the Body and Blood of of Jesus Christ, which is at the right hand of his Father, and in the venerable Sacrament made by the Priests. The same man writeth in his Treatise of the Body of Jesus Christ, 
Id. t. 1. fol. 164.  That the Doctrine of Berengarius is a great Heresy. He receiveth for a true testimony of St. Austin's, a passage of Lanfranc, a sworn Enemy of Berengarius, which the Canonist Gratian citys in his Decree, under the name of St. Austin. In a word, in this little Treatise, he embraceth and follows all that the Latins believe of the Sacrament of the Altar. And that it should not be imagined that he changed his Opinion, it is to be observed, that amongst several little Treatises which he composed during his Imprisonment at Constance, 
Cap. 2. p. 32. t. 1  there is one, Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, written, Anno 1415. wherein he teacheth the same Doctrine; 
Ibid.  declaring moreover, That all that the Church of Rome believes of the venerable Sacrament, aught to be believed. That he had preached this Doctrine from the beginning, unto that day. And in fine, 
Ibid. fol. 49. Ibid. fol. 40. c. 3  That he believed Transubstantiation: And (saith he) I never taught, that the substance of material Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar. He adds a little after, That the Body and Blood of our Saviour remains in the Sacrament, as long as the Species of Bread and Wine do subsist. In another little Treatise, wherein he examines whether Lay-people should receive under both kinds, he lays it down for a truth, That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is under both species of the Sacrament; that is to say, that he is entirely under the species of Bread, and entirely under that of Wine. He that writ the History of John Hus, particularly, the conflicts he was to suffer at Constance, and at the which he saith he was present; 
Tom. 1. fol. 9  reports a public Testimony of the University of Prague, touching the purity of the Belief of this man; wherein is declared, that Hus had denied the things whereof he had been accused unto the Pope; especially, that he had ever taught, That the material substance of Bread remained in the Sacrament of the Altar. The Author also reporteth, 
Ibid. fol. 12.  that John Hus was heard in open Council, the 7th of June; and that he confessed, That the Bread is transubstantiated; and that the Body of Jesus Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, and was crucified, etc. is truly, really, and wholly in the Sacrament: And, as a certain English Man said, that Hus disguised his Opinion just as Wickliff had formerly done in England; he answered, That he spoke sincerely, and from his heart. Which need not much be questioned, when it must be observed, 
Tom. 2. so. 344.  that Hus was a man full of candour and sincerity. It is related in the acts of his Passion (for that's the Title given them in his Works) that these things but now mentioned, and others of the like Nature, are reported of him. But besides these proofs, there is also found amongst John Hus his Letters, Num. 65. 
Tom. 1. fol. 8.  a very favourable testimony given by the University of Prague unto him and Jerom, after their Death, that is to say, the 23d. of May, Anno 1416. and in Num. 66. a Summary of the belief of the Commonalty of Prague, composed of the followers of John Hus, wherein they formally establish the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the Concomitants, saying, That Jesus Christ gave unto his Disciples his Body and Blood, miraculously hid under the Species of Bread and Wine. 
Ib. num. 66.  And alleging a passage under the name of Leo, which imports, That the Blood is received with the Body under the species of Bread; and the Body with the Blood under the species of Wine; that nevertheless, the Blood is not eaten under the species of Bread, as the Bread is not drank under that of Wine. I will add (to conclude) unto all these considerations, two other circumstances: In the first place, that the Taborites, which had a great Veneration for John Hus, although they were of a contrary Judgement unto him upon the point of the Sacrament, mention him often in their Confession of Faith upon the Articles which he either held or favoured; but upon the point of Transubstantiation they allege nothing of his. In the second place, that in regard of Wickliff, who was much esteemed by Hus, he declares positively in his Writings, against Stephen Palets, his greatest Enemy, 
Tom. 1. p. 264. A.  that he did embrace what there was of truth in the Writings of John Wickliff, Doctor in Divinity; not because he said it, but because it was agreeable unto the Holy Scriptures, and unto Reason; but if he taught any Error, he intended not to follow him nor any one else therein. And in full Council, 
Ibid. fol. 13.  being charged with the 40 Articles of Wickliff, condemned by the Fathers of Constance, he said, that he adhered not unto Wickliffs' Errors; confessing nevertheless, that he could have wished the Archbishop of Prague, had not condemned them after the manner that he had condemned them; declares, 
Ibid. fol. 13. B.  that he never obstinately defended them, although he approved not that they should be condemned, before that the Justice of their condemnation was showed by reasons taken from the Holy Scriptures; In fine, he defends himself particularly upon each of these Articles, limiting, explaining, or distinguishing them, without any heed being thereunto given by the Council; and what there is besides very strange in the business, that answering in his Writings unto the Objections of his Adversaries, which had been before of his side, but were become his Enemies, 
Tom. 1. so. 255. & 265. & p. 292. unto fol. 321.  he never toucheth the Article of Transubstantiation; yet it is not likely, that having been his Friends, they could be ignorant of his Opinion upon this weighty point, nor that they could have been silent, if John's belief had been contrary unto that of the Church of Rome.  
As for Jerom of Prague, besides the intimate friendship which was betwixt him and John Hus, which continued until their Death, as it had been carefully improved in their life, especially by the conformity of their Faith and Manners, there is to be seen in the same Works, a Discourse, wherein the Author saith the same of Jerom, 
Tom. 2. so. 356.  which he had done of Hus; for he writes, that one of his Adversaries having said there was a report, That he believed that the substance of Bread remained upon the Altar, he made this answer, I believe the Bread is at the Bakers, and not in the Sacrament of the Altar. 
Poggius Florent. ad Leonard. Aretin. in fascicul. rerum expeton. & fugiend. fol. 152.  Which agrees very well with what is written by Pogge the Florentine, unto his Friend Leonard Aretin; Jerom (saith he) being examined what he believed touching the Sacrament, answered, That by Nature it was Bread, but at the instant of Consecration and afterwards, it was the true Body of Jesus Christ, that he believed it to be so, and all the rest according as the Church believed. And some body having replied, it is reported that thou teachest that the Bread remaineth after Consecration; he answered, the Bread remaineth at the Baker's house. This is the sum of the belief of John Hus, and of Jerom of Prague touching the subject of the Sacrament. Nevertheless, the Council of Constance caused them to be burnt alive; they endured this punishment with wonderful patience, according to the relation of Pogge the Florentine, an Eye witness, and of Aeneas Silvius, which speaks thus, They both died very contentedly, and drew near unto the Stake as cheerfully, as if they were going unto a Banquet, without letting fall a word as might express any thing of grief or sorrow; when the Flames began to seize them, they sang a Hymn, the sound whereof could scarce be stopped by the noise of the Fire. It is said, That never any Philosopher suffered Death so constantly as these Men endured the punishment of the Flames. The Death of these two Men served only to confirm the Taborites in their Opinions, and inspired them with Zeal for its defence, and of making public and open profession thereof in Bohemia; not but there was found in other parts those which professed the same Doctrine; for Baleus reports upon the relation of Thomas Gasconius, and of Leland, that in the year 1457. Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester in England, Had ill Opinions touching the Sacrament, and that he maintained the Doctrine of Wickliff; 
Centur. 8. Auth. 19  but that he was compelled to renounce, and moreover was deprived of his Bishopric. It is very probable he had followers in his Diocese, yet 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 Virtue, Justice, Prudence and Integrity: neither do I intent to examine the differences which he had with these two Popes; against whose anathemas 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 myself to observe, that the Historians, which represent him unto us as a Taborite, and Protector of the Taborites, are grossly 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) choose for their King, 
De regno Hunger. 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  them unto him. They were forbidden all sorts of Assemblies, both public 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 Sovereign; 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 joined 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 Judgement; giving no credit unto those which show 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 virtue, with the testimony of his holiness. Whereupon, they allege 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 Croysadoes 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 broke in violently upon them by force and Arms; saying, That they should be exterminated like so many Witches and Sodomites; whereby they were necessitated to desire the protection of this Prince; who, the better to be informed of the truth of matters, 
Carolus Molilinae in Monarch. Franc.  sent thither one of his Masters of Requests, called Fumee, and a Doctor of Sorbon, a Jacobin, called Parvy, who was his Confessor. They visited the Parishes and Temples of those people; where they found neither Images, nor Ornaments for the celebrating of Masses, nor any marks of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome: and having strictly examined, and informed themselves of the crimes charged upon these Albigensis, they found not as much as the least appearance thereof. On the contrary, it was clearly made evident unto them, that those of Merindol, and others which made profession of the same Faith, were strict observers of the Lord's Day; that Infants were baptised by them, according to the practice of the primitive Church; and that they were well instructed in the Law of God, and in the Apostles Creed. The King, having received the Report of Fumee and Parvy, affirmed with an Oath, 
Ibid.  That these Waldensis were the best and honestest people of his Kingdom. All this hindered not their Enemies from undertaking again to accuse them of several Crimes in the Reign of Francis the First, unto whom they presented a Confession of their Faith in the Year 1544. to justify their Innocency. Therein they explain themselves upon the Article of the Sacrament, just as the Protestants do at this present.  
But it is time to pass from Provens, into Piedmont. Claude de Cecil, 
Advers. error. & sectam Valdens. fol. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 61.  Archbishop of Turin, hath already informed us, that the Waldensis had settled themselves in the passage of the Alps, within his Diocese, upwards of two hundred years before he wrote against them, and he wrote above a hundred years ago; that they had continued there until his time, preaching publicly, and defending their Doctrine in Disputes against their Adversaries. This Prelate acknowledgeth, that in writing against them, he undertakes a difficult task, seeing that Popes and Princes have employed all means imaginable against them, without ever being able to make them renounce the Profession and Belief which they embraced. He grants, that the covetousness of the Clergy, and their ill conduct, was the occasion of those people's separation. He reckons up most of the Articles of their Belief, which are found to agree with those which are received and professed by Protestants. 
Ibid. fol. 55, 56  'Tis true, he doth not speak positively of the Sacrament, it may be because he will not stand to examine what the most knowing amongst them said of this Article; seeing they are things so high and mysterious, that the greatest Divines are scarce able to understand, and much less to teach them; blaming moreover those of the Latin Church, who writing against these Waldensis, troubled themselves in vain about the difficulties which attended the subject of the Sacrament.  
As for their life and manners, this same Prelate renders them this testimony; 
Ibid. fol. 9  Excepting only (saith he) what they teach against our Belief, and our Religion, they lead a purer and more innocent life than other Christians do. 
Ibid fol. 4.  And speaking of the holy Scriptures, he saith, That they believe only what is contained in the Old and New Testament: 
Ibid. fol. 10.  Therefore he declares, That he will cite nothing against them, but what is contained in the holy Canon, which themselves (saith he) do allow of.  
But besides the testimony of this Bishop, 
Apud Thuan. hist. lib. 6.  Monsieur de Thoul mentions some others, which are no less favourable unto them. In the first place, That a person of Quality in Provens, in Francis the First his time, mentions them as people which were very constant in serving God, and of paying the King and Lords, in whose Territories they lived, the Tribute and Sums due; not failing in the Obedience due unto them. 
Ibid.  Secondly, he alleges that of William du Bellay, Lord of Laugay; who in the relation he made of them unto Francis the First, according to the Order which he had to that purpose: These Waldensis which, saith he, had been in Provens about three hundred years; he could not charge them with any thing, but some points touching Religion, and which was common with them and the Protestants; as not kneeling unto Images, of not offering them Candles, nor any thing else, not praying for the Dead, and of celebrating Divine Service different from the Church of Rome, and in the vulgar Tongue, and some other points of this nature. Which is the reason that Cardinal Sadolet, unto whom they sent their Confession of Faith, agreeing with that of the Protestants, 
Apud Thuan. hist. l. 6.  declared freely, That the other things laid to their charge, beside the Heads contained in that Book, were nothing but things forged, to render them odious, and mere fooleries. And Monsieur de Thoul himself, 
Ibid.  who mentions some of the things which they believed, of the same which Protestants do; acknowledgeth, That they had been charged with other things concerning Marriage, the Resurrection of the Dead, the state of Souls departed. From these Waldensis are lineally descended, from Father to Son, those which in the Alps, whether in France, or in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy; at Cabriers, and at Merrindoll in Provens, make profession of the Protestant Religion, of whom we have no thoughts of speaking, nor of extending any farther this History, because that Luther began to appear in Germany, Zuinglius in Switzerland in the Year 1517. Farrel at Geneva, Anno 1535. and afterwards several others in other places; which have all opposed the Tenet of Transubstantiation, although they agreed not all about the Article of the Eucharist. So that I should here conclude the History of the Doctrine, and of the Alterations which have thereupon ensued, were I not obliged to speak somewhat of other Churches, besides that of the West.  
There is in the Library of the holy Fathers, a Liturgy of the remainder of the ancient Christians in the Mountains of the Kingdom of Mallabar, in the East-Indies; 
Missa Christian apud Indos t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 142.  where they speak after this manner; Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the night in which he was betrayed, took the holy Bread into his holy hands, listed up his eyes unto Heaven, and gave it unto his Disciples; saying, Take, eat ye all of this Bread; this my Body.  
The Church of Ethiopia expresseth the Sacramental words in such a manner, that they make a metaphorical and figurative proposition, as the Roman Catholics and Protestants do confess; for she saith, 
1 Literae Aetheop. Jesuit. Alphon. ann. 1626. edit. Roman. an. 1628.  This Bread is my Body.  
As for the Armenians, if we believe Guy of Perpignan, and Thomas Waldensis, they do deny Transubstantiation: 
2 Uterque apud Vald. t. 2. c. 30.  They teach (say they) that the Consecration being ended, the Body of Jesus Christ is not really under the species of Bread and Wine; but only in resemblance, and in figure: and that Jesus Christ did not transubstantiate really the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood; but only in type, and in figure. One may lay what stress they please upon the testimonies of these two men, which may be looked upon but as of one, seeing the one transcribed it from the other. As for my part, I shall only say, that I take the present Armenians to be so grossly ignorant, that they scarce know what they do believe of this Mystery.  
Prateolus doth positively teach the same thing; 
De haeres. l. 1. haer. 67.  which is also confirmed by the testimony of Thomas Herbert, an English man; which had been so informed upon the place; as he declares in the relation of his Voyage of the Translation of Mr. Wick fort.  
What I say of the Armenians, I may almost say of all the Greeks in general; for it cannot be denied but they be fallen into very great ignorance of the Mysteries of Christian Religion, and have corrupted their primitive Faith by many Alterations. Nevertheless, Learning having flourished a long time amongst them, their ignorance is not so very great, as that of other Christian Communions of the East. They have had but very few that have written since the Ages which we have examined in the precedent Chapter: yet have they had some few; as Nicholas de Methona, Nicholas Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus, and Jeremy, Patriarch of Constantinople. As for Bessarion, I do not put him into the number, because he turned unto the party of the Latins; who, to requite him, honoured him with a Cardinal's Cap; whereas the others died in the Communion of the Greek Church. If you would know of them what they believed of the Eucharist, they will answer, That the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and that after Consecration, they are his Body Blood: And so far the Roman Catholics have cause to believe they be of their side. But it must be confessed also, that they say things which do not agree well with the Hypothesis of the Latins; and which make the Protestants conclude, that the change whereof they speak, is not a change of substance, but of virtue and efficacy: for, not here to repeat what is said by Euthymius in the foregoing Chapter, 
In Matth. 26.  That the nature of the things offered is not to be considered, 
In exposit. liturg. c. 32. & 43 t. 2. Bibl. Pat. Graeco-Lat.  but their virtue. And without insisting upon Cabasilas his regarding the Body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament as dead and crucified for us; which by the confession of all Christians, cannot be true in the reality of the thing, but only in the signification of the Mystery: nor in that he saith that all those unto whom the Priest gives the Communion, do not receive the Body of our lord 
De Corpore & sanguine. Christi. ibid.  Nicholas de Methona doth formally affirm the Union of the Symbols unto the Divinity; which is exactly the Opinion of Damascen; an Opinion which, as hath been showed, doth presuppose the Existence of the Bread and Wine. Jesus Christ (saith he) doth this (that is to say, communicates unto us his Flesh and Blood) by things which are familiar unto Nature, in joining unto them his Divinity; and saying, This is my Body, This is my Blood. Jeremy, Patriarch of Constantinople, saith as the others, That the Bread is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ: But he adds, 
Respon. 1. c. 10  That Jesus Christ, for all that, did not give the flesh which he carried, unto his Disciples, to eat. And elsewhere, 
Ibid. c. 7.  That the Grace of the Holy Ghost doth spiritually sanctify our Souls, and our Bodies are sanctified by the sensible things; to wit, the Water, the Oil, the Bread, the Wine, and the other things sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Which language agrees better with Damascen, whom he citys in his second Answer, than with the Latins; because the first preserves the substance of Bread and Wine, but the latter quite destroys it.  
The Cardinal of Guise being at Venice, had a Conference with the Greeks; and amongst several Questions that he asked them, he demanded of them what they believed of the Sacrament: 
Cum Sigismundo Libero de rebus Moscovit. Basileae 1571.  See here the Answer they made him; We believe and confess, that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Wine into his Blood: that neither the Bread, nor the accidents of its substance do remain, but are changed into a divine substance. Were there no more but this in the Answer of the Greeks, it might be said, either that they did not well understand themselves, or that, through complaisance unto the Latins, amongst whom they lived, they allowed the change of the substance of the Bread in such a manner; nevertheless, that to show that they followed not the Opinion of the Roman Catholics, they say, That the very accidents do not remain; which is inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But because in this Answer they allege as well the words of Theophelact upon Mar. 14. by which he declares, That the Bread and Wine is changed into the virtue of the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ: as also several passages of Damascen, some of which have already been examined in the 12th Chapter, to strengthen their Belief and Opinion; we are obliged to believe, that the change whereof they speak is quite different from that of the Latin Church.  
It is true that scarce any of them explained themselves as fully as Cyril of Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople; who a little above thirty years ago, said, 
Cyrillus Constantinop. Patriarch. confession. fidei c. 17.  We believe that the other Sacrament which our Lord did institute, is that which we call Eucharist; for the night wherein he was betrayed, taking Bread, and blessing it, he said unto the Disciples, Take, eat; this is my Body: And taking the Cup, he gave thanks, and said, Drink ye all of this, it is my Blood which is shed for you; Do this in remembrance of me. And St. Paul adds, As often as ye eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye show the Lord's death. This is the plain, the true, and lawful Tradition of this admirable Mystery; in the administration and knowledge whereof, we confess and believe the true and certain presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ; to wit, that which Faith teacheth and giveth unto us, and not that which Transubstantiation, rashly and unadvisedly invented, doth teach. If I would write the History of this Patriarch, I should be obliged to speak of his Country; I mean of the Isle of Crete, now Candia; of the great affection he had unto Learning, the marvellous progress he made therein during his stay in Italy; of the Voyage which he made ●●to Alexandria, to visit the Patriarch Miletus, his Countryman, unto whom he succeeded after his decease, having received a thousand marks of his kindness and friendship during his life time; of the vigorous resistance which he made by order of this same Miletus, in the Year 1592. and the following years, against the Latins, who used all their endeavours to take off the Russians and Moscovites from the Communion of the Greek Church; of his Voyages into Germany, where he visited several of the Protestant Universities: into Holland; where he became acquainted with Grotius, and Cornelius Haga: Into England; from wence he returned unto Alexandria, unto his Patriarch Miletus; who dying, had his dear Cyril for Successor. I should also mention the Voyage which he made unto Constantinople whilst he was Patriarch of Alexandria; the good success which he had there, of meeting his friend, Cornelius Haga, Ambassador from the State's General of the United Provinces; the design then in hand of making him Patriarch, the difficulties which interposed therein, and his Return unto Alexandria, from whence he was again called, in the Year 1621. to be installed in this Dignity, unto the general satisfaction of the Greek Church. The great persecutions and troubles which the Latins stirred up against him; and how, notwithstanding all their Artifices and endeavours, he preserved his Dignity of Patriarch of Constantinople, although with some difficulty, by reason of the malice of his Enemies, from the Year 1621. unto the Year 1638. at which time they got some opportunity to strangle him: and several other notable circumstances wherewith his life was attended. But because in this place I consider him only as a Patriarch of the Greek Church, which spoke of the Eucharist in the Confession of Faith which he composed, and communicated unto a Synodal Assembly, convocated at Constantinople, in the Year 1629. although several years before he had made several acquainted with it, and had also left a Copy of it with the Bishop of Leopolis; from whence it was sent to Rome. I shall content myself only in observing, that this Confession of Faith found different Receptions. The Protestants rejoiced, in as much as it is exactly agreeable unto their belief. The Armenians finding it contrary unto them in the point of Predestination, and of Free Will,; rejected it, as being forged by the Protestants: and there were some amongst the Latins which did so too. But at last, all the World was disabused, and every body was constrained to own, that it was truly made by the Patriarch. And how can it be questioned, after being refuted by Caryophylus, and two Councils, where it is said it was condemned; the one under Cyril of Beroe; who, by the violent death of the other Cyril, became the peaceable Possor of the Patriarchship; and who, in the Year 1639. assembled a Synod at Constantinople, wherein he caused the Confession now spoke of, to be condemned. And the other under Parthenius; who, having driven out Cyril of Beroe, in the Year 1641. had it also condemned in 1642. As to the Refutation of Caryophylus, it cannot reasonably be thought to contain the Opinions of the Greek Church; because that although he was a Greek by Nation, yet he was a Latin by Religion; 
Programmate poster.  having been bred up at Rome from his Infancy, as Nihusius doth confess. And as for the two Councils, if they be received to be Councils of the whole Greek Church, for legitimate Councils, where all things were done in due form; in a word, for true Councils, it must be granted, that the Doctrine of Cyril of Lucar, the same with that of the Protestants, had not time to be settled amongst the Greeks; but the Protestants do not yield at the sight of these two Councils, which they suppose to be only forged by the Latins. In fine, There was lately communicated unto me a Treatise of a learned Man of this Communion, which proves by many strong Arguments and Reasons, that these two Councils were only feigned by the Latins; which I intent not to determine: but I shall only say, that there is one thing in this History which much surpriseth me, which is, that Parthenius, under whom the latter of these Councils was to have been assembled, in the Year 1642. was driven out by another Parthenius, unto whom Leo Allatius, a Greek, Latinized, and Library-keeper of the Vatican, gives this testimony, 
De perpet. consens. Eccl. Orient. & Occident. l. 3. c. 11.  of having been Disciple to Cyril of Lucar, and a great favourer of the Calvinists: from whence they fail not to infer, that the Doctrine of Cyril was not extinguished with his person; as neither do they spare to say, that if the Greek Church did believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, there would signs of it appear in the Decrees of their Councils, as well as in those of the Latin Church; in their Liturgies, Catechisms, and in the public and authentical pieces touching their Religion; which yet they pretend is not to be seen. They add also, that the Greeks believe that the Communion breaks the Fast; that the Eucharist is digested, and goes into the draft, with other common meats, as hath been showed in the 17th Chapter. They observe, that they receive the Sacrament standing; that they do not bow unto it when it is carried unto 〈◊〉 folks; that they have not dedicated unto it any particular Holy day, nor Processions; that they do not expose it in public, neither in their rejoicings, nor in their sorrows; that they have not composed any particular Office and Prayers, to celebrate its praises; and, in a word, that they do nothing of all which the Latins do, to express the Adoration which they give unto it. Therefore Arcudius, a Latinized Priest, of the Isle of Corfu, all in a passion, demands of Gabriel of Philadelphia, wherefore, the the Consecration of the Gifts being ended, That the Priest doth not bow his head, nor adore, nor prostrate himself, nor give any show of honour? Wherefore is it that he doth not light Candle, nor sing any Songs nor Hymns unto the Sacrament; making unto it neither reverences, nor bowing of the head; nor of the knee, not honouring it by bowing down unto the ground; and not so much as saying unto it, Lord, remember me in thy Kingdom. Besides, I think that the Greeks in general are at this time so ignorant, that they are not very capable of giving an account of their Faith, touching the holy Sacrament. So that, if I mistake not, it would be no difficult matter for persons any thing ingenious, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, to make them to embrace and believe either of the two Opinions.  
But it is now time to treat of the Worship; which is to be the Subject of the latter part of this History.    

THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST.  
Part III. Wherein is Treated of the Worship of it.  
AFter having seen and considered the manner how the Ancient Christians did Celebrate their Eucharist. and what they said and believed of this August Sacrament, with all the Changes and Alterations which have thereupon ensued, and the many Disputes and Contests which have frequently happened in Europe, from Paschas until Berengarius; and from Berengarius, until the great separation of the Protestants. The method proposed by us, necessarily requires, that we should employ this Third Part in examining the Worship, I mean, to consider the dispositions and preparations which should go before the Celebration of the Sacrament, and of the inclinations and motions of the Soul of the Communicant, either towards God and Jesus Christ, or in respect of the Sacrament itself; that we should examine the great question of Latrie; and that we should endeavour to discover what the Church hath from time to time required of those which approached unto the holy Table, to participate of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation. For it must not be imagined, that these first Christians which abounded with Zeal and Piety, contented themselves in Celebrating this Divine Sacrament with indifferency, and merely for fashion sake, and only to declare what they believed of the Nature of the Symbols, of their use and employment; and that they omitted the necessary preparations both for celebrating, and for worthily partaking thereof. In fine, the abode which I made in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity; and the inspection which for some years I made into the Records and Registers which contain the Laws and Customs of this great Empire, have informed me, that this great and sublime Mystery, is not Celebrated; and that none presume to Communicate, without great preparation, devotion, and respect: And that the People of that Country made the actions of Jesus Christ, (celebrating his Sacrament, and that of the Apostles in Communicating the model of their Celebration; whereunto, nevertheless, in process of time, they added several Ceremonies which had not been used at first) and the words of this same Saviour, the foundation of their Doctrine, and of their Faith, upon this important Article of Religion. They had also considered the Commemoration that the Lord, and afterwards his Apostle, commands us to make of his Person and of his Death; and the proof and examination which this latter requires of us, as the fountain and principle of all the dispositions necessary for Celebrating and for Conimunicating. Having therefore treated at large of the two first Heads, we are indispensibly obliged to treat of the third point, thereby to finish and complete this History: And because the Celebration precedes the Communion; and that the actions of him that Celebrates, goes before them of the Communicant, we will first treat of the preparations incumbent upon him which doth Celebrate the Holy Sacrament.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the Preparations which precede the Celebration.  
WHen Jesus Christ did Celebrate his Eucharist, the Evangelists do not mention that he prepared himself by any Ceremony; they only declare, That after the Supper of the Passover was ended, he took Bread, and that having prayed unto his Father over this Bread, he broke it, and distributed it unto his Disciples. I only say, that at the very instant, there is no question to be made, but that he lifted up his Soul unto his Father, to beseech him that he would make this Sacrament which he went about to Institute for a Seal of his Covenant, saving and efficacious unto his Children, unto the end of the World: And that taking the Bread to make it a sign of his Body, he did it with that reverence, which of itself showed, that he went about doing something that was of great weight and moment. The Evangelists, nor St. Paul, make no mention at all of any preparation accompanied with many external Ceremonies; our Saviour designing to institute this Mystery with much plainness and simplicity, agreeable unto the Nature of the Gospel; the Worship whereof was to be wholly Spiritual and Divine, according unto what Jesus Christ said unto the woman of Samaria, That God is a Spirit, and he must be worshipped by them which serve him, in spirit and in truth. About six or seven score years after, the Conductors of the Christian Churches used no other Ceremony in the Celebration of the holy Sacrament; for St. Justin Martyr, 
St. Justin Martyr. Apol. 2.  who gives an ample description of the exterior form of Celebrating the Sacrament, which was observed in his time, prescribes no other preparation unto us on behalf of the Pastor before the Sacrament, but only that when the Sermon made unto the People, was ended, reading some portion of the holy Scriptures, he made a prayer unto God; and that when prayer was finished, the Believers having saluted each other with the kiss of Charity, there was presented unto him Bread, Wine and Water, over which things, he prayed unto God to Consecrate them; and the People having answered Amen, the distribution was made unto the Communicants by the Ministry of the Deacons.  
Nothing can be seen more simple, nor more agreeable unto the Institution of this Sacrament, than the manner that was used in Celebrating of it in the days of St. Justin, seeing there is no mention made of any preparation made by him that Celebrates, in order unto this holy Action, being content to prepare and dispose himself thereunto in private, by ardent and zealous prayers unto God, that he would be pleased to enable him by his Grace to Celebrate this Venerable Sacrament, with the Gravity, Reverence, and Devotion, befitting so illustrious a Monument of his great kindness and love: But this great simplicity was not to the liking of those which came after; They thought God was to be served with more pomp; and that the splendour of outward Ceremonies, would advance the Dignity of the Mysteries of his Religion. It often happens, that we think God is like our own selves; and that because we naturally love outward pomp, and are exceedingly inclined unto Pageantries, we fond conceit that it is the same with the Almighty; and that the Service which we address unto him, would be much more acceptable for being beautified and enriched with a great many Ceremonies, and attended with many mystical actions, into which deep search must be made, to understand their sense and meaning. This is indeed the Spring and Original cause of all those which in process of time have been introduced by Men in the Celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist: But because we here only inquire into those which Celebrate, and of the preparations which they ought to make for this holy Action, we must, to prosecute our design, consider what is happened in this preparation since Justin Martyr. In the Constitutions which go in the Apostles names, there is a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Eucharist; wherein, after Prayers unto God for the Catechumeny, the Energumeny, and the Penitents; for those which are ready to receive Baptism, and for the faithful. And after having dismissed all those which by the Laws of the Church could not be present at the Celebration of Divine Mysteries, the Deacons did present upon the Altar, 
Constit. Apostol. l. 8. c. 12.  the Oblations unto the Bishop, having a Priest on each hand of him, and a Deacon at each end of the Altar, with Fans, to hinder any Fly, or other little Creature, from falling into the Cup: Then the Bishop, with the Priests, pray unto God with a low voice; then he puts on a rich Vestment, and standing by the Altar, he makes the Sign of the Cross, and saith unto the People there present, The Grace of God Almighty, the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Communication of the holy Spirit, be with you all; and those which be present answer with one accord, And with thy Spirit. The Bishop saith again, Lift up your hearts; unto which the People reply, We do unto the Lord; and the Bishop, Let us give thanks unto the Lord; It is just and right, say the People. After which, the Bishop addressing himself unto God, saith, That it is just and right to praise him; showing in a long Discourse, the motives and reasons of this praise, taken either from the Nature of God and his works, whether of the Creation and Preservation of his ancient People, or from the redemption and sending Jesus Christ into the World for our Salvation; which discourse he concludeth by the History of the Institution of the Sacrament; from whence he proceedeth unto the Consecration after the manner of the Greeks. And this is in short the substance of the preparations which this Liturgy doth propose unto us on the part of him which doth Celebrate. 
Dionys. Arcopag. de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3.  In that of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite, the Bishop makes his prayer near the Altar, causeth Incense to be burnt, and goeth round the place of the Assembly; returning unto the Altar, he beginneth to sing Psalms, all the Clergy singing with him. After which the Deacon readeth some part of the holy Scriptures; which being ended, the Catechumeny, the Energumeny, and the Penitents, are made to go out: Then the chief amongst the Deacons, together with the Priests, put the Bread and Cup of blessing upon the Altar. After a general Hymnologie of all the Church, the Bishop prayeth, gives the blessing unto those which are present, which salute each other; and having with the Priests, washed his hands, he Consecrates the Divine gifts. But because one of the circumstances of this preparation, is the burning of Incense, let us endeavour to discover as near as may be, the time when Christians first began to introduce this Ceremony into the service of their holy Religion. Tertullian, who wrote at the end of the second Century, and the beginning of the third, doth sufficiently testify, that Christians, in that time, were wholly ignorant of the use of it, and that perfumes were not used in their Worship; for speaking of prayers, which they presented unto God for their Emperors; 
Tertull. in Apolog. c. ●●. See Athanag. who rejects it before T●rtul. in Apol. for Christian. p. 13 and Clement Alexandrin. in his Stromates, p. 717. & 719.  I cannot (saith he) demand these things but of him who I know will grant them unto me, as it is he only in whose power it is to grant them, it is unto us only that he will give them; because we are his faithful Servants, which adore and Worship him alone, and offer unto him the fattest and best Sacrifice, which he hath commanded to be offered unto him; to wit, prayer, proceeding from a chaste body, a pure Soul, and from the holy Spirit; and not grains of Incense of small price, not drops of that Arabian Tree, not two spoonfuls of Wine, nor the blood of an O● ready to die of Fat. And in the same Treatise he declares, That if the Christians made any use of Incense, it was in burying of their Dead: 
Id. ibid. c. 42. Vide de Idolat. c. 11. & ad scapul.  We do not buy any Incense, (saith he) if the Aratian Merchants do complain, let them know, that there is more of their Commodities employed, and with greater profusion, in burying Christians; then in perfuming the Images of the Gods. And elsewhere he makes the true use of Incense to consist in driving away ill Odours; 
Id. de coron. c. 10.  When I go into any place (saith he) and smell an ill savour that offends me, I cause a little Incense to be burnt, but not with the same Ceremony, the same disposition, nor the same pomp, 
Advers. Gent. l. 7.  as it is burnt in the Temples of Idols. Arnobius at the end of the third Century, if not the beginning of the fourth, doth in such sort press the Gentiles for their causing Incense to be burnt unto their Gods, that there is no likelihood he would have treated them as he did, if the Christians had used it in any of their Ceremonies, and especially in the Celebration of the Eucharist; or at the least he would have represented, that there was very great difference betwixt the one and the other, in regard that what the Gentiles did unto the honour of Idols, Christians did unto the Honour of the true God: He doth nothing of all this; he contents himself in deriding the blindness of the Gentiles, and to show them that it was ridiculous in them to undertake to offer Odours and Perfumes unto their Gods. And Lactantius, 
Epitome. c. 2.  his Disciple, doth he not positively say, That God doth not require of us neither Sacrifices nor Perfumes.: 
Orat. ad coetum c. 12.  And Eusebius introduces the Emperor Constantine, saying, That the Sacrament is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, wherein is not desired, neither a smell of Incense, nor a burning Brand. St. Austin himself, who died in the year 430. seems wholly to reject the use of Incense in God's Worship, 
In Psal. 49.  We (saith he) are in safety, we are not obliged to travel into Arabia to get Incense; we do not cause the greedy Merchant to unfold his Ballots, 
In Psal. 50.  God requires of us a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving: And elsewhere, Do not make provision of Perfumes which comes from without, but say, O God what I dedicate unto thee is in my heart, with the praises which I will render unto thee. And, if I mistake not, 
In Psal. 65.  St. Hillary understood it so when he said, We are informed in the Book of the Psalms what is meant by Perfumes, Let my prayer come before thee like Incense; signifying, that by Perfume is to be understood Prayers. St. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the Gospel according to St. Luke, speaketh of perfuming Altars, in expounding what is said of Zacharias the Father of St. John Baptist, That his Lot fell to offer Incense. But because he saith in the same place, that Jesus Christ is sacrificed, which cannot be literally true, all Christians confessing that he is not really sacrificed in the Eucharist, I suppose the safest and best way is mystically, and in a spiritual sense to understand St. Ambrose his Discourse, especially seaing the Declaration which St. Austin hath made, who is later than him: Therefore I make no question, but the answer of the Martyrs Fostin and Jovita, made unto the Emperor Adrian, as Molanus reports it in his Supplements of Ussuard's Martyrology, is forged and false; for after the railing Speeches which they make against the Emperor, and speaking unto his person, he makes them say, 
Die Feb. 15.  We will cause no Incense to be burnt to the honour of thy Gods; but we offer continually Incense and Sprinkling unto God our maker. We find in the Library of the Holy Fathers, a prayer of St. Hypollitus touching the end of the World, and Antichrist. Besides the title of Martyr, they also give him that of Bishop; and at this time, they will needs have him to be in the first place, Bishop in Arabia, and afterwards Bishop of Port in Italy; although St. Jerom doth witness in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, That he could not find of what place he was Bishop. If that prayer was really of Hypollitus, it may seem to intimate, that the Greek Church in his time, that is to say in the third Century, used Perfume and Incense in its Service and Worship; for speaking of the harm which Antichrist shall do at the end of the World, he saith amongst other things, That the Churches shall mourn and lament, 
Bibl. Pa●●●. 2. Graeco Lat.  because there shall be no more Oblation, nor Incense, nor Worship pleasing unto God. Not but it may very well be said, that the Author designed only to represent the Worship of Christians, by terms borrowed from the service of the Law, without being necessary to infer, That they did really employ Incense and Perfumes in the Worship of God. But if we should take what he saith in a literal sense, I do not suppose there could any great stress be laid upon it; And to speak the truth, there are so many things in this small Treatise which are so unworthy of the true St. Hypollitus, that I should be very loath to attribute them unto him. St. Jerom, its true, reckons amongst his Works, a Treatise of Antichrist; but it is evident it cannot be the same which is now extant; for it is entitled, A Prayer of St. Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr; of the End of the World, of Antichrist, and of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover the same S. Jerom, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, observes, That he had made a Sermon in the praise of Jesus Christ; and that the Author saith in this Sermon, That he repeated it in the presence of Origen. Now it is most certain, that in Origen's time the Greeks knew not what Perfumes and Incense meant in their Worship; for Expounding these words of Levit. 24. Thou shalt put pure Incense upon each Row, (that is to say, of the Shewbread) he speaks in such a manner as sufficiently showeth, that Christians had not then admitted the use of Incense into their Worship, 
Hom. 13. in Levit. c. 24. tom. 1. p. 106. I.  Do not imagine (saith he) that Almighty God hath commanded nor appointed in his Law, to bring him Incense from Arabia; but this is the Incense which he requires Men should offer unto him, and wherein he findeth a sweet smell and savour, to wit, Prayers proceeding from a pure heart, and from a good Conscience, the sweet smell whereof ascends up unto him.  
I allow that Origen here departs a little from the literal sense, in respect of the Law; but his language doth clearly evidence, that Incense and Perfumes were not then received into the Worship of the Eastern Christians. Let us then own, that this use was introduced into the Greek Church after Origen's days, who departed this life towards the latter end of the third Century; and by consequence, the Canons; which falsely bear the Apostles names, have been made since that time; seeing therein it is ordained to offer Perfumes for the Celebration of the Sacrament.  
And because it appears by the prayer of the Emperor Constantine, at the Assembly of the Saints, or in the Church of God, whose words have been already alleged, that even the Eastern Christians did not use Perfume in the Celebration of their Eucharist, for the greatest part of the iv Century; at least, when they celebrated it at the Tombs of Martyrs; I cannot tell but it ought to be granted, that the fourth pretended Canon of the Apostles was made since Constantine's time, who departed this life in the year of our Lord, 
Canon Apost. 4.  337. for see here what it enjoins: That nothing else should be offered at the Altar but of the first Ears of Corn, Grapes, Oil for the Lights, and Incense for the time of the holy Oblation. And as it is the first testimony of the Greek Fathers, wherein there is mention made of Perfume in the celebration of the Sacrament, that of Hypollitus not being to be credited; and being, moreover, capable of being conveniently interpreted of an Allegorical Perfume, it must be granted, that the Latins received the use of Perfumes later into their Worship than the Greeks, seeing St. Austin doth not make any mention of it in the V Century; for I take little heed of the second Decretal of Soter, wherein Women are forbidden to bring any Perfume unto the Altar; because this Decretal, and all them of the other Popes, until Siritius, are the Works of an Impostor.  
When I say, that the Latins have received the practice of Incense and Perfume later than the Greeks, I conclude that these latter followed the Ordinance of the pretended Canon of the Apostles; which, in all appearance, was not made, but very forward in the iv Century. And nevertheless, it is not certain, that the Greek Church put this Ordinance in execution presently after it was made. In fine, the first true and candid passage of Antiquity, after the fourth Canon of Apostles, wherein there is mention made of offering Incense; or as it is in the Greek, good Odours; 
Act. 3. Concil. Chalced.  is a Request of Ischyrion, Deacon of the Church of Alexandria, presented unto the Council of Chalcedon, assembled, Anno 451. against Dioscorus, his Bishop; 
Act. 5. t. 4. Con. cil. p. 102, 103.  and afterwards at Constantinople, under Agapet, and under Menna, in the Year 536. there is mention of assembling in the Church with Flambeaus and Perfumes; but it is not positively affirmed, that it was to celebrate the Eucharist, no more than the action of the Friar Zozimus, 
Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 7.  reported by Evagrius, in his Ecclesiastical History; saying, That after having deplored the ruin of Antioch, which he had foretold, he demanded a Senser; and having filled the place where he was with Perfume, he bowed himself to the ground, to appease the wrath of God by his prayers. The same Historian, speaking of the Presents which Chosroes, King of Persia, offered unto the Martyr Sergius, 
Ibid. l. 6. c. 20.  he forgets not to speak of a Golden Senser for celebrating of the Sacrament; which happened at the end of the iv Century, where he concludes his History.  
I have expressly spoken of legitimate, and not forged Writings; because I am not ignorant, that in the Liturgies attributed unto St. James and St. Mark, there is to be seen the custom of Perfume, and of Incense, at the time of celebrating the Sacrament: and there be also Prayers for dedicating it unto God. But for as much as the Learned, as well Roman Catholics as Protestants, do confess, that either they were not the Works of these Servants of God; or if they be, that they have received many Alterations, and that things have been foisted into them, unknown unto the first Christians; nothing hinders but we may in this number include the use of Incense; there being no likelihood that it would have been so late received into the Church, if it had been practised by an Apostle, and an Evangelist.  
What I say of the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark, I say also of that attributed unto St. Peter; wherein we observe the same thing. Which example the Christians would not have failed to have observed, had all the Liturgies appeared from the beginning.  
As for the Liturgies of St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom, I would not so positively affirm, that what is therein mentioned of the Oblation of Perfume hath been therein inserted since the death of the Authors; for although that several things have been thereunto annexed, and many things altered, and that there be several which even believe, that which goes under St. Chrysostom's name, is not his; but of a more recent Author. Nevertheless the Canon of the Apostles, which prescribes the use of Incense in the celebration of the Sacrament, having been composed before either of these two Doctors of the Church, I shall refer it unto others to decide this difficulty, although St. Basil, upon Psal. 115. rejects the Oblation of Incense; and I shall content myself in saying, that if these two Liturgies are truly St. Basils and St. Chrysostom's, and if what is therein said of the Oblation of perfume, hath not been thereunto added since their death, there is great cause to wonder that there is no mention at all made of it any where else, in the Works of Authors of the times before the Council of Chalcedon; at least, I have not observed any, even in St. Cyril of Jerusalem; 
Mystag. 5.  who describing particularly enough the form of the celebration of the Sacrament, and the dispositions thereunto requisite, speaketh not a word of the Oblation of Incense. He saith indeed, that a Deacon giveth Water to wash his hands that officiated, and unto the Priests that be with him; that the people are exhorted to give each other the Kiss of Charity, to lift up their hearts on high, to give thanks unto the Lord; that there is mention made of Heaven and Earth, of the Sea, the Sun, Moon and Stars; and generally, of all Creatures, as well reasonable Creatures as Brutes, of visible and invisible, of Angels and Arch-Angels, of Virtues, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Thrones, and Cherubims which cover their faces; especially those which were seen by the Prophet Esay; and which cried one to another, saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts. And after being so sanctified, they pray unto God, that he will be pleased to send his Holy Spirit upon the Gifts proposed, that is to say, the Bread and Wine; the Consecration whereof, the Greeks make to depend upon this Prayer: but as for the Ceremony of Incense, which we inquire after, the least sign of it is not to be found in the whole Catechism. As for the pretended Denis the Arcopagite, which gave occasion unto this whole Enquiry; he began not to appear, at soon, until the end of the V Century, or the beginning of the VI at which time, the Perfumes and Incenses were practised in the Service of the Greek Church. 
Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat.  I know very well, that in the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria, in the Library of the Fathers, there is Prayers made for those which furnished the Oblations and Sacrifices; the Bread, Wine, Oil and Incense, and the Vessels used at the Altar. So that if it were truly his, the introduction of this practice amongst the Greeks should be before the Council of Chalcedon, because Cyril was deceased before the Council was convocated. But it being very uncertain whether it were Cyrils, or whether he was the Author of it, or that it hath retained its purity, we have not ill assigned unto the Council of Chalcedon the first testimony of this custom amongst the Greeks, after the Ordinance of the Canon of the Apostles. 'Tis true, the Request of Ischyrion Deacon of the Church of Alexandria, wherein it is spoken of, and which is contained in the third Action of this Council; seeming to presuppose the establishment of this use, but of no long time, it may without any inconvenience be said, that it began to be practised about the time of the assembling of this Council; and probably at Alexandria, rather than elsewhere, 
Concil. Chalced. Act 3. t. 3. Concil. p. 247. ult. edit.  according to the Testament of a certain Lady, called Peristerie; who at her death, bequeathed great treasures unto the Church, unto Monasteries, Hospitals, and unto the Poor of the whole Province; and also provision to supply the Oblation of Perfume; as may be gathered from this Request, as also from the time of the death of this Lady, which was whilst Dioscorus was Bishop; and after the death of Cyril. But in as much as this custom of offering Incense unto God at the time of celebrating the Eucharist began to be introduced into the Eastern Church in the V Century, as near as I can judge, the Reader will not be offended that I here represent the Prayer which was made unto God, in presenting him the Perfume: for although it be expressed in divers terms, according to the diversity of Liturgies; nevertheless, because all these Prayers amount in substance unto the same thing, this here will be sufficient. It is in the Liturgy of St. James; I mean, 
Liturgia S. Jacobi.  in that which goes under his name; O Lord Jesus Christ, Word of God, who offeredst thyself upon the Cross, as a holy Sacrifice unto thy God, thy Father, and thy King; which art that Coal of two natures, which didst touch with Tongues the lips of the Prophet, and didst cleanse him from his iniquities; touch also our Understanding: Ours, I say, who are sinners, and purify us from all uncleanness: and grant, we may present ourselves pure and holy at thine Altar, to offer unto thee a Sacrifice of Praise: And receive of us, who are unprofitable Servants, this present Perfume, in an Odour of a sweet savour. Change the ill savour of our Souls and Bodies into a sweet Odour, and sanctify us by the sanctifying virtue of thy Holy Spirit; for thou art the only Saint which sanctifieth, and communicatest thyself unto the faithful. And unto whom, with thy Father, and thy good, holy and quickening Spirit, appertains the Glory, both now, and for ever, Amen.  
As for what regards the Latin Church, it is no less difficult, precisely to determine the time when Perfume was first offered in the Celebration of the Sacrament. It may very well be inferred from what hath been alleged of St. Austin, that this practice was not received in his days in the West; at least, in the Church of Africa; I say, not in the Church of Africa: for I find in the Life of Boniface the first, Contemporary with St. Austin, this Ordinance; That no Woman, or Nun, 
In lib. Pontific. t 1. Concil. p. 884.  should touch nor wash the sacred Corporal, nor cause to be burnt any Incense in the Church, saving the Deacons only. I know, the Pontifical Book, from whence this Life is taken, is a Book upon which no solid foundation can be laid: those which have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, make no esteem of it. And the Impostor that forged the Decretals of the first Popes, hath made Soter to make a Decrete in the II. Century, like unto that of Boniface in the V but for all that, I would not so absolutely deny the truth of the Ordinance of Boniface, as I would that of Soter; for although the Pontifical Book is not always to be believed, nevertheless, it cannot be said as positively, as of the Decretal of Soter, that it is forged. There is but one thing that sticks with me, and is the reason that I cannot give credit to the Decrete which is to be seen in the Life of Boniface: It is, that in all the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the First, nor in those of Ecclesiastical Offices of St. Isidore, Archbishop of Sevil, there is no mention at all made, to the best of my remembrance, touching the Oblation of Perfume. It is not so of the Book called The Roman Order, wherein there is express mention made of it; as also in Amalarius Fortunatus, who lived in the IX. Century: but as for the Roman Order, all are not agreed of its age; most thinking it was written towards the end of the VIII. Century, and some, in the XI. After all, in admitting the Decrete of Pope Boniface the First, it will follow, that the use of Perfume and Incense in the Worship and Service of Religion, was not received by the Latins before the V Century, if it be certain that it was then itself received.  
In a Book which treateth of Divine Offices, which Melchior Historpius caused to be printed, together with the Roman Order, there is several Prayers for consecrating and blessing the Censer and the Incense; of each it will suffice to relate one. I say, in the first place, for the Censer; in blessing whereof, this Prayer is made unto God. 
Tom. 10. Bibl. Pat.  O Lord God, who, at the time that the Children of Israel were devoured by fire, by reason of their Rebellion, thou wert pleased to hear the prayers of thy High Priest Aaron, standing betwixt the Dead and the Living, and offering thee Incense, and saving the people out of the midst of the fire; bless, we pray thee, this Censer: and grant, that as often as we therein offer Incense unto thee, we may become a Temple of a sweet savour, acceptable unto thy Christ.  
And for the Perfume and Incense; 
Ibid.  O Almighty Lord; God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; send upon this Creature of Perfume, and of Incense, the strength and virtue of thy savour; to the end it may serve for a protection and defence unto thy Servants, to hinder the Enemy from entering into their hearts, and there fix his abode and residence; through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.  
And in the Pontifical; 
Pontific. Rom. par. 2. fol. 136. 2 Venise 1582.  O Lord God Almighty, in whose presence doth stand with trembling, the Army of holy Angels; whose service is wholly spiritual, and full of zeal; be pleased to behold, bless, and sanctify this Incense and Perfume, to the end that all the failures, the infirmities, and all the stratagems of the Enemy, smelling its savour, may fly away, and departed from thy Creatures, which thou hast ransomed with the precious Blood of thy Son, never to be wounded by the biting of the wicked Serpent; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.  
But because that which is called the Apostles fourth Canon joins unto Incense, the Oil for the Lights or Lamps, at the time of celebrating the Sacrament, it will not be amiss to inquire into the first Original of this Custom, as we have done into that of Incense. To this purpose the Reader need not expect that we should treat of the primitive Christians making use of Lamps and Candles in their Assemblies, because every body knows they did not use them for Ceremony, but through pure necessity; being forced to assemble in the night, and early, before daylight, for fear of Persecution. From thence did proceed the unjust slanders wherewith they were charged in Minucius Foelix, of causing the Lights to be extinguished, the more greedily to satisfy their Lusts, and sensual Appetites. Neither will I speak of the Wax Candles and Flambeaus which were used on Easter Eve; nor stand to show when their use began, not only on this occasion, but also in Feasts and Funerals, as well as unto the honour of Images. These things may probably be answered at some more convenient time: for the present, we must limit ourselves within the matter which concerns the Sacrament, whereof we writ the History; and by consequence, only consider the use of the light of Lamps and Candles in that which relates unto the Worship and Service of God.  
Tertullian accounted it as a great Superstition in the Gentiles, for using Candles and Flambeaus in the day time; and saith, Christians do not so; 
Apolog. c. 35.  We (saith he) do not burn daylight with Candles and Flambeaus. And he saith so upon account of what was acted by the Pagans upon Holy Days, and public rejoicings; particularly, unto the honour of the Emperors. But elsewhere he speaketh in a manner which giveth plainly to understand, that the Christians of his time did not at all admit, for Ceremony, the use of Candles, Flambeaus, or other Lights, in the Worship of their Religion: so that if they made use of any, it was only during their Nocturnal Assemblies; their Enemies not suffering them to meet together in the day time. Let them (saith he) every day light Flambeaus (he speaks of what was done in the Temples of Idols) which are absolutely in darkness. 
De Idol. c. 15.  Let them which are threatened with eternal fire, fasten Laurels at their doors, that they might afterwards burn them; for these tokens of darkness, and these forerunners of pains and punishments become them very well. Can a Christian have spoke after this manner against a Heathen Superstition, if in his Religion he had practised the use of Lights and Flambeaus? He would have spoke in another manner; and would have rested satisfied to have shown, that if Christians admitted of this custom amongst the Ceremonies of their Religion, it was unto the Honour and Glory of the true God; whereas Pagans did it unto unto the honour of their Idols, and their false Divinities. And writing unto his Wife, 
In c. 6. lib. 2. ad uxor.  She will (saith he) be incommoded with the smell of Incense at all the Solemnities of the Emperors, at the beginning of every new Year, and of each Month. She will departed out of the house, whose door shall be set with Laurels and Candles. Upon which words, Monsieur Rigaut doth fully prove, that the ancient Christians would not suffer that the Pagans should fasten Laurels at their doors, nor that they should light Flambeaus in day time. And that they had it in detestation, as things consecrated unto the honour of false Gods, as things injurious unto nature and reason, and as the sign of some place of fresh debauchery.  
The same Tertullian demands again in his Apologetic, 
Apolog. c. 46.  If there be any one that forceth a Philosopher to sacrifice, or to swear, or needlessly to light Flambeaus at Noonday. And Arnobius directing his discourse unto the Gentiles, 
Advers. Gent. l, 5. p 77. ult. ed.  Your Gods (saith he) like men, look for things they have lost, and run through the World with Flambeaus, when the Sun shineth in its lustre.  
In the Council of Eliberius, in Spain, assembled, as is supposed, 
Concil. Eliber. c. 35. p. 37.  in the Year 305. there is found two Canons which concerns the Subject in hand: The first contains these words; We forbidden that Candles should be lighted by day time in the Churchyard, for the Souls of Saints should not be disturbed. Those which obey not this Ordinance, shall be suspended from the Communion of the Church. In the other, this may be seen; We have thought good that those which are troubled with unclean Spirits should be baptised: if they are Believers, and in danger of death, let the Sacrament be given unto them; forbidding them to light Candles publicly. And if they do it contrary to this Prohibition, let them be deprived of the Communion. But this Council being assembled in a time when the Persecutions against the Christians were not wholly ceased, let us examine if, after the Empire was fallen into the hands of Christian Princes, in the person of Constantine the Great, whether the Church acted otherwise than it had done before.  
Lactantius Firmianus was Tutor unto Crispus, Son of this Emperor, 
Instit. diviner. l. 6. c. 2.  if we examine him on this matter, he will tell us, That God hath created so clear and pure a Light for the use of Man, that he stands in no need of Flambeaus. He doth deride the Heathens, That they made Lights unto God, as if he were in Darkness; and maketh this formal declaration, That it cannot be believed that that man is in his right senses, which offers the light of Candles and Flambeaus, unto him which is the Author and Dispenser of Light. And St. Cyril of Jerusalem, which flourished at the end of the 4th Century, lays it down as a part of Idolatrous Worship, 
Mystagog. 1.  To light Candles, and to burn Incense near unto Fountains and Rivers; without saying a word of justifying Christians in the use of Candles and Flambeaus in the exercise of their Worship; which in all probability he would not have failed to have done, if this practice had been publicly received into the Church; not but that they were made use of either on Easter Eves, to dissipate the darkness of the Night, as Gregory Nazianzen speaks; 
Orat. 2. de Paschat.  or when Prayers were made, or Psalms sung before day, as is observed by St. Epiphanius; 
Lib. 3. in fine compendiar. doct●.  There is. (saith he) always prayers at Church in the Morning, Psalms also is there sung by Candle-light.  
But it matters not what was done by Christians when they assembled in the Night, there being a kind of necessity which permitted them not to do otherwise; the question is, to know at what time they began to introduce the use of Candles and Flambeaus into the Service and Worship of their Religion, and to make it one of the Ceremonies of the Celebration of their Sacrament, We have already seen that the 4th of the Canons attributed unto the Holy Apostles, ordains, To offer Oil for the Laiminaries: But the date of these Canons being very uncertain, we can conclude nothing certain nor positive of the beginning of this Ceremony; besides, that it may be said this Decree seems only to regard Nocturnal Assemblies, or at least the Eves of Easter, which necessarily required the help of Candles, Lights and Flambeaus; unto which time may be referred the Miracle of Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem, who seeing the Oil to fail in the Lamps, converted Water into Oil, 
L. 6. c. 9  according to the report of Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History: And the Canon of the Apostles joining the Oil unto the Incense, and mentioning the time of Celebrating the Sacrament, it is probable, he desires that both of them should be used. 
Histor. l. 6. c. 8.  Socrates makes mention of certain silver Crosses invented by St. Chrysostom, whereupon was set Wax Lights; but he declares in the same place, that it was for the Hymns which was sung in the Night time, unto the honour of Jesus Christ, whilst the Arrians dishonoured him by others which were agreeable unto their Heresy and Impiety. Sozomen saith, 
Histor. l. 8. c. 8  That the Catholic and Orthodox sang their Hymns, in causing to be carried before them, Crosses of Silver whereon there was Light Flambeaus; so this makes nothing to our subject, no more than the using of Lights at the Feasts and Funerals of Christians, in the days of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom, in token of their joy, for the belief they had of the blessedness and repose of the Dead; what they did in Celebrating the Birth day, or the day of the Death of Martyrs, which the Ancients termed their Birth day, doth approach nearer the matter which we examine; for St. Chrysostom witnesseth, 
T. 1. hom. 71. de S. Phoca.  that they lighted Flambeaus upon those occasions. Nevertheless, because Pagans were wont to use the same Customs in their Feasts and public rejoicings, 
Orat. 2. in Julianum, quae est 4.  Gregory Naxianzen doth prohibit Christians to use that practice, Let us Celebrate (saith he) the Feast, my Brethren, not with spruceness of Body and sumptuousness of Apparel; let us not strew the way with Flowers, nor make a show before our Doors; and let us not make our Houses shine with visible light; for so it is that Pagans do Celebrate the Feast of the New Moon. Yet not long after, some introduced the Custom of lighting Flambeaus unto the honour of Martyrs; I say, some few, for it was not practised by all the Church, but she was content to tolerate it to comply with the weakness and ignorance of those which did it. St. Jerom, Disciple of Gregory Nazianzen, who departed this life Anno 420. declares himself so fully on this matter, that he leaves us no difficulty therein; for writing against Vigilantius, 
Tom. 2. advers. Vigilant. c. 3.  Priest of Barcelona, who approved not this Custom, he saith amongst other things, We do not light Flambeaus at Noonday, as you do maliciously accuse us, but it is only done by this means to supply the darkness of the Night, and to watch by the assistance and favour of the Light, to the end we should not sleep with you, in darkness; but if any do it for the honour of the Martyrs, by reason of the ignorance and simplicity of Lay persons, or indeed of some devout women, of whom it may truly be said, I confess they have a Zeal for God, but not according to knowledge; what prejudice is all this unto you: And because Vigilantius charged such People with Idolatry, St. Jerom to excuse them, sheweth, that there was a great deal of difference betwixt what the Pagans did, and what was practised by these Christians; 
Ibid.  That (saith he) was done unto Idols, therefore it ought to be had in detestation; but this is done unto Martyrs, therefore it may be allowed; for in all the Eastern Churches, besides the relics of Martyrs, when the Gospel is to be read, Lights are set up in day time, not to dissipate darkness, but for an expression and sign of joy. It must then be granted, that the practice of Lights and Flambeaus began not to be introduced into the Worship of Christians, until the V Century; and not then neither into the whole Church universally, but only in the Eastern Churches, when they went about reading the Gospel; which some did for the honour of Martyrs, being the effect of an ignorant Devotion, and destitute of true knowledge, according to the Opinion of St. Jerom; and the Exhortation directed by St. Chrysostom unto his Auditors, in the place abovesaid, of crossing the Sea with Flambeaus, to go to the Sepulchre of the Martyr Phocas, tending only to express their holy joy, for the advantage they had of possessing the Relics of this Martyr, which had been Transported from Synopius unto Constantinople. But after all, it appears by St. Jerom's Discourse, that those of the West had not yet admitted of this Ceremony; and that it was not practised neither in the Eastern Church, but at the time of reading the Gospel. Erasmus makes this Annotation upon the passage of St. Jerom, It seems St. Jerom believed it was a Superstitious thing to light Flambeaus to the honour of Saints; and that none should be used but for the convenience of such as were to be employed in the Night season; whereas at this time, the principal part of Worship is made to consist in the Lights: But it appears, this Custom was tolerated in that Age, rather than approved. Time changeth many things. In fine, we do not find any mention of it in the Liturgies which go under the names of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Mark, nor even in that attributed unto St. Basil; but only in that of St. Chrysostom, that is to say, in that commonly attributed unto him, but which cannot be his, but of some Author much later than that Golden Tongue of the Ancient Church; or, if referring it unto St. Chrysostom, it may not truly be said, That it hath received great changes and alterations: In the number of which, may well be put the place where there is mention made of Candles and Flambeaus; which yet I will not positively affirm, being very probable this Custom was introduced by degrees into the Church, after St. Jerom's time, 
Act. 5. t. 4. Concil. pag. 102. & 103.  who died 13 years after St. Chrysostom; which was the reason that in the Council of Constantinople, under Agapet and Menna, Anno 536. Candles were joined unto the Incense and Perfumes for the public Prayers, which were to be made in the Church, and if I mistake not, for the Celebration of the Sacrament itself; but if in that place it concerned not the Celebration of the Sacrament, as I think it cannot be denied, that the use of Flambeaus on this occasion, was introduced before into the Eastern Church, seeing the reading the Gospel, mentioned by St. Jerom, for the which Candles were lighted in day time in the Eastern Churches, related in all likelihood, unto the Celebration of the Sacrament, and was as it were a part of it. It's true, that his limiting this practice unto the Eastern Churches, imports, that the Churches of the West did not yet observe it. But in fine, they introduced this same Ceremony into their Worship; but to know precisely the time, is something difficult.  
In the life of Pope Sylvester, 
Lib. Pontifical. t. 1. Concil. pag. 251.  who held the Pontificial Chair in the days of Constantine the Great, there is mention made of several sorts of Works and Flambeaus, which he gave unto the use of the Light in the Church; but because they might be given to supply the darkness of the Night, or to serve only for Decency and Ornament; not to insist upon the little credit which the Pontifical Book that contains the Life of Silvester doth deserve, we cannot procure from so great a number of Lamps and Flambeaus, any light for finding what we look after; although we are not ignorant that there were some Churches in the iv Century, especially in the East, where was seen Lamps lighted even in day time, as in that spoken of by Epiphanius, at the end of his Letter unto John, 
Ep. ad Joan. Hierosolym.  Bishop of Jerusalem, which might also happen to be in the West; but we inquire for the use of these Lamps and Flambeaus at the Celebration of the Sacrament. St. Austin, contemporary with S. Jerom, but a little younger than him, exhorts his Auditors to offer according to their ability, little Candles, 
Serm. de Tempor. 215.  and Oil for the Lights; He doth not positively say it is for the time of Oblation, I mean for the Celebration of the Sacrament; But this Sermon is none of St. Augustine's. It is a mended, and patched piece of St. Eloy's, De rectitudine Catholicae Conversationis; besides, that in the 7th Sermon De temporibus, at least if it be his, he declares that it is for the Lights of the Night. The 4th Council of Carthage, assembled Anno 398. if the Title be true, declares, that the Acolyte receives a Candle from the , 
Can. 6.  in his Ordination, To the end he should know that it was his Duty to light the lights of the Church: but he doth not particularly explain himself of the use of these Flambeaus, I suppose then, to reconcile St. Jerom with the rest, it must be said, that the use which we examine touching the use of Flambeaus, at the time of Celebrating the Sacrament, began to be observed in the Western Churches in the days of St. Austin, that is to say, in the V Century. 
Liber Sacrament. in Sabbato Sancto. p. 70. & 71.  And what inclines me to think so, is first, That in the time of Gregory the first, it was practised in the Celebration of holy Baptism, as it may be seen in his Book of Sacraments; whence it may be inferred with great probability, that it was also practised in the Celebration of the Sacrament. Secondly, St. Isidor Archbishop of Sevil, who lived in the same time with Gregory, although he died several years after him, speaks formally of it, 
Lib. 7. Etymol. c. de Clericis.  as of a thing already established, Those (saith he) which in Greek are called Acolytes, are those which in Latin we call Linkbearers, because they carry them when the Gospel is read, or when the Sacrifice is offered; for than they do light Candles and bear them, not to dissipate darkness, because the Sun shineth at that time, but to express our joy, thereby to declare under the Type of a corporal Light, that Light spoken of in the Gospel, That he is the true Light, which enlighteneth every man which cometh into the World. Since which time, most of those which have treated of Divine Offices, have not failed to speak of it, and therein to seek, as well as in all other things, some mystical signification; so that it would be but lost labour, any farther to follow the traces of this Ceremony, which was even at that time generally received amongst the Greeks and the Latins, in the East and in the West. Therefore may be seen in the Roman Order, and elsewhere, several prayers for blessing of Torches, Candles and Flambeaus, which are not necessary here to be inserted: One shall suffice for all; 
Ordo Roman. t. 10. Bibl. Patr. p. 24.  O Lord Jesus Christ, bless this Wax we beseech thee; and therein pour by the virtue of thy heavenly Cross, a heavenly Benediction: to the end, that by the Sign of the Cross, it might receive of thee, who hast given it unto men to scatter the darkness of the Night, such a force and benediction, that in all places where it shall be lighted, or set, the Devil should avoid, tremble, and fly for fear, with all his Imps, from those places and habitations; and that he may no more attempt to molest and seduce those that serve thee.  
But having discoursed of the use of Lamps, Candles, and of Incense; the Author of Constitutions called Apostolical, obligeth us to speak somewhat of the Sign of the Cross, because in his Liturgy of the Eucharist, he represents the Bishop making of it, when he addresseth himself unto the celebration of the Sacrament. It is most certain, that the Ancient Christians often made the sign of the Cross, at least since the end of the II. Century, as Tertullian informs us; but before him, I do not remember to have observed it: a practice those Christians opposed unto the reproach which the Gentiles made them of believing in a Man that had been put to death upon a Cross; so that by this sign, they would manifest unto their Enemies, that they were not ashamed of their crucified Jesus: So it is that St. Cyril of Jerusalem explains himself, when he said, If after being crucified and buried, 
Catech. 4.  he had remained in the Grave, than we should have cause to be ashamed: but he is risen, and ascended up into Heaven. And elsewhere, 
Id. Catech. 13  Arm yourselves against the enemies of this Cross; plant for a Trophy against all opposers, the Faith of the Cross: And when you engage in disputing with Unbelievers touching the Cross of our Saviour, first of all make the sign of the Cross, and you will put to silence your gainsayers: Be not ashamed to confess the Cross of Jesus Christ, that is to say, of him that was crucified. But how frequent soever the Sign of the Cross was amongst Christians, I cannot find, that during the three first Centuries, they commonly used it in the public Service of Religion; and as I only treat at this time of the Sacrament, I shall only say, that the first places wherein there is any mention of the Sign of the Cross in the celebration of this Divine Sacrament, are the Liturgies of the Apostolic Constitutions, as hath been declared in this Chapter: And this Treatise could not have been written, but at the beginning of the iv Century; those attributed unto St. Peter, St. James, and St. Mark, are not as I conceive, any Elder, having many things in them unknown unto the first Christians. As for the Liturgy of Justin Martyr, written in the II. Century, there is not one word mentioned of it, but what I dare not assure of the Sign of the Cross, to wit, that it doth not appear in the celebration of the Sacrament during the three first Centuries, I shall not fear to affirm of the use of material Crosses, because there were not yet any used in the Church; therefore Tertullian reckons expressly amongst false Opinions, 
Apolog. c. 15. & 16.  that some Pagans entertained of the object of the Adoration of Christians, 
Minut. in Octau.  the fancy of those which thought, That they were Worshippers, or Admirers of the Cross; and in Minutius Felix, Cecilius in his Invective against Christians, having said, That some persons esteemed that the cursed Wood of the Cross, was part of their Ceremonies. Octavius, that excellent defender of Christianity, answereth, As for Crosses, we neither care for them, nor Worship them. And it is very probable that Christians began not to use Crosses, until after it was believed, that Helen Mother of Constantine, had found the true Cross of Jesus Christ, in the year 326. But if we yet draw nearer unto the Sacrament, we shall not find any Cross therein used, during all the time which hath been spoken of, nor yet later; for it doth not appear, neither in the Liturgy of St. Justin Martyr, nor in those which go under the names of St. James, St. Peter, and of St. Mark: Nor in fine, in those of the Apostolic Constitutions of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite. But although the Author of this last, lived not at soon, but at the V Century, I know not whether it may be said, that the use of Sign of the Cross was not practised in the public action of the Sacraments of the Church, seeing the contrary appears in the Writings of St. Chrysostom, 
Hom. 55. in Matth. p. 487. Vide t. 5. quod Christ. sit Deus pag 840. & t. 6. de adorat cruc. p. 615.  When (saith he) we be regenerated (that is to say Baptised) the Cross is there; and when we are fed with the mystical food, and when we receive Ordination, and whatever else we do, this Victorious Symbol doth still accompany us. But before this excellent Doctor, who departed this life Anno 407. I do not find that Crosses were employed in the Service and Worship of Christians; and besides, the passages of St. Chrysostom may be understood of the Sign of the Cross only, and not of the Cross itself, especially if the passages are understood in their full compose and extent.  
Besides these things which have been examined, the Original whereof we have endeavoured to discover, there be some others which have been hinted at; as for instance, divers Hymns, as well regarding the Clergy, as the People; the reading the holy Scriptures; several prayers; the turning out of the Catechumeny, the Energumeny, and the Penitents; whereto we may add, in regard of the Greeks, the preparing the Oblation; that is to say, the Symbols of Bread and Wine upon the Table of Proposition; the carrying of these gifts unto the Mystical Table, to be Consecrated; whereof we say nothing now, having treated thereof at large in the first Part of this History. As also of the time, the place, and of the Vessels necessary unto Celebration: Whereunto may be joined the Ceremony of Vestments, appointed unto this use, whereof I find no mention at all made before Pope Sylvester, who held the Pontifical See at the beginning of the iv Century; that is, from the year 314 until the year 336. For in his Life there is mention made of Dalmaticks for the Deacons, 
Tom. 1. Concil. p. 258.  and of a certain Cloth wherewith their left hand was to be covered. The Author of the questions upon the Old and New Testament, in the works of St. Austin, but before his time, 
Tom. 4. in append. q. 46. p. 436. Tom. 1. Concil. p. 729. Hom. 83. in Matth. Liturg. Chrysost.  speaketh also of the Dalmaticks which Deacons used in his time. The 41 Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage, doth formally prescribe them the use of the Cope during the reading of the Gospel, and at the time of Oblation only. St. Chrysostom makes mention of White Vestures in the celebration of the Sacrament; and in the Liturgy which goes in his name, may be seen the prayers made unto God, whilst he that Officiates is putting on the holy Vestments; an action which is not omitted by the Author of the Apostolic Constitutions, as hath been before showed. According unto which St. Jerom observes, 
Lib. 1. advers. Pelag. c. 9 p. 565. Ep. 3.  that all the Clergy have White Vestures when the Eucharist is celebrated, and in his Letter unto Heliodorus upon the death of Nepotian, he saith, that Nepotian at his death bequeathed him the Coat which he used in doing the functions of a Priest. Since which time, in the Life of St. Gregory, by John the Deacon; and in the Authors which have treated of Divine Offices, there is frequent mention made of these Priestly Habits; for it cannot reasonably be referred unto this custom, what Polycrates said of St. John, That he bore a Golden Plate upon his forehead, as the High Priests of the Jews did.  
But all that is nothing in comparison of what is seen in the Latin Church; for there is to be seen six several sorts of Vestments, or if you will Ornaments, which belong unto the Priests which Officiate, and eight or nine unto the Bishop; and there is not one of them, but they have searched some mysterious signification for it, and whereunto they have destined a particular Consecration; not to insist of the diversity of colours which are there to be seen, nor of the sundry occasions which sometimes require one, sometimes others; and the practice and use is esteemed so necessary, that if it be ever so little neglected, the celebration of Mass is in a manner counted imperfect. Those which desire particularly to inform themselves of these things now hinted at, may but read what Durandus Bishop of Mende, and the Precedent Duranti have writ on this subject. For it shall suffice me here to observe that Jesus Christ and his Apostles, unto whom we may join the Christians of the first Ages, did not celebrate the Eucharist but in their ordinary Apparel. Therefore Wallafridus Strabo wrote in the IX. Century, that Priestly Vestments were multiplied in time, unto the degree they were then in: For in the first Ages (saith he) Masses was celebrated with ordinary Apparel, 
Lib. de reb. Eccles. c. 24.  as it is said that several in the Eastern Churches do still practise: 
Lib. 1. Gemm. amm. c. 89.  And Honorius of Autun said about 400 years ago, That the Apostles and their Successors, did celebrate the mysteries in their ordinary , and with Chalices of Wood  
As for the bowings of the Body before a Crucifix, no more then before an Image, and before an Altar, which is so frequently practised amongst the Latins by those which say Mass, I see no footsteps of it, neither in the constitutions which are called the Apostles, nor in St. Cyril of Jerusalem, no, nor in the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite; whose Writings could not see light before the end of the V Century, although all of them have very exactly represented that which was observed in their times in the celebration of the Eucharist; from whence I infer, that what is to be seen in one part of the Liturgy attributed unto St. Chrysostom, to wit, That he that celebrates turns himself towards the Image of Jesus Christ, with bowing of the body, is not of this holy Doctor: but that in all likelihood it was foisted into the Liturgy since the contests of the Greeks about the subject of Images; and what confirms me in this thought is, that the favourers of Image Worship have not alleged these words, not so much as the Deacon Epiphanius in the second Council of Nice, although he answers unto some passages of this Father which the Iconoclasticks had cited against this Worship. What might be alleged from a Homily which is in the works of St. Chrysostom, and hath for Title, That there is one only Lawgiver of the Old and New Testament, is of no moment, because this Homily is none of his, as hath been long since remarked by Fronton du Duke a Learned Jesuit, who laboured with great success upon the works of this incomparable Writer.  
The Muscovites, 
Apud Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 24. Vide Lit. Cassander.  although they be of the Religion of the Greeks, yet they seem to celebrate the Sacrament with less Ceremony than the Greeks; the Armenians much like these latter; and the Abyssins', although they have no want, yet methinks have not so many as the Greeks nor Armenians: But to see a very great number, you need only have recourse unto what is done by the Latins, in the Roman Order, in the Mychrology, in the Pontifical in the Ceremonial of Bishops, and in the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, which are more or less in number, according to the days and persons which celebrate, especially when 'tis the Pope himself that says Mass; whereas by the testimony of Gregory the first, and of several others, the Apostles only repeated the words of Institution, with the Lord's prayer; which simplicity, Amalarius Fortunatus, a Writer of the IX. Century, hearty desired: 
Lib. 3. de divin. office in praefat.  It would suffice (saith he) without Singers, without Readers, and without all the other things practised in the celebration of the Sacrament, that the Bishop or Priest, should pronounce the blessing to consecrate the Bread and Wine, to the end the People should be nourished for the salvation of their Souls, as the Apostles did at the first beginning of Christianity. By which words he showeth, that he found the celebration of this Mystery too much clogged with Ceremonies; as also St. Austin found that all the Christian Religion was, 500 years before Amalarius; for he complains, That Religion is burdened with heavy yokes, 
Ep. 119. c. 19  so that the state of the Jews is more supportable. But now it is time to consider the preparations of the Communicant; having examined those of him which Celebrates.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the Dispositions necessary for the Communion: And first, Of the Inclinations of the devout Soul, in regard of God, and of Jesus Christ.  
WHen our blessed Saviour did distribute the Bread and Wine of his Eucharist to his Apostles, he said unto them, Do this in remembrance of me; which his Apostle doth extend to the Commemoration of his Death, and of his Sufferings: a Remembrance which draweth after it all the good and holy dispositions which the Communicant should have towards God and Jesus Christ. And these Inclinations proceed from several Ideas which this saving remembrance doth stir up in our Souls, at the time in which we do prepare ourselves for the participation of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation: For although the Sacrament was instituted principally for remembering the death of our Saviour; nevertheless, because his Death is inseparable from his Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension, so it is that we approach unto the holy Communion, after having meditated on all these great and sublime Mysteries; every one of which produceth in our Souls dispositions somewhat different; as having divers objects, and several encouragements; the which, nevertheless, are all heavenly, and all divine, and all which do tend unto one mark, and unto one end; which is, the Glory of God, and of Jesus Christ, and the eternal Salvation of our Souls. And to say the truth, this Sacrament cannot represent unto our eyes all these great and wonderful objects, but that it opens unto us at the same time, a wide Field for our Meditation to enlarge upon, from the Incarnation of the eternal Word, even unto his second coming to Judgement: and we cannot finish this glorious course, without having all the dispositions which God requires, and all the preparations which he desires of us. This will plainly appear, if we do severally reflect upon all the Ideas which the remembrance of our Saviour, and of his Sufferings, do present unto our Souls, and what the Fathers have said upon each of them; and if we also feel the divine motions which will necessarily flow from the Christian Soul. For example; The holy Fathers have considered the Eucharist, as a Memorial, a Symbol, an Image, and a Sacrament of the Incarnation; or, as the Doctors of the Greek Church speak, of the Oeconomy of Jesus Christ; that is to say, of that free and merciful dispensation which inclined him to take our Nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, by the miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost; which is what St. Justin Martyr would say, when he observed, 
Contr. Try. phon. p. 296.  That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance, in that he was made Man for those which should believe in him. It was also the thoughts of Eusebius, 
Demonstr. l. 8. a Genesi.  That Jesus Christ gave unto his Apostles the Symbols of his divine Oeconomy, commanding them to make the Image of his true Body. And it cannot be any way doubted but it was on this same consideration that Pope Gelasius said, 
De duabus in Christo nature.  That we do celebrate in the Action of the Mysteries, the Image and resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and that we must believe of our Lord Jesus Christ that itself which we profess in his Image, which we there celebrate, and there receive; that is to say, that we should be persuaded of the truth of his Flesh and Blood, the Symbols and Sacraments whereof we do receive at the holy Table. It is just what St. Leo intended to express by these words, which were addressed unto the Eutychians; You should communicate at the holy Table in such a manner, 
Serm. 6. de jejun. 7. mensis. pag. 86.  that you may not in the least doubt of the truth of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It is whereunto also attendeth all the passages of the Fathers, which prove either against the Eutychians, or against the Docetes and the Putatifs, the truth of the Flesh of Jesus Christ by the Eucharist, as the existence of a thing is proved by the Image, and by the Figure which represents it; 
Dialog. 2. p. 84.  because according to Theoderet's saying; There must be an Arch-type of the Image, because the Painers, which imitate Nature, do represent the Images of things which are seen. From whence he draws this Conclusion; If the divine Mysteries are the Figure of a true Body, than the Body of our Lord is now also a true Body; not changed into the nature of the Divinity, but filled with the divine Glory. A Reasoning for the most part like unto that of Tertullian against Marcian; for having expounded these words, This is my Body, by these others; That is to say, 
Lib. 4. advers. Martion. c. 40.  the Figure of my Body: he adds, That it would not have been a Figure, if there had not been the truth of a Body, or a true Body. And indeed, this Idea of the Incarnation of our Lord was in such a manner imprinted in the minds of Communicants, that the last Prayer of St. Basil's Liturgy gins thus. O Jesus Christ, our God; 
Bibl. Patr. t. 2. Graeco-Lat.  we have accomplished and finished, according to our power, the Sacrament of thine Oeconomy and Dispensation. This Meditation, which representeth unto us the horror of sin, the sad condition we were in, the fearful Gulf wherein we have precipitated ourselves, the Love of the Father, the tender Charity of the Son, the admirable work of our Redemption, the great Mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the Flesh, fills us full of Gratitude unto God. And if unto the Idea of his Conception and Birth, we join that of his Life, therein to contemplate the purity of his Innocence, the glory of his Miracles, the splendour of his Virtues, the efficacy of his Doctrine, and the shame of his Sufferings, we shall therein find so great joy, so great comfort, and so great pleasure in the contemplation of this divine Scene, that we shall be insensibly transformed into the same Image, from Glory unto Glory, to speak with St. Paul; that is to say, from Holiness to Holiness.  
But if the holy Fathers considered the Eucharist as an Image of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, they have also more especially considered it as the Memorial of his Death and Sufferings. That was it which was designed by St. Justin Martyr, when he said, That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for those, 
Contr. Tryph. p. 259.  whose Souls are cleansed from all sin. And Tatian, who had been at the School of this excellent Master, 
Diatess. t. 7. Bibl. Pat.  observes, That the Lord commanded his Apostles to eat the Bread and drink the Eucharist, because it was the Memorial of his approaching Suffering and Death. It was also in the same Contemplation that St. Austin spoke, 
1 L. 83. quaest. q. 61.  Of celebrating the Image of his Sacrifice, in remembrance of his Passion, 
2 Id. contr Faust. l. 20. c. 21.  of celebrating the Sacrifice of our Saviour by a Sacrament of remembrance; and 
3 Id. l. 3. de Trinit. c. 4. De fide ad Petr. c. 19  to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us. It is the constant Doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the Church; of Eusebius, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret; of Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and others; particularly of St. Fulgentius; who speaking of the Eucharist, said, That it is the Commemoration of the Flesh which Jesus Christ offered, and of the Blood which he shed for us.  
This Remembrance brings into our minds divers Ideas, which do all contribute unto the sanctifying of the Communicant. In the first place, an Idea of the strict Justice of God; who not being able to pardon us, without first receiving a satisfaction; chose rather to abandon his own Son unto the most bitter, and sharpest of all torments, and unto the most shameful death, than to see us perish eternally. Therefore the Apostle saith, That God appointed him from all Eternity, 
Rom. 3.  to be a Propitiation, by Faith in his Blood, thereby to declare his Righteousness: that is to say, according to the Interpretation of Origen; That God in the fullness of time, 
In Rom. 3.  and in these last Ages, hath showed his Justice, and hath given for a Saviour, him which he had appointed, to make a Pripitiation for our Offences; for God (saith he) is just; and being just, he could not justify Sinners; therefore he would have the Redeemer to interpose, to the end that those which could not be justified by their own Works, might be saved by believing in his Name. Secondly, The Idea of our sins, which had rendered us Slaves unto the Devil, and unto Death: 
In Ps. 95.  for Mankind (saith St. Austin) was held Captive under Satan, and were subject unto Devils. And that of the goodness of God, and of his great love towards men; 
John. 3.  For he so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in him, should not perish, but should have eternal Life. Whence it is that St. Bernard said, That he gave him unto us, 
Serm. 1. de advent. Domin.  because his compassion is great, his mercies are many in number, and his love is abundant. It was the Humiliation of Jesus Christ, and the exceeding greatness of his Love, which moved him to die for us. It was the thought of St. Austin, when he said, 
Con. duas Epist. Pelag. l. 4. c. 4.  Jesus Christ was pleased to undergo death for us, that is to say, the punishment of sin, without sin; for as he only was made the Son of Man, to the end that we should become the Children of God; so also he alone suffered the punishment for us, not having deserved it, to the end that by him we should obtain forgiveness, without having deserved it; because that as we deserved no good, so also he on his part merited no evil: he bore our punishment, not being guilty, thereby to cancil our Obligation, and to put an end unto our punishment. In fine, the Remembrance whereof we speak, represents unto us the infinite price of his Blood for our Redemption: 
Euseb. demonstrat. l. 1.  For it is this great and inestimable price (saith an ancient Bishop) which, according to the testimony of the Prophets, was to redeem the Jews and the Gentiles; this Sacrifice for the whole World, this Offering for the Souls of all Mankind, this pure Hostage for all Sins, this Lamb of God, of whom the Prophets have said so many things, and by whose divine and mystical Doctrine, we all, which were Gentiles, have found forgiveness of sins; and all those amongst the Jews which have hoped in his Name, deliverance from the Malediction of the Law. All these Considerations create in our Souls a holy and religious dread of offending a God, whose Justice is so severe, and whose tender mercies also are so great (a God, who being of right our Judge, chose rather to become our Father, and to save us by his Grace, when he might justly have punished us in his Anger) a mortal and irreconcilable hatred against all sin and wickedness; a firm resolution of warring against it, and never to lay down Arms until we have overcome it; a true and hearty reliance of flying unto the merciful Throne of our Saviour, an ardent Zeal for his Glory, an absolute renouncing of the World, and of our own selves, to the end, not to live but unto him only, seeing he hath so lovingly shed his Blood for our Salvation; and for a fullness of felicity, so ardent a love for this blessed Redeemer, that each faithful Communicant may say in that blessed moment, with the Spouse, I am my Beloved's, and my Beloved is mine.  
Moreover, the same holy Doctors of the Church have contemplated the Sacrament as a Memorial of the blessed Resurrection, 
Basil. de Bapt. cap. 3. p. 581.  saying, that we participate thereof, To put us always in remembrance of him which is risen again for us. This Remembrance assures us, that the object of our hope, of our confidence, and of our faith, 
Rom. 1.  is not Man only, but that he is God also; for he was declared to be the Son of God, by the Resurrection from the Dead. He assureth us, that his Satisfaction was accepted of his Father for our discharge, and that it had the virtue and power to appease his wrath, and to reconcile us unto him. From thence it is, that the Apostle saith not only, 
Rom. 4.  That he was delivered for our sins; but also, That he risen again for our Justification. And in fine, he assures us, that this Resurrection, which justifies us before God, should show its efficacy in the death of our Old Man, and in the crucifying the Flesh and the Lusts thereof; 
Rom. 6.  For we are buried together with him in his death by Baptism; that as Jesus Christ is raised from the dead, by the glory of the Father, so also we should walk in newness of life. And if we would know what this Resurrection is, which St. Paul requires of a Christian, St. Ghrysostom will inform us, 
Hom. 10. in c. 6. Rom.  That it is a holy Conversation which proceedeth from the change of Manners, the death of Sin, the restoring of Righteousness, and the entire ruin of the old Life, to establish one that is new, and wholly Angelical. Therefore it is that Theodoret, interpreting these same words, 
In c. 6. Rom.  gives us this excellent Lesson; The Sacrament of Baptism teacheth us to fly from sin, for Baptism is a type of the death of our Saviour; now by it you participate with Jesus Christ of death, and also of the Resurrection: you must then lead a new life, and agreeable unto him, of whose Resurrection you have been made to participate.  
Unto the Remembrance of Christ's Resurrection, these holy Doctors join also that of his Ascension and Glory; therefore it is they say, 
Gaudent. tr. 2. tom. 2. Bibl. Pat.  That the Sacrament is the Viaticum of our journey, wherewith we are nourished by the way, until we come unto him at our leaving this World; a pledge of his presence, and a portrait of his passion, until he comes again from Heaven. And in preparing ourselves for the Sacrament, we cannot make this reflection, but that we must bewail his absence; but yet comforting ourselves with this persuasion, that he is sitting on the Throne of his Father, as Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Master of all things, and the Monarch of the whole Universe. That it is from thence that he sends forth his Commands into all the World, that he dispenseth the Treasures of God, that he defends his people, that he protects his Church, and that he restraineth the pride and insolency of his Enemies: but that we must at the same instant be raised with heavenly thoughts, divine motions, and spiritual affections; to be lifted up unto him by holy ejaculations, and to contemplate him shining with Glory in Heaven, after having meditated on him; all covered with shame upon Earth, and nailed upon the Cross in Mount Calvary, for the expiating of the sins of Men, and for the work of our Redemption. Therefore the holy Fathers desire we would become like unto Eagles, 
Chrysost. Hom. 24. in 1. ad Corinth.  To fly up unto Heaven, that we should have nothing of Earth in us, that we should not bend downwards, that we should not wallow in the love of the Creatures; but that we should incessantly fly towards the things above, and that we should steadfastly behold the Sun of Righteousness, with an earnest sight, and piercing eyes.  
In fine, the ancient Liturgies do not from all these Commemorations, separate that of his second coming. Which maketh us think of that great and last day, wherein the Dead shall be raised, wherein the Books shall be opened, and wherein shall be the universal Judgement, to cast the Wicked into Hell, and to receive the Good into the felicity and glory of Heaven; then there shall be no more want of Sacraments: for, as Theodoret saith, 
In 1 ad Corinth. c. 11.  After his second coming, we shall have no farther need of the signs and Symbols of the Body, because the Body itself will appear: but until that time, the Celebration thereof is absolutely necessary, according to this Observation of the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul, attributed unto St. Jerom, 
In 1 ad Corinth. c. 11.  That we have need of this Memorial, during all the time which shall pass, until he be pleased to come again.  
So that all the Ideas which we have considered do help to form in us Acts of Faith, Repentance, Hope, Charity, Humility, Gratitude, Sanctification, Holiness, Justice, Innocence, Purity, Joy, Consolation; and generally, all those of Piety, and devout Christianity; and by consequence, all the motions and dispositions which the Soul of a worthy Communicant aught to have towards God and Jesus Christ. Now let us see those which it should have in regard of the Sacrament itself.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Motions and Dispositions of the Communicant in reference to the Sacrament.  
AS the remembrance which our Saviour commands us to make of him, and of his death, when we receive the Sacrament, comprehends all the Qualifications which we ought to have in regard of God, and of Jesus Christ, so also the Examination required by St. Paul contains all those which we ought to have in regard of the Sacrament: 
1 Cor. 11.  Let every one (saith he) prove his own self. But it is not sufficient to say, that the Apostle enjoins Communicants unto this Examination; we must also know wherein it doth consist; to this purpose, I say, that what St. Paul requires of us is an act whereby we must search our hearts, look into every corner of it, whereby we examine every part of our Soul: we must assure ourselves of the state wherein it is; whether Faith hath therein taken its place, whether Hope lifted us up in expectation of the happiness promised, and whether the Love of Jesus Christ, and of our Neighbour, therein unfolds its virtue and efficacy. In a word, it is an act whereby we discover whether we be fitting to approach unto the holy Table; for in coming thither, we protest that Jesus Christ is our Master, and our Lord; that it is he which hath redeemed us by his Blood, and that hath purchased Life for us by his Death. And as the Apostle enjoineth this Law unto all Communicants, it may be said that this Trial doth consist in the serious and sincere Examination which every one makes of his Conscience, to know in what state and disposition it is. Whence it may be gathered, that it desires no Witnesses, but that it should be done in private, and in secret, in the presence of God only; for there it is that the Sinner calls himself to an account, that he reflects upon his life past, that he condemns his wicked actions, that he groans under the thoughts of his sins, that he deeply mourns for the greatness of his offences, that he cleanseth his heart, and purifies his Soul by the tears of Repentance, and by the working of a true Contrition. But because the Latin Church defines in the Council of Trent, whose Decretes are to be considered as the Confession of Faith of the Latin Church, 
Sess. 13. c. 7.  That the custom of the Church declares, that the necessary proof is, that how contrite soever the sinner feels himself, he ought not to approach unto the holy Eucharist, without having first made his sacramental Confession; that it must of necessity be made; that without it, one receives this Sacrament unworthily, unto his death and condemnation. We are obliged to inquire what was the Conduct of the ancient Church in this occasion; for it is not my intention to examine the matter of Confession in all its parts, but only in that which concerns my subject. To do it in some order, it must be observed, that the Council of Trent restrains the necessity of this Confession before communicating, unto those which feel themselves guilty of mortal sin; 
Council Lateran. c. 21.  whereas Innocent the Third had thereunto subjected, without any distinction, all those which had attained the age of discretion, 
In. 3. Thom. q. 80. art. 4.  in his Council of Lateran, Anno 1215. Secondly, That Cardinal Cajetan doth not believe Confession absolutely necessary unto the Communion, if one have a real Contrition; saying, This necessity is not founded neither upon the Commandments of God, nor of the Church, nor upon the Law, nor natural reason. In the third place, That here is not question of public sins which fell under the Canons of public Penance, because those sins excluded those which were guilty of them from receiving of the Sacrament; unto which they were not admitted, until they had fulfilled the time of their laborious Penance; which presupposed Confession, or at least, the Conviction of those sins which indispensibly obliged sinners to undergo the Laws, and bear the yoke of this Penance. Here is the Question of the necessity of the Confession of the Latin Church, which comprehends all mortal sins universally, without dispensing with any body from confessing them in private unto a Priest, before they approach unto the Communion. Thereupon I say, that if it be true, as all the World doth agree, that the Communion was very frequent in the primitive Church; insomuch as some do think, that they communicated every day. It is very hard to conceive how twelve Apostles could suffice to receive the Confessions of the Believers of the Church of Jerusalem; 
Act. 2.41. & 4.4.  I will not say, every day, but even once a Week, after the Conversion of eight thousand persons in two Sermons by St. Peter. What I say of the Church of Jerusalem, I say also of the Church of Rome, 
Apud Euseb. hist. lib. 6. c. 43.  towards the middle of the III. Century; for Cornelius, its Bishop, witnesseth in Eusebius, that it was already so increased, and so rich, that it maintained the number of fifteen hundred persons; Widows, Orphans, and poor impotent folks; and that the rest of the people was an innumerable multitude. Yet nevertheless, to serve all this great people, he had but forty six Priests, and himself, which made up the forty seventh. Now I cannot tell whether it was possible they could hear the Confessions of thirty or forty thousand Believers, whereof this Church in all probability was composed, and to hear them once or twice a Week; for in all appearance, that was the least that they did communicate. I do not see how they could do it so much as once in a fortnight.  
But this is not yet all; Let us see if the Examination requisite, in order to receive the Communion, doth principally consist in Confession. Origen speaking of lifting up the eyes unto Heaven in Prayer, or of looking down to the Earth, as the Publican did, refers it unto the Conscience of each Believer; and declareth in these words, that it is the same as to the participation of the Sacrament; 
In Joan. t. 23. p. 252. K.  Let every one (saith he) judge himself as to these things, and let a man examine himself; and so let him not only eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, but also let him lift up his eyes unto Heaven, and let him pray, in prostrating and humbling himself in the sight of God. He refers both the one and the other of these two things unto the Judgement of Believers, without making any difference betwixt them: According unto which he declareth elsewhere, That Pastors have not power to excommunicate Believers, 
Homil. 2. in. Judic. p. 212 & in Matt. tract. 35. p. 121.  and to deprive them of the participating of divine Mysteries, but when they be guilty of public sins, which be known unto the whole Church.  
We yet descend lower; 
Hom. 28. in 1 ad Cor. c. 11.  St. Chrisostom will tell us, in expounding the words of St. Paul, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat; he doth not command one to examine the other, but to examine himself; making a Judgement which the people know not of, 
Hom. 8. de penitent. quae est 56. t. 1. p. 700.  and an Examination which may be without Witnesses. And elsewhere St. Paul saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup: He did not discover the Ulcer, he shown not the Accusation in public, he appointed not Witnesses of the Crimes; 
Homil. de beat. Philog quae est 31. t. 1. p. 401.402.  Judge yourselves secretly in your Conscience, in the presence of God only, who beholdeth all things, make a search of your sins; and furveying your whole life, refer the Judgement unto your Understanding: amend your faults, and so draw near unto the holy Table with a pure Conscience, and participate of the holy Oblation. And in another place he commands only to abstain from sin; Let him keep himself from defrauding other men, from slandering, and from all sorts of violences. He requires we should sincerely promise unto God, not to commit any sin. And in fine, after having exhorted his hearers to be reconciled unto their Brethren, 
Hom. 27. in Genes. pag. 358. t. 2.  If we do so (saith he) we may with a safe Conscience approach unto this holy and terrible Table, and boldly recite the words contained in the Prayer (the Initiated know what I mean:) therefore I leave it vuto every one's Conscience, to see how we can repeat them with safety at this fearful time, after fulfilling the Commandment. He speaks of this Clause of the Lord's Prayer, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. St. Austin, a little younger than St. Chrysostom; 
Serm 46. de Verb. Dom. c. 4  in one of his Sermons of the words of our Lord, alleged by Bede, refers unto the Conscience of each Communicant the Examination which is necessary before coming unto the Table of the Son of God. 
In 1. ad Cor. c. 11. v. 28.  And Pelagius, in St. Jerom's Works; The Conscience (saith he) must be first tried if it accuseth us of any thing: and accordingly, we should either offer or communicate.  
We may yet proceed farther, and inquire of the Doctors of the VIII. and IX. Centuries, whether they required those which were to communicate, 
Capit. 44. t. 2. Concil. Gall. p. 22.  to confess unto a Priest before they received the holy Sacrament. Theodolph, Bishop of Orleans, made his Capitularies in the year 797. if we credit Father Sirmond: in one of them he prescribes unto the people of his Diocese the manner of Communicating, and the inclinations they should bring unto so great a Sacrament; but he speaks not one word of Confession. The Council of Chalons assembled in the Year 813. made a Canon which hath for its Title, 
Concil. Cab. 2. can. 46. t. 2. Concil. Gall. p. 318.  Of the care which should be taken in receiving of the Eucharist. In reading this Title it came into my mind, that the Fathers of the Council might haply have comprised Auricular Confession in the preparations which they commanded; yet nevertheless, I do not find therein any such thing: they only warn, That a great deal of care must be taken in participating of the Body and Blood of our Lord, and take care that we do not abstain from it too long, lest that should turn unto the ruin of the Soul; and that if one partake thereof indiscreetly, we should fear what the Apostle saith; Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own Damnation. A man ought therefore to examine himself, according to the Command of the same Apostle; and so eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup; that is to say, to prepare himself for the receiving of so great a Sacrament in abstaining some days from the works of the Flesh, and in purifying of his Body and Soul. Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who died towards the end of th' IX. Century, useth the same method when he represents unto Charles the Bald the Preparations necessary for worthy receiving the Sacrament; 
Opusc. 1. c. 12. t. 2. p. 101, 102.  He desires that every one would judge himself, to the end that the trial being made in the heart, the thought should serve for an Accuser, the Conscience for a Witness, and fear for an Executioner. Then, that the blood of the Soul should fall by tears: And in fine, that the Understanding should give such a sentence, that a man should judge himself unworthy of participating of the Body and Blood of our Saviour: And several other things which he proposeth, without speaking any thing of Confession. But by degrees, Confession established itself infensibly amongst the Christians of the West; and at length, Innocent the Third authorised it by a Decree at the Council of Lateran, in the Year 1215. at which time the Albigensis and Waldensis had separated themselves from Communion of the Latins. The most part of all Christian Communions have no such Law as the Latins, that obliges them unto Confession before receiving the Communion; for example, the Abyssins', or Ethiopians, the Armenians, the Nestorians. Confession, 'tis granted, is used in the Greek Church, which is of a large extent; but it is so little practised, that their Bishops and Priests do scarce ever confess; 
De concord. l. 4. c. 2.  as Arcudius, a Greek Latinized, doth inform us. And as for the Protestants, every body knows they have found this Yoke of the Latins too heavy to bear. But if the holy Fathers have not hitherto demanded private Confession before coming unto the Table of our Lord, they do require other dispositions, without which they forbidden us approaching unto it. It is in this sense that St. Chrysostom condemning the practice of those which came unto the Sacrament as it were by Rancounter, and by custom, at certain times, which they looked upon to be more solemn; he showeth them that it is not the time that makes us any thing the more worthy to receive; but that it is the purity of the Soul, the holiness of our life, the innocence of our Conversation: 
Chrysost. Hom 3. in c. 1. ad Ephes. p. 1050, 1051.  It is not (saith he) the Epiphany, nor the Lent, that renders us worthy to approach unto the holy Sacrament: it is the sincerity and purity of heart: therewith draw near at all times; and without them, never come unto it. Consider with what care, and with what respect the Flesh of Sacrifices was eaten under the Law; What caution did they not use, what trouble were they not continually at to purify themselves to that purpose? And you, approaching unto a Sacrifice which the very Angels behold with a religious reverence, you think it is sufficient to prepare yourselves unto so solemn an action, by governing yourselves according to the course of the Season. Consider the Vessels which are employed for the Celebration of this Sacrament; how clean they be, how bright and shining they be: yet nevertheless, our Souls should be cleaner, more holy, and more resplendent than these Vessels; seeing that it is only for us that they be prepared. And in another place, speaking of seldom and often receiving the Sacrament, 
Id. Hom. 17: in Ep. ad Heb. p. 1872.  We regard not (saith he) neither those which communicate often, nor those which communicate seldom; but those which communicate with a sincere Conscience, a pure heart, and an unreprovable life. Let those that are in this condition always draw near; and those which are not, let them not so much as once draw near; because they only draw upon themselves the wrath of God, and make themselves worthy of Condemnation, of pains, and of punishments, which should not seem strange unto us: for as Meats which are wholesome of themselves. being received into a diseased Body, there causeth a disorder, and an entire corruption, and becomes the Original of some disease; so it is the same of these terrible and venerable Mysteries, when they be received into Souls which be indisposed. And because the holy Fathers considered that this august Sacrament, which giveth life unto some, gives death unto others; that is to say, unto those which receive it unworthily: and that if it be full of consolation unto holy Souls, it is also full of terror unto the wicked. They have spoken of it as of a terrible and fearful Sacrament, because, according to the saying of the same St. Chrysostom, Whilst the death of Jesus Christ is celebrating, 
Hom. 21. in Act  a dreadful Sacrament is represented: God gave himself for the World. From thence came the Exhortation addressed unto the people in the ancient Liturgies, to call them unto the Communion; Draw near with fear: 
August. l. 3. de doctr. Christ. c. 16. & in Ps. 21. Hom. 2. Id. qu. super Evang. l. 2. q. 38. p. 152. t. 4.  And in fine, should not we be seized with a holy fear, accompanied with a very great respect, to participate of the death of our Saviour, to eat his Passion in eating his Supper; as St. Austin speaks; and to lick, as he saith again, his Sufferings in the Sacraments of his Body and of his Blood. But if this warning was given unto Communicants, they were told also in inviting them unto the holy Communion, Holy things are for the Saints. Whereupon St. Chrysostom makes this reflection; When the Deacon cries, 
Hom. 17. in Ep. ad Hebr.  Holy things are for the holy, it is as if he said, Let not him draw near which is not holy: he doth not say only, him which is free of sin, but him that is holy; for it is not barely the remission of sins which renders a man holy, but it is the presence of the Holy Ghost, and the abundance of good works. And St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 
Mystag. 5.  The holy things (saith he) are proposed to be sanctified by the 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, Archbishop 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 virtue that quickens us, as St. Epiphanius doth testify. 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 intent to purge our Bodies: for when we intent to take Physic, 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 ourselves at the holy Table of the Church, we should prepare and dispose our Souls to receive this saving Remedy, the virtue and efficacy whereof shows, and maketh itself 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 purify and sanctify 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 public 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 aught 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 virtue 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 Relics 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 than 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 in the XIII. that it was not then given in the Latin Church, but amongst persons of the same Sex; I say, that Men kissed each other, and also Women the like.  
And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature, but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God, the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers, to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted; that is, the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily. Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers; but they being penned variously, according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants, we forbear inserting them in this place, to endeavour to discover, in prosecuting our design, whether the holy Fathers, which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table, have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating.   

CHAP. IU.  
Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined.  
WEll to explain a matter, and to give it the full demonstration which it requires, the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated, because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chief depend. Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers itself, the first thing we should do is, carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself, and his Sacrament; for the question is not, whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped; all Christians are agreed upon this point: But whether the Sacrament should be adored, that is to say, that which the Priest holds in his hands, and which is commonly called the Hostie, and the Sacrament; for it appears to me, that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question, 
Sess. 13. c. 5.  when it defined, That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration, the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God. It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth, that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable, and that his Flesh itself deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship, by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity. When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament, they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce, as well as the Roman Catholics; for say they, in coming unto the holy Table, one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us, send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed, make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father; nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament; but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant, humbles itself in his presence, and doth truly adore him. An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen, or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works. What we read (saith he) in the Gospel, 
Hom. 5. in divers. t. 2. p. 285.  ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance; That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof; for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures, or after two manner of ways; viz. When holy men, beloved of God, which govern the Churches, enter under your Roof, than our Lord doth enter by them; and you should believe that you receive our Saviour: When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food, the Bread of Life, I say, and the Cup, you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour; and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof. Humble yourselves therefore, and in imitation of the Centurion, say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof: for wheresoever he enters unworthily, he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him.  
He saith, That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament, after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers; and that we should humble ourselves in receiving as well his Servants, as his Sacrament: to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one, and which sendeth unto us the others, confessing that we are not worthy of this favour. St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully, that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning; for see here what is said by the first, 
Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12  We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries. He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries, and the Flesh of Jesus Christ, which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating. I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christ's being present in the Sacrament, because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part; I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors, which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate, to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament. Therefore we will join unto St. Ambrose, St. Austin, who saith, Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ, 
In Psal. 98.  until he hath first adored him.  
How, say some, is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored, seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters; for speaking of things sensible and corporeal, I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly, he saith, That they ought not to be adored; although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation; and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore, 
Ep. 119. ad Januar. cap. 6.  The Water and Oil of Baptism, the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament; without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other.  
It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration, without speaking one word of the Sacrament, by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh: I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom: 
Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth.  You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man; but you also know the virtue, and all the dispensation of it, and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished. Being well informed of all these Mysteries, let us then stir up ourselves, let us be seized with astonishment, and let us testify yet greater respect than was showed by the Wise men. It is evident, that this respect and veneration hath reference unto the Body of Jesus Christ, as the Adoration of the Wise men had; which adored him when they saw him in the Manger at Bethlehem, as Communicants adore him, when they see him not in himself, but in his Sacrament, whereof he grants them the favour to participate. All the World doth confess that Jesus Christ is not any more visible unto the Eyes of Men since his Ascension into Heaven. I think that it is so also are to be understood the Adorations spoken of in a Liturgy which is attributed unto St. Chrysostom, but cannot be his, the Author being much younger than him. There be some also which attribute it unto John the Second, called the Mute, Patriarch of the same Church, but about 200 years after St. Chrysostom; and yet neither is it very certain that it is of this John. To conclude, the Copies are very different; for in that amongst the works of St. Chrysostom, there is no mention made of Adoring but once, when the Gospel is carried, and when 'tis lifted up; because then the Choir saith, 
Tom. 4. p. 9●3.  Come let us Worship and kneel down before. Jesus Christ; excepting that the Priest and Deacon bow the Head, in several places in the Liturgy, before and after the Consecration; and that the People are once warned to bow the Head to give thanks unto God. 
In liturg. c. 7.  Cassander represents another unto us in his Liturgies, of the version of Leo Tuscus, wherein there is no mention of Adoration; but is not so of two others which we have, one in the Library of the Holy Fathers, and the other in the Ritual of the Greeks by James Gore of the Order of Preaching Friars; for in both these there is frequent mention made of Adoring. It is true, these sorts of Adorations are there practised before the Consecration and after; which plainly showeth they were addressed unto God, and unto Jesus Christ; because the Bread and Wine, by the Doctrine itself of the Church of Rome, are not to be adored until after Consecration. The thing will appear yet plainer, if we consider the prayers which be there made when they dispose themselves unto the Communion. 
Tom. 4. obser. Clarys●st p. 618.8. 〈◊〉. Pat. t. 2. Gree-Lati●. p. ●1.  Lord Jesus (saith the Priest) behold us from thy holy habitation, and from the Throne of thy Glory, and come sanctify us, thou who art in the Heavens sitting with thy Father, and art here present with us in an invisible manner, be pleased to give us by thy powerful hand, thy pure and unspotted Body, and thy precious Blood; and by us unto all the People.  
This prayer, as every body sees, hath for its Object Jesus Christ Reigning in Heaven, and present unto his faithful Communicants, by his Eternal Divinity, and by the participation of his Grace. Besides that, Erasmus (whose Translation comes nearer the Greek, then that which is in the Library of the Holy Fathers, and which we have followed, because it is better liked by some Roman Catholic Doctors) hath Translated these words, 
Ibid.  Be pleased by thy powerful hand to give us thy pure and immaculate Body, and thy precious Blood. In like manner, when the Priest, the Deacon, and the People do Worship, it is in saying three times, Lord; or as it is in the Ritual of the Greeks, O God have mercy upon me who am a sinner: which words do show that this Adoration doth address itself unto God only, who is therein expressly mentioned. I say the same of the prayer which the Priest makes in taking the holy Bread; when bowing his Head before the holy Table, he saith, I confess that thou art the Christ, 
Ibid. p 32.  the Son of the living God, which didst come into the World to save sinners, whereof I am chief, etc. After which, he beseecheth him that he will vouchsafe to enter into his Soul filled with Passions; and into his Body polluted with sin. It cannot then be questioned but this prayer hath reference unto Jesus Christ, and not unto the Sacrament, which cannot enter into our Souls; whereas our Saviour doth therein enter; and into our Bodies also by the virtue of his Grace, and by the efficacy of his holy Spirit, for the sanctifying of them both; of which Sanctification dependeth their Salvation and their Life. As for the Deacons adoring when he cometh unto the Communion of the Cup, in saying, 
Ibid p. 8●3.  I come unto the King Immortal; it can admit of no other Interpretation: for I do not here examine what was the belief of the Ancient Church upon the point of the Sacrament, I only inquire what the Ancients have said of the Adoration of Jesus Christ in the Act of communicating, not to confound the Adoration of the Master, with the Adoration of the Sacrament. Therefore unto all the passages which have been alleged, I will yet add two others, unto which, if I mistake not, the same Explication ought to be given. The first is taken from a fragment of the life of Luke the Anchorite, who lived in the X. Century; wherein is read these words, You should sing Psalms which are suitable unto this Mystery; 
In auctar. Francis. Combef. t. 2. p. 986.  and according to the Greek, Typical Psalms, and which do represent it, Or, the Hymn called Trysagion, with the Symbol of the Creed; than you shall three times bow the Knees, and joining the hands, you shall with the mouth participate of the precious body of Jesus Christ our God. It is easy to see that these three Genuflections, have relation unto him to whom the Trysagion was sung, that is to say, unto God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of whom they begged Grace to communicate worthily. I place in the same rank the History of St. Theoctista, who having lived 35 years in a wilderness in the Isle of Paros, desired a Huntsman whom she met by accident, that he would the year following bring her the Sacrament; 
Apud Metaphrast. in vit. S. Theoctist. c. 13.  which the Huntsman having done, the Saint cast herself upon the ground, received the Divine Gift; and wetting the ground with her tears, she said, Lord now let thy Servant departed in peace, because mine eyes have seen the Saviour which thou hast given us; or, as Cardinal du Perron hath translated, Because mine eyes have seen thy healthiness. After what way soever these words are taken, nothing else can lawfully be gathered, but that this Maid being transported with a holy joy, in that God was pleased to give her the benefit of participating of this Divine Mystery, of the enjoyment whereof she had been so long deprived; she profoundly humbles herself in his presence, in rendering thanks for procuring her so great a benefit, and so sweet and solid a Consolation; not to speak of Cardinal Baronius his often undervaluing Metaphrastus, who relates the life of this Saint. But besides this first consideration, we must make a second, which is no less important to the clearing of the matter whereof we treat. It concerns the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth not barely signify to Adore, but also Venerate, and respect; the Roman Catholics, and the Protestants do confess it so; yet that doth not hinder but that we will produce some Instances of the latter signification, because the former findeth no Obstruction; 
1 Lib. 1. ep. 136. & lib. 4. ep. 27.  Isidor of Damicta speaks in this sense of the adorable Gospels, a term which he useth again in speaking of the Sepulchre of Jesus Christ, which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the 
2 Tom. 4. Concil. pag. 107. E.  Clergy of Apame in the lower Syria, speaking of Temples in general, in the 5th action of the Synod held at Constantinople under Agapetus, and under Menna, applieth also unto them the term now in question, as also the Emperor 
3 Novel. 6.  Justinian doth unto Baptism; 
4 Homil. 4. de ascens. Chr. tom. 6.  St. Chrysostom unto the Feast of Easter, 
5 Homil. 49. in Matt. p. 439.  and unto the person of John Baptist. It is also in the same signification this word must be taken when it is applied unto Emperors and Empresses, which are sometimes called Adorable, that is, worthy of respect and veneration; as even in the Acts of the 
6 Part. 1. pag. 26.27. tom. 3. Concil. & p. 28.29.  Council of Chalcedon: And even there also is mention made of the 
7 Ibid. p. 26.27.  adorable Altar, and of the adoration of Venerable places; and so in an infinite number of places which need not be recited. This word then having divers significations, it is but just and right, when it is found in discourse, to explain it according to the Nature of the subject then in hand; for example, if there be mention of the three persons of the blessed Trinity, it must necessarily be translated by that of adoring, because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be objects worthy of our Adoration: but if things truly Sacred and Religious are spoken of, but yet nevertheless are not (to speak in a proper sense) adorable, it is to be translated by venerated, and respected; for by this means it will be easy to resolve and clear all the difficulties which seem to entangle this matter; according unto which, if any of the Ancients treating of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, make use of the term which we examine, it will not be difficult unto us to understand, that his design is not that we should adore them, but only that we should venerate them, and that we should respect them as Sacraments, which Jesus Christ hath instituted for the saving of our Souls; especially if this Writer doth formally declare, that the Bread and Wine do not change their Substance by Consecration. In acting by this principle, we need only hear Theodoret, to understand what he means to say unto us, 
Dialog. ●. p. ●5.  The Mystical Symbols (saith he) do not change their own nature after Consecration; but they remain in their former substance, in their first Figure, and in their first shape; they are visible and palpable, such as they were before; but it is conceived by the understanding, that they are what they have been made, and they are believed, and venerated, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as being what they are believed to be. Theodoret doth positively testify, That the Consecration doth not take from the Symbols of the Eucharist, their Substance, their Form, nor their Figure: Besides, he assureth in the same place, that they be Images, and mystical Symbols, whereof the Body of Jesus Christ is the truth and the Original. And elsewhere he saith, 
Dialog. 1.  That our Saviour hath honoured the visible Symbols, with calling them by the name of his Body and Blood; not by changing their Nature, but in adding Grace unto Nature. After declarations so formal and positive, say some, the Greek word cannot be translated by, Adore, but by Venerate; else it must be said that Theodoret is fallen into the highest excess of folly, to adore what he confessed was but Bread in its proper nature and substance; but because we are obliged to judge more favourably of him, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be translated, are venerated, are respected, and not are adored; They also think the Reader will be very much confirmed in this Opinion, if these other words of this Author be considered, writing in another Dialogue against the Eutychean Heretics, and speaking thus unto them, 
Dialog. 3. p. 127.  If the Body of Jesus Christ seem a vile thing unto you, and inconsiderable, how is it that you do nevertheless esteem his Figure to be venerable and saving; for how can an Original, whose Type is venerable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and worthy of Honour, be itself vile and despicable. They observe, that these words do also manifestly show, that there is not here meant a true and proper adoration, but a veneration, honour and respect; such as is due unto holy and sacred things: And that he speaks also of venerating the Symbols, in the nature of Figures, which he distinguisheth from the Archtype, and from the Original; an opposition which justifies that the words of Theodoret cannot at all be understood neither here, nor in the former testimony of a relative Adoration, such as some do ground in relation to Images; as if this ancient Doctor did teach a real Adoration of the Symbols of the Sacrament, but so as it terminated in Jesus Christ, instead of terminating in the Symbols themselves. And in fine, there be learned men amongst the Latins which do so explain themselves. But some others do think that this Explication doth require to be made more plain; for say they, if it be only meant, that in communicating we should adore Jesus Christ, prostrate, and as it may be said, become vile in his sight, as we do with reverence take his Sacrament, there is no Christian but will agree thereunto; although it is not, as they think, the meaning of Theodoret; but if they intent this relative Adoration should so terminate in Jesus Christ, as that the Symbols should also have their part, it is to establish the quite contrary of what is said by Theodoret, who leaves only a Respect and Veneration to be given unto the Sacrament. And what they say of Theodoret, they say in like manner of all others which have spoken of the Adorable Mysteries, of the Adorable Communion, and also, of adoring the heavenly Gifts; for they think, 
Contr. Hermog. c. 22.  that because one expression is used, that therefore the same Interpretation must be given, as when Tertullian said, I adore the fullness of the Scriptures; that is to say, I reverence and admire it, I have a veneration and respect for it. And St. Basil of Seleucia, 
1 Orat. 30. in illad faciam vos piscat. hom  That. Rome, vailing her Diadem, adored the preaching of the Cross; 
2 Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 81.  to intimate that she received it with respect, and with veneration. Whence also it is, that St. Jerom, in his Preface unto the Easter Epistles of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, speaks only of receiving the holy things with veneration; a veneration which he makes to be common, and of the same nature with that which is given unto Chalices, Vails, and other things which are used at the Celebration of the Eucharist, or as he speaks, At the Passion of our Saviour; intimating that these things should be venerated with the same Majesty as the Body and Blood; that is to say, the Sacrament: for he did not mean to include in the same kind of veneration, the true Body of Jesus Christ, and the holy Vessels; but the Sacrament of this divine Body; unto which Sacrament he yields no Adoration, but a common Veneration, the same as unto the Lining, and unto the Chalices of the holy Table. Thus do these last argue and discourse.  
After these two considerations, we may with more ease examine the matter whereof we are to write the History; I mean, the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament. And because, according to the Advertisement of St. Cyprian, That heed must be taken unto what Jesus Christ did do; and that what he did in celebrating his first Sacrament should serve as a Model and rule unto what Christians should do after him in the Celebration of theirs; it is absolutely necessary to look back unto him, to begin our Examination and Enquiry. I say then, in the institution of this Sacrament which is exactly described unto us, I find that our Saviour, having broke the Bread which he had taken and consecrated, gave it unto his Disciples; saying unto them, Take, eat; and that he also in like manner commanded them to take the Cup, and drink of it: but I do not find that he commanded them to adore neither the one, nor the other. But if we do not find that he commanded them to adore what he gave unto them, neither do we read that the Apostles did adore the Eucharist. The Evangelists, which have so exactly transmitted unto us the History of this Institution, in so exactly marking all the Circumstances of it, speak not a word of the holy Apostles adoring of it: On the contrary, they represent them unto us in a posture which doth not well agree with an act of Adoration; for they were almost lying along upon their sides, on little Beds round the Table, according to the manner of that time. Moreover, if Jesus Christ had commanded his Disciples to adore what he gave them in the distribution of his Sacrament, and if the Disciples had indeed adored it, it is very likely, say some, that the Rulers of the Jews would have known it by Judas; and knowing it, they would not have failed to have urged it as a capital Crime against Jesus Christ: for as they searched only some specious pretext to condemn him, they would never have failed embracing this, which was very plausible, and would have accused our Saviour of having adored Bread and Wine; and the rather because amongst them, worshipping of Creatures was held for an unpardonable crime; at least, after their return from the Babylonian Captivity.  
But besides what hath been said, the disorder of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time, affords us, say they, a convincing Argument of the same thing. This divine Apostle condemns the Corinthians irreverence in the celebration of this august Sacrament: he endeavours to make them ashamed of it, and to show them, that their Conduct in this occasion was quite contrary both unto the working of Charity, and the rules of holy Discipline, such as the Discipline amongst Christians should be; yet nevertheless, to return them unto their duty, and to persuade and inspire them with the respect due unto so great a Sacrament, he doth not say a word unto them of its Adoration, the consideration whereof had been of very great moment, and capable of producing in the Spirits of these disorderly Christians, other thoughts than those which they shown at the time which they were to participate of this divine Mystery.  
St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, which contains the History of the Infant Church, doth observe several times, that Believers assembled to break Bread; that is to say, to celebrate the Eucharist; but he never said that the Sacrament was to be adored.  
But it may be that the Christians which immediately followed the Age of the Apostles, had upon this Subject other discoveries than those which the Scriptures inform us of; and that they can inform us of things we know nothing of. St. Justin Martyr, which flourished about fifty years after the death of St. John, doth in his second Apology exactly and amply describe the whole action of the Sacrament, and all that was therein practised in his time, on the behalf of him which celebrated, and also on their parts which did communicate; the Oblation of Bread, Wine and Water, which was presented unto the Pastor when Sermon and Prayers were ended; the Consecration which was performed by him, by Prayers and Thanksgivings unto God; the Amen, which was answered by Believers; the distribution and communicating of the things which had been blessed and consecrated; and in fine, the Charities and Alms-deeds made by particular persons, and which was as the Crown and Seal of all this holy Action. But in all this description we do see no mark of the Worship of Latry, nor of any religious Worship, either commanded by the Pastors, or practised by the People towards the Sacrament, although that this glorious Martyr had twice treated of the Sacrament in this Apology; as hath been declared in our first part. And this Representation which St. Justin gives unto us of the Eucharist in his time, I mean, of the Celebration of this Sacrament, answers not ill unto what himself observed in his Dialogue against Tryphon; That Christians in all places made the Eucharist of Bread and Wine, and yet never speaks of adoring it; and unto the silence of other Authors of his, and the following Age; because in all their Writings they are silent upon this matter, although it be of the greatest moment in Religion. I speak of St. Ireneus, of Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and of Origen; who, very far from enjoining this Adoration, give not the least appearance to imagine that it was practised, neither in the passages where they speak of the Eucharist, nor in others where they seem to be indispensably obliged to say something of it. As for example, Tertullian in his Apologetic, where he promiseth to discover, 
Cap. 39  and to demonstrate what doth concern Christian Religion; and where he makes so excellent and rich a description of the Agapes, and of the Assemblies of those primitive Christians; he saith only, 
Ep. 10, 11, 12, 13.  That they do there eat as persons which remember that they are obliged to serve God all night. And St. Cyprian, treating of those which had fallen in the time of Persecution, and being assisted by the Recommendations of Martyrs, would needs communicate before they had accomplished the time of their Penance, doth all he can to exaggerate the crime of these overhasty persons, and to justify his severity and his rigour; yet nevertheless, he doth not touch, far or near, the point of Adoration; which however, would have vindicated the justice of his Conduct, and the temerity of those insolent persons. But besides, we are so far from finding any thing in the Writings of these ancient Doctor's , that doth in the least favour the Adoration which we examine, that on the contrary, they therein deliver certain things which have been already cited elsewhere, as do absolutely alienate from the Spirit of Communicants all thoughts of Adoration. as when St. Ireneus represents the Oblation of the New Testament by an Oblation of Bread and Wine, of the first Gifts of God which gives us Food of the first of his Creatures. Clement of Alexandria; That what Jesus Christ gave his Disciples to drink was Wine; that the Eucharist is divided into several parts, that each Communicant takes a part, and that one eats sufficiently of the Bread of the Lord. Tertullian; That the Eucharist is a figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. St. Cyprian; That what our Saviour did call his Blood, was Wine. And Origen; that the Eucharist is Bread in substance; that according unto what it hath of matter, it descends into the Belly, and from thence into the place of Excrements.  
The Adoration now in question doth not appear in the Liturgies which go under the names of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Mark, nor in that which is in the Book of the Apostolical Constitutions, nor in the Writings of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite, which hath treated expressly of the Celebration of the Sacrament. It must be confessed that it is a wonderful thing if this religious Adoration had been in use, that neither one nor another should say any thing of it, the action being of moment sufficient not to be forgotten in such ample and exact descriptions, as those be which are contained in these Liturgies; for as for that Apostrophe which is read in the Liturgy of the forged Dennis the Arcopagite, 
Hierarc. Eccl. c. 3. p. 245.  O most divine and holy Sacrament, unfolding the Vails of Mysteries wherewith thou art symbolically environed, discover thyself clearly unto us, and fill the eyes of our Understanding with thy marvellous and always resplendent Light: This Apostrophe, I say, if we believe the Protestants, makes nothing for the Adoration of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament, no more than doth this other of St. Ambrose unto Baptism, the first Sacrament of the new Covenant; 
Tom. 3. in Luc. lib. 10. c. 22.  O Water which hast washed the Earth sprinkled with humane Blood, that the figure of Sacraments should precede! O Water, which haste had this honour to be the Sacrament of Jesus Christ! Establish the Adoration of this Symbol of our spiritual Regeneration. Nor this which is made unto the Chrism in the Roman Pontifical, the Adoration of this Ointment or Liquor; 
Part. 3. de offic. fer. 5. in coen. Domin.  I salute thee, O holy Chrism. These are Apostrophes and discourses addressed unto inanimate things, as if they had life; and unto signs, as if they were the things themselves which they signify, and which they represent, and instead whereof they are in a manner set, as they communicate unto us all their virtue, and all their efficacy. It is just so Pachymeres understood the Apostrophe of the pretended Arcopagite, in his Paraphrase of his Writings; even alleging, to make good his Interpretation, the like Apostrophe of Gregory Nazianzen unto the Christians Easter; 
In locum Dionysii p. 268.  He speaks (saith he) unto it as if it were alive, and that very properly. As also the great Divine, Gregory; But thou, O great and holy Easter. And he gives this reason for it; that as well Easter, as the Sacrament, do represent, and are Jesus Christ sacramentally; For (adds he) our Easter, and this holy Mystery is our Lord Jesus Christ himself, unto whom the Saint directs his discourse, to the end that he should open the Vails, and that we might be filled with his excellent Light. In fine, Pachymeres had reason to back is Interpretation with the example of Gregory Nazianzen, who speaks unto Easter as if it were endowed with sense and reason; O Easter (saith he) great and holy Easter, 
Orat. 42. p. 696  the Purifier of all the World; I speak unto thee as if thou wert alive; according to the Translation of Billius, very agreeable unto the Original: and that is the reason that his Commentator Nicetas, makes this Observation; These words, O great Easter, have reference unto the Feast itself, as if it were alive: Which is so much the easier done, because in these sorts of occasions, he that speaks, lifteth up his thoughts unto the Object signified, after the same manner as he directs his speech unto the sign which represents it, and unto which he attributes things which do not agree properly but unto him which is represented: as in this place where Gregory Nazianzen applies unto the Feast, that which is due but unto Jesus Christ only; I mean, the washing away the sins of the World: but he attributes it unto the Feast, as unto the day whereon the thing was done; even as when the Latins say unto the Crucifix, That it hath reconciled them unto God; although they confess, That it is unto the Crucified alone that they are obliged for these benefits.  
St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. 
Catech. Myst. 5 Serm. 83. de divers.  Austin have been careful very exactly to explain unto their Neophites, or new Baptised, the principal things which were practised in this divine Service. And they observe, that after Consecration of the Symbols, the Lord's Prayer was said, and the Priest cried, Sancta sanctis, Holy things be for the Holy: the Believers gave unto each other the Kiss of Peace; and they were invited unto the Communion by these words which were sung, Taste and see how good the Lord is. As soon as the Consecration is ended (saith St. Austin) we say the Lord's Prayer, which you have learned and said: after this Prayer, is said, Peace be with you; and Christians give each other the holy Kiss. They were also told of Sursum Corda, Lift up your hearts; of Gracias agamus Domino Deo nostro, Let us give thanks unto the Lord our God: and of the washing of hands: but amongst all these Instructions, I do not find any one touching the Adoration of the Sacrament. It is true, St. Cyril will have his Communicant approach unto the holy Table, not with hands stretched out, nor his fingers open; but in supporting the right hand with the left, that he should receive the Body of Jesus Christ in the hollow of his hand; or, as he speaks some lines before, The Antitype of the Body of Jesus Christ; that he take care that not a crumb of it fall to the ground: and having in this manner communicated of the Body of Jesus Christ, he should approach unto the Cup, having the Body bowed in way of Adoration, or Veneration. But besides, say some, St. Cyril doth not desire of his Communicant this inclination of body for Reception of the other Symbol which he represents unto us, and doth call it the Body of Jesus Christ, such as some crumbs whereof may fall to the ground: it is that the Cup, unto which he desires he should draw near with this inclination of Body, contains a Liquor, the moisture of which, and the humidity remains, as he saith, upon the lips: which cannot be said of the proper Blood of the Son of God. The posture then which he prescribes for receiving of the Cup must necessarily be understood, not of an act of Adoration, which he doth not teach, in any part of his Catechisms, unto his Neophites; but according to our second Consideration, of the Veneration and respect which we ought to have for so great a Sacrament; the Greek word used by St. Cyril being to be understood by that of veneration and respect, because he speaks of an Object which is not adorable with the Adoration of Latery; that is to say, of the Sacrament: and that besides, he would not have said barely, Approach with a little bowing the body; but he would precisely have commanded to have adored it before receiving of it; this action being of too great moment to speak so indifferently of, and not to have commanded it after a more exact manner. I will add unto all these reasons, that St. Cyril requires nothing of his Communicants but what what St. Chrysostom doth require of his also, and yet in stronger terms of his Catechumeny, when the time of their Catechising was expired, that they presented themselves to be baptised; 
In illud simile est regnum coelor. patrifamil. t. 6. p. 550.  When you shall (saith he) come into the Closet of the holy Spirit, when you shall run into the Marriage-Chamber of Grace, when you shall be near unto that terrible and also desirable Pool, prostrate yourselves as Captives before your King, cast yourselves all together on your knees; and lifting up your hands unto Heaven, where the King of us all is sitting on his Royal Throne; and lifting up your eyes unto that Eye which never slumbers, use these words unto that Lover of Mankind, etc. Is not this approaching unto Baptism in a way of Worship and Adoration, as St. Cyril desired one should approach unto the holy Communion? And yet Christians never inferred from the words of St. Chrysostom, that the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration was to be adored. But what I say of the water of Baptism, the same Chrysostom requires we should also do of the hearing of the Word of God; The King himself (saith he) will not have his Diadem upon his head, 
In illud ne eleemos. vestr. sac. t. 6. p. 528.  but lays it aside, in reverence unto God speaking in the holy Gospel. What, (saith he) I know his Dignity, which hath given me mine: I adore his Kingdom, which hath been pleased to make me reign. And to say the truth, we own the same respect and veneration unto the Word of God, and to his Sacraments, which we do owe unto him which is the Author of them, by giving him the Sovereign Adoration which we are obliged to render him at all times, especially when we hear his Word read and preached, and when we participate of his divine Sacraments.  
If we descend yet lower than St. Austin, we may inform ourselves of what hath been practised in the Church since his death, upon the Subject of the Adoration of the Sacrament; for we have in the Works of St. Ambrose, two Treatises touching the same matter, made in the behalf of those newly initiated; of which, the latter, entitled, Of the Sacraments, is more ample than the other. We have that of Ecclesiastical Offices, composed by St. Isidore, Archbishop of Sevil; the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First; that made by Maximius, Abbot of Constantinople, expounding very mystically all the Action of the Sacrament. German, Patriarch of the same place, also employed himself upon the same Subject; and hath at large all that long History of Ceremonies practised in an Age which had already departed very much from the simplicity of the primitive times. The Book, called The Roman Order, doth also examine all the particulars of the public Service practised in the Church of Rome. We have in the IX. Century the Treatise of Rabanus, Archbishop of Mayans, of the Institution of Clerks; that of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus; that of Walfridus Strabo, almost under the same Title; that of Florus, under the name of Explication of the Mass. In fine, we have several other Treatises of the manner and order that ought to be observed in the Celebration of the Mass, or of the Eucharist, which Hugh Mainard, a learned Benedictine, hath caused to be printed with the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the Great; as that he took from the Manuscript of Ratold, Abbot of Corby, about the Year 986. Another from the Library of du Tillet, and which he saith, is the Roman Order of the Year 1032. and a third of the Priory of Saluse in Normandy, of the prebend's of the Order of St. Austin, about the Year 1079. But in all this we do not find one word of the Adoration of the Sacrament, no more than the Interpreters and Commentators of the History of the Institution of it; which are not a few.  
Moreover, the expressions of the ancient Doctors of the Church will not a little contribute unto the illustrating of this matter; for if they had a design to have Christians worship the Sacrament before receiving of it, or at the instant of communicating, methinks they should have spoke in a manner and way which should have possessed them with thoughts and dispositions suitable, and which should have made them to conceive of it the same Opinion which one hath for an Object which is truly adorable. Nevertheless, instead of so doing, I find their Instructions tended rather to divert, than to incline them unto this Homage. In fine, I cannot comprehend that the people could dispose themselves unto the Adoration of the Eucharist, when they heard the holy Fathers unanimously call it Bread and Wine, even in the very act of Communion. Wheat, the Fruit of the Vine, the Fruit of the Harvest, and the like things. They testify it is Bread which is broke, positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine; Bread which nourisheth our Bodies, which is inanimate, which is digested, the substance whereof remains after Consecration: in a word, Bread, subject unto the same accidents with our common food. For these are so many formal Declarations which these holy Doctors have made unto us in the second Chapter of the second Part. Must it not be confessed that they very ill instructed the people which God had committed unto their charge, if the Sacrament is a Subject to be adored, because all these plain and formal expressions served only to estrange the Mind from the Idea of this Sovereign Worship of Religion, in making them conclude it was nothing but Bread and Wine in regard of their nature, but otherwise the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. And what confirmed them the more in this thought is, that the Fathers never warned them to take their words figuratively, when they say that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine; but when they call it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they use many precautions, as hath been showed in the third Chapter, saying, that almost all do call the Sacrament his Body; that our Saviour hath honoured the Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood, that they be his Body and Blood, not simply and absolutely; but after some sort being so called by reason of the resemblance, because they be the Sacraments, the Signs, the Figures, the Memorials of his Person and Death, and that they are in the stead of his Body and Blood. What need all these Limitations and Illustrations, if their design had been that the people should have adored the Eucharist; for you would say, that they seem to be afraid that they should take it for an Object worthy of this Worship and Homage, so much care is taken by them, to make them comprehend what sense they should give unto their words, when they say that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, a precaution absolutely inconsistent with the intention and thought of inspiring unto them the Doctrine of Adoration. This is the reasoning of those which admit not of the Adoration of the Sacrament.  
But if from the consideration of the words of the holy Fathers, we pass unto that of several things which were practised by the ancient Church in regard of the holy Sacrament, and which hath been examined by us in the first Part, we may draw Inferences, by the help whereof we shall the easier discover the truth of what we do examine. For example, the Christians for several Ages, made use of Glass Chalices in the Celebration of the Sacrament: They gave the Sacrament for a long time unto young Children, although very uncapable of the act of Adoration. They obliged Communicants to receive it in their hands; they permitted them to carry it home along with them unto their houses, and to keep it as long as they pleased, even to carry it along with them in their Travels, without ever finding that they gave it any particular Worship whilst they kept it locked in their Chests or Closets. They sent it unto the Absent, and unto the Sick, without any Ceremony; not only by Priests and Deacons, but even by Lay-people; by Men, Women, and young Boys. Bishops, for above three Centuries, sent it unto each other in token of Love and Communion, without any noise, or giving it any homage or honour by the way, and without the people's assembling in the ways by which it passed, to receive it, as an Object of their Service and Adoration. They also sometimes communicated, without any scruple of Conscience, after Dinner or Supper; and so mingled the Eucharist with their other food. Were not this to answer very ill unto the sovereign respect which one should have for a Divinity one adores, to mingle it in the same Stomach with ordinary food, and to communicate standing, as they did.  
But besides all these Customs observed in the Ancient Church, see here others also observed by them, and which have been considered by us in treating of the exterior form of Celebration: In some places what was left of the Eucharist after Consecration, was burnt in the Fire; in other places it was eaten by little Children, which were sent for from School. The Sacrament was employed to make Plasters; it was buried with the Dead; and sometimes, Ink was mingled with the Consecrated Wine; and then they dipped their Pens in these two mixed Liquors. Can it be imagined, say the Protestants, that Christians so zealous as they were, should Adore the Sacrament, seeing it was employed by them unto uses so far distant from this Adoration, and so contrary unto the Worship which is due unto God: All these Customs, could they consist with a Worship of this Nature, and with this Sovereign respect which is due only unto the sole object of our Devotion, and of our Religion, let the Reader judge. And the better to judge hereof, let him compare the conduct of the Ancient Church, in this particular, with that of the Latin Church since the XI. Century; for these kinds of oppositions do not a little contribute unto the Illustrating the matters now in question; practices so different upon the same subject, not proceeding but from divers principles; nor such various effects, but from as different causes. I ought not to pass in silence the custom of this same Church, in turning out of the Assembly all those that could not or would not Communicate; I speak of the Catechumeny, the Energumeny, and the Penitents; which could not be admitted unto the participation of this Divine Sacrament: and of those amongst Believers which voluntarily deprived themselves of it; for it is most certain, that all those which remained in the Assembly did communicate, both great and small, as hath been showed in the first Part of this Book: And nevertheless, if besides the use of the Communion, for which they confessed the Eucharist had been instituted, they believed that the Sacrament was an object of Adoration. What did they mean in forbidding those People which were not in a state of communicating, the acts of Piety and Christian Humility: A thing so much the more strange, that the Holy Fathers believed for certain, that prayers made unto God at the time of celebrating the Sacrament, were more efficacious, than those made unto him at other times, by reason of the Commemoration which is there made of the Death of Jesus Christ; in whose Name, and for whose Merits, we pray unto him. By what principle and motive were they deprived of the fruit and comfort which they might receive from the homage which they would have given unto God at that blessed moment? The sinner addressing himself unto the object of this Worship and Adoration, I mean unto the Sacrament, would have prayed unto it with a flood of tears, and with sincere marks of his Repentance and Contrition, to grant him pardon of his sins, and to seal the Absolution of them unto his Soul. The Energumeny would have implored the assistance of his holy Spirit for his deliverance from the slavery of the Devil. The Catechumeny would have presented unto him his prayers for the augmentation of his knowledge, and to be e'er long honoured by being Baptised into his Church; and then afterwards to be admitted unto the holy Sacrament. And in fine, the Believer in the sense of his unworthiness, would have prostrated himself in its presence, and would have ardently prayed unto it to bestow upon him better dispositions, in approaching another time unto the mystical Table, there to receive the pledges of his consolation and salvation. Is it probable, say some, if these Christians had held the Eucharist for an Object deserving the highest Adoration, that they would have used so severe and rigorous a Discipline, which no way savoured of the meekness and love of Jesus Christ, against these several sorts of People? Is it not more likely that they would have endeavoured to have comforted them, in representing, that if they were debarred for some time, from the participation of this great Sacrament, that yet they had the comfort of adoring it, and of rendering it their homage, and the acts of their Piety and Devotion, in an occasion wherein God shown himself more propitious unto men; and wherein he answers more favourably unto their prayers and desires. But they were foe far from doing so, that they turned them out without any pity, at the time they were to celebrate this Divine Sacrament; from whence the Protestants infer, That they did not look upon it as an object of Adoration.  
But as they argued against the Adoration of the Sacrament upon what was done by the Primitive Christians, so do they also argue against it by what they did not do, and yet that which is very religiously practised by the Latins; for the Latins do not fail to expose and show the holy Sacrament in public rejoicings or calamities: they adore and invoke it, when they undertake any thing which is considerable, and the execution whereof seems difficult. They cause it to be adored by their new Converts, and by their Penitents; by the former, that they should give it thanks for their spiritual regeneration; and by the others, to make atonement for their sins in its presence. They make little Images of it, and do consecrate them: they address unto it their Vows, their Prayers, and their Thanksgivings; but in the Ancient Christian Church nothing of all this was seen, neither any Miracle of the Host being Worshipped by Beasts, as is related in some Writers of the Latin Church, to have frequently happened, which confirms them the more in the belief they have, that for more than ten Ages, the Church did not Worship the Eucharist. Whereunto they also add, that the Primitive Christians neither caused Incense nor Candles in day time, to be burnt unto it, as we have showed in the Chapter wherein we endeavoured to discover the beginning of these two Customs, which is attended with a third, amongst the Latins, I mean that of Flowers, which are used either in a way of Garlands, or otherways, unto the honour of the Sacrament, particularly the day called the Holy, or the Feast of God; and nevertheless, Athenagoras doth include under the same condemnation, the use of Incense, 
Leg. pro Christian.  of Odours and Flowers in the Service of God: The Creator (saith he) and the Father of all things, hath no want of Blood, of Fat, of Flowers, nor of odoriferous Perfumes, because he needeth nothing, and is himself a very sweet Odour, and desireth nothing out of himself; and that the greatest Sacrifice which he requireth, is, That we should know him. In the Dialogue of Minutius Foelix, 
Pag. 10. ult. ed.  the Pagan Cecilius reproacheth ours, That they do not Crown their Heads with Flowers, and that they perfume not their Bodies with Odours. Which Octavius, the Advocate for the Christians, doth not deny; and he only replies, That Christians do not disallow the use of Flowers, 
Ibid. p. 30.  yet it is in such a way, as that they do not wear them upon their Heads. Pardon us, saith he pleasantly, if we Crown not our Heads with Flowers; we are wont to smell the Odour of them with the nose, and not with the hinder part of the head, nor with the hair. 
Pedag. l. 2. c. 8. p. 179.  It is whereunto amounts also what is said by Clement of Alexandria, when he condemns the use of Flowers, as fit only for Banquets, and for Debauchery; alleging, even presently after, these two or three words; Adorn not my head with a Crown. He is content we should enjoy the sweet smell of Flowers, 
Ibid. p. 180.  which are so plentiful in the Fields; But to make a Crown of them, to put them on the head, 
Ibid.  and to wear them as an Ornament about or in the house, 
Ibid. p. 181.  he cannot suffer it; saying, That doth not become a wise and sober person. He adds, That those which be crowned with Flowers do neither enjoy the beauty of them by the eyes, nor the scent of them by the nose, although that is their true and natural use. He observes that it was but of late that the Luxury of the Greeks had invented this use of Crowns of Flowers; 
Ibid. p. 182.  from whence he concludes, That the Disciples of Jesus Christ should abstain from them, because they are consecrated unto Idols; that they ought not to be used for Conscience sake, and that the lively Image of God should not be crowned as dead Idols are crowned. He saith moreover, That it is not at all reasonable, that those who have been taught that our Saviour was crowned with Thorns, should have their heads crowned with Flowers; 
Ibid. p. 183.  by derision to insult over his venerable Passion. In fine, he observes, That if in matter of Flowers, something should be granted unto pleasure and civil Recreation, Christians should satisfy themselves with the smell of Flowers; but that they are not permitted to be crowned with them. Tertullian is no less express than the rest, nor no less severe in condemning these sorts of Crowns; for answering the reproach made against Christians, of not bringing any profit unto the Trade of the World, and of the fault which was imputed unto them for not using Flowers, 
Apolog c. 42.  see here what he saith; I buy no Flowers to make a Crown to go round my head: What need you care what use it is that I make of the Flowers that I shall buy in the Market? I fancy they are better when they are lose, unbound and several, without any order, than to have them made up like a Crown: when they are in that condition, we are wont to put them unto the nose, and to smell them. Let them which wear them on their heads consider which is properest: to smell them by the hair, or by the Organ of smelling. 
Id. de Cor. c. 2.  And elsewhere he proposeth the practice of all Christians; Not one of which (saith he) wears a Crown on their heads; at least, if they are not in danger of being thereby to be known; that is to say, when there is no danger of being known to be a Christian by refusing to wear a Crown, and of being led unto punishment by Persecutors which might know them by this mark; for then the Flesh being weak and frail, many may be found, who for fear of punishment, would comply with this practice: 
Ibid.  but laying aside the fear of danger, there was not one that did not reject the use of wearing Crowns on the head: All Christians (saith he) did practise so; that is to say, did wear no Crowns of Flowers upon their heads; from the Catechumeny, unto the Confessors and Martyrs; 
Ibid. c. 5.  and even unto those also which bowed in times of Persecution. He showeth, That Flowers are for the sight or smell: that it is no less contrary to Nature to take the smell of Flowers by the head, than to receive the sound of an Instrument by the nose; and that all that is contrary to Nature, is amongst men counted monstrous; 
Ibid. c. 9  but that amongst Christians it also deserves the Title of Sacrilege against God, the Author and Governor of Nature. And a little after, What Patriarch, (saith he) what Prophet hath been ever heard to be crowned? 
Ibid.  He concludes precisely, That the Servants of God should not be crowned; and that Christians are not permitted to wear any other Crown, but a Crown of Thorns, after the example of Jesus Christ. And because (saith he) you may object unto me, 
Ibid.  that Jesus Christ was crowned, you may be answered in a few words; that you are permitted to be crowned also after the same manner. In fine, having confessed that Idols, and the Dead, 
Ibid. c. 10.  were crowned amongst the Pagans, he declareth, That it is a very unseemly thing to make of the Image of the living God, the Image of an Idol, and of a dead person. There be those which infer from this discourse of Tertullian's, as well as from the passages of Athenagoras, Minutius Foelix, and of Clement of Alexandria; in the first place, that the Clergy of their times did not wear nor use Crowns, as those of the Roman Church do at this time. Secondly, That Garlands and Crowns of Flowers made in honour of the Sacrament, was not in use; and that there were no Priests seen crowned with Flowers when they celebrated this Mystery, as is to be seen amongst the Latins on the day of the Feast of God, when the Host is carried in solemn Procession. 
Orat. 2. in Julian. quae est. 4.  I know not how Gregory Nazianzen could absolutely have forbidden Christians of strewing the Street with Flowers at the Celebration of their Holy Days, had the use of Flowers already been introduced into the Worship of their Religion, without telling them that it was sufficient to employ them in the Assemblies, unto the honour of the Eucharist; 
Serm. 2. de Pentecost.  and whether St. Chrysostom would have addressed this Exhortation unto his Auditors on a day of Pentecost; I conjure you by the consideration of all the benefits so liberally bestowed upon us this day, that we also celebrate the Feast, not in crowning our doors, but in preparing our Souls, and in rendering them beautiful with the Ornaments of virtue.  
But besides all that we have hitherto observed on the Subject of the Adoration of the Sacrament, there be others which deserve a particular Consideration; As the Elevation to excite the people unto the Adoration of the consecrated Host; the Sound of the Bell to give warning to the people of it. As also the Holy Day, and Procession of the Sacrament. As touching the Elevation, we have treated amply thereof in the ninth Chapter of the first Part; where we have showed that the Elevation, whose scope is the Adoration of the Sacrament, was never at all practised in the Latin Church before the XIII. Century: So that the Reader may look back upon what hath been said in that Chapter, without being at the trouble of repeating it over again in this place. It shall suffice to relate the Constitutions which the Popes made about that time, to incline the people unto the Adoration of the Host. The first is, that of Honorius the Third, who was Pope in the Year of our Lord, 1216. which is conceived in these terms; That Priests should often teach their people, that at the Celebration of Mass, when the Host is lifted up, they should kneel with respect; and that they should also do the like when the Priest carries it unto any sick person. Gregory the Ninth, which succeeded him, Anno 1227. invented the ringing a Bell, to warn the people to fall down on their knees to adore the consecrated Host; 
Decret. Greg. IX. l. 3. tit. 41. de Celebr. Miss. c. 10. sane. Nauclerus ad Anno 1240. Crantzius. Saxon. l. 8. c. 10. Decret. Clem. l. 5. tit. 3. de haer. c. 3. ad nostrum.  ordering, That when the Flesh and Blood of Christ is made, and at the Elevation of the Host, there should a Bell ring, to the end that all which hear it should kneel down, and join their hands in adoring the Host. From thence it was that Pope Clement the Fifth, at the beginning of the XIV. Century, did condemn those which taught, ³ That when the Body of Jesus Christ was lifted up, men need not stir, nor give unto it any homage. He speaks of the Sacrament, the Adoration whereof was not approved by those persons. From thence it is also that in the Breviary, the Priest who says Mass, is so precisely warned to kneel down and worship the Host after pronouncing these words, This is my Body; and to show it unto the people, that they also might worship it: 
In Missali Orat. ante Miss. signat. f. 1111.  and also doth reiterate the same Warning as touching the Cup. From thence (in fine) proceeds the Prayers which be addressed unto the Sacrament; I devoutly adore thee, O hidden Divinity, who art truly vailed under these Types: I wholly submit my heart unto thee, because it faileth in my meditating of thee: My Sight, Touch, and Taste are deceived in regard of thee; and it is in the hearing only that any confidence can be laid. I believe all that the Son of God hath said, and there is nothing truer than this Word of Truth. The Divinity only was hid upon the Cross, but here the Humanity is also vailed, Nevertheless, in believing and confessing both the one and the other, I beg of thee what the penitent Thief desired. I do not see thy Wounds, as did St. Thomas; however, I confess thou art my God. Enable me to believe always in thee, to put all my trust and confidence in thee, and to love thee. O Memorial of the death of our Saviour; Bread of Life, which givest Life unto Mankind, grant that my Soul may live on thee, and that it may always find delight and sweetness in thee. O divine Pelican, Jesus my Lord, I am unclean: wash me, and cleanse me with thy Blood; one drop whereof is sufficient to save the whole World from all Impiety. O Jesus, whom I now behold vailed; I beseech thee that thou wilt be pleased to grant what I so earnestly beg; that is to say, that beholding thee with open face, I may become happy by the sight of thy Glory. And this other, I salute thee, Light of the World, 
Gloss. ad decret. Greg. l. 3. tit. 41. de Miss. celebr. c. 10. sane.  Word of the Father, true Hosty, living Flesh, perfect God, true Man.  
It must not be forgot that just at the beginning of the XIII. Century, a few years before Honorius the Third had made his Constitution for the Adoration of the Sacrament; Odo, Bishop of Paris ordained, 
Statut Synod. c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat.  That the people should often be exhorted to bow the knee before the Body, as before their Maker and Lord, as often as they should see it pass before them. This Prelate caused several precautions to be added unto this Decree, in case it should happen that any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the ground, or that any Fly or Spider should chance to fall into the Blood. 'Tis true, Odo was not the first that prescribed these kinds of precautions; for from the VIII. Century, somewhat of this nature is to be seen in a Penitential, attributed unto Pope Gregory the XIII. which held the Chair, according unto Bellarmine's computation, from the Year 731. unto the Year 741. I say, this Penitential is attributed unto him; for it is not very certain that it is his: but in fine, it is in this Book, which is inserted in one of the Tomes of the Councils, 
Tom. 5. p. 471.  that Precautions like unto those established by Odo, Bishop of Paris, are to be seen. And it is, as I conceive, of this Penitential Book, 
De Consecr. distinct. 2. c. si per negligentiam.  attributed unto Gregory the Thirteenth, that the Canonist Gratian hath taken the words he citys in his Decrete, under the name of Pope Pius the first, who lived about the middle of the II. Century. In fine, besides that they agree much better with the time of Gregory, than with that of Pius, who as yet was ignorant of these kinds of Precautions. The words related by Gratian, as spoken by Pius, are at this day to be found verbatim, in the Penitential, given us under the name of Gregory the XIII. The first Christians were careful that no part of the sacred Symbols of the Eucharist should fall to the ground; but we do not find that they made any Ordinance touching what might, through neglect, fall to the ground, of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament: that was an effect of after Ages; which being in process of time become infinitely more scrupulous than former Christians, became also more liberal of their Decrees and Constitutions, especially in what concerned the Sacrament of the Eucharist: insomuch that Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Legate of Pope Celestine, made this Decree at the end of the XII. Century, never regarding the simplicity with which the Sacrament was sent unto sick people in the first Ages of Christianity; 
Apud Roger. de Hoveden in Richard. I.  That Priests, as often as there is need to communicate the Sick, should themselves carry the Host in their Priestly Habits, suitable unto so great a Sacrament: and that Lights should be carried before it, if stormy Wether, the badness of the Ways, or some other reason doth not hinder. Odo, Bishop of Paris, did moreover ordain, That all persons should kneel down unto it when it passed by; which, if my Memory fail not, is the first Decree made for adoring the Host; yet it must not be imagined that the Adoration of the Sacrament was not at all practised in the Latin Church before this Ordinance of Odo, which was made in the beginning of the XIII. Century. There be some which think that it was established by Durandus, Abbot of Troarn, in the XI. Century, a little after Berengarius had declared himself against the Dostrine of the Real Presence. But if Durandus made not mention of the Adoration of the Sacrament, as in effect there be those which refer his words unto the blessed Humanity of our Redeemer, whereof he maketh mention in the same place, and unto which they pretend that the act of Adoration should be addressed, according to the design of this Abbot; it cannot be denied but Alger formally taught it in the XII. Century: 
De Sacram. l. 2. c. 3.  for as to what we read in the ancient Customs of the Monastery of Clunie, That all those which meet the Priest, 
Lib. 3. c. 18. t. 4. Spicil. p. 217.  bearing the Body of the Lord unto a sick person should demand Forgiveness; I do not see that all do explain this action after one manner. Dom Luke d'Achery, which caused them to be printed, understands it of Adoration; having caused this little Annotation to be put in the Margin; That is to say, that they should prostrate and adore. Others say that these words, Demand Pardon, do only signify that those which meet the Sacrament should demand Forgiveness, either of the Priest, the same as in communicating; 
Ibid. l. 2. c. 30. p. 145.  for they all demanded Pardon of each other, and kissed the Priest's hand before they received the holy Sacrament; or of God, in consideration of the death of Jesus Christ, 
Ibid. l. 1. c. 13. p. 58. etc. 38. p. 92.  whereof the Sacrament is a Memorial. Whereunto they add, that the same was practised in this famous Assembly, when the Cross was uncovered on Good-Friday, and the day called The Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and that the Pardon which they asked upon these two occasions is distinguished from Adoration. Moreover they say, that in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these Customs, wherein is exactly represented what was practised in those times in this famous Monastery, in the Consecration, and in the Communion of the Eucharist, there is not one word said of the Elevation of the Host. Whence they infer, that they did not practise the Adoration of the Sacrament which in the Latin Church, for some Ages past, doth immediately follow the Elevation of it. After all, should the words in question be applied unto the Adoration of the Host, no other consequence could from thence be drawn but this, to wit, that in the XI. Century, at the end whereof, was collected together in three Books, all these ancient Customs, this Adoration began to be practised; that is to say, after the Condemnation of Berengarius, although there was no Decree for it until the XIII. Century.  
And as before the XIII. Century, there was no Decree made touching the Adoration of the Sacrament, so also before that time there was no Holy Day dedicated unto its honour; from whence the Protestants do not fail to make their advantage against the Adoration of the Eucharist; saying, That if this Adoration had been practised in the ancient Church, Christians would not have referred it unto Urban the Fourth, the care of instituting the Feast of the Sacrament; which he did in the Year 1264. But it is not sufficient to know that Urban the Fourth did institute this Holy Day in that Year, if we do not also know that he was inclined thereunto by the desires, and upon the Revelations of certain Women of the Country of Liege; particularly of a Nun called Eve, unto whom he wrote a Letter upon this Subject, and another unto all the Bishops; the which is contained in the Bull of Clement the Fifth, in the third Book of Clementines, tit. 16. as we are fully informed by John Diesteim Blaerus, Prior of St. James of Liege, which he composed, after having made, as he saith, an exact enquiry of what had passed in this Institution. And to inform the Reader of the nature of these Revelations, he adds, That the first of these Women, called Juliana, in praying, perceived a marvellous Aparition; viz. The Moon, as it were at Full, but having some kind of Spots: Whereupon she was divinely inspired that the Moon was the Church, and that the Spot which appeared therein was the want of a Holy Day, which as yet was wanting. So that she received a Command from Heaven to begin this Solemnity, and to pubish unto the World that it ought to be celebrated. He saith moreover, That this Juliana having communicated her Revelations unto one Isabel, this Isabel, knowing the troubles Juliana was in upon this Subject, she desired of God by earnest Prayers, that he would impart unto her the knowledge of these things; and that going to visit Eve, a Nun of the Church of St. Martin's of Liege, she no sooner kneeled down before the Crucifix, but being ravished in mind, she was showed from Heaven, that this particular Holy Day of the Eucharist had always been in the Council of the Sovereign Trinity, and that now the time of revealing it unto Men was come; for she affirmed, that in her Ecstasy, she saw all the Heavenly Host demand of God by their Prayers, that he would speedily manifest this Solemnity unto the wavering World, to confirm the Faith of the Church Militant.  
I am not ignorant but that there be some which would attribute the cause of this Institution unto a Miracle of Blood, which, as they say, fell from an Hosty in the hands of a Priest, as he sang Mass.  
But Besides what Diesteim, and after him, several others have related unto us; we have, touching the first cause of this Institution, the Declaration of Urban himself, which made it: For in the Letter which he wrote unto all the Bishops, inserted in the Bull of Clement the Fifth, he thus speaks; We have understood heretofore, being in a lower Office (that is to say, when he was Archdeacon of the Church of Liege) that it was revealed unto some Catholics (which were the three Women mentioned by Diesteim; Juliana, Isabel, and Eve) that such a Holy Day was to be generally celebrated in the Church. And in that which he wrote unto Eve; We are sensible, Daughter, that your Soul hath desired with great desire, that a solemn Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ might be instituted in the Church, to be celebrated by Believers unto perpetuity. This is the ground and foundation of this Feast, and the true cause of its Institution, even according to the Testimony of the Life of Juliana, the first of these three Women; a Testimony whose proper terms is related by Molanus, in his Martyrology of Saints in Flanders, on the 5th of April.  
But how great soever the Authority of Popes at that time was in the West, the Decree of Urban was not observed in all Churches, by reason of the newness of the thing; therefore Clement the Fifth caused it to be published again about fifty years after, as the Gloss upon the Decretal of Clement the Fifth, wherein that of Urban is inserted, expressly observes. But notwithstanding all this, it was not hitherto kept as Diesteim informs us, in the ninth Article of his Book; Although (saith he) the Apostolical Commands touching the Celebration of the new Holy Day of the venerable Sacrament hath been addressed unto all the Churches, yet so it is nevertheless, that none of the Churches were careful to give Obedience thereunto, excepting the Church of Liege; which, as soon as it had with honour received the Apostolical Nuncio, with the Bulls, the Decretals, and the Office which he had brought; presently, as a dutiful Daughter, gave Obedience thereunto; rejecting the Office which the Virgin Juliana caused to be made, and using that which had been composed by Thomas Aquinas. And so ever since those Bulls came, the Diocese of Liege, and no other else, hath solemnised this Holy Day, until the days of our Lord, Pope John the Twenty second, who lived in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1315. who published all the Constitutions of Clement, and sent them unto the Universities.  
And now if it be demanded of Urban, 
Clement. lib. 3 tit. 16. si Dominum.  what profit was made by this Institution, he will answer, That this Holy Day properly belongs unto the Sacrament, because there is no Saint but hath its Holy Day, although there is remembrance had of them in the Masses, and in the Litanies. That it must be celebrated once every year; particularly, to confound the Unbelief and Extravagance of Heretics, to make a solemn and more particular Commemoration of it; to the end, to frequent Churches with more and greater Devotion; there to repair by attention, by humility of Spirit, and by purity of heart, all the defaults wherein we have fallen in all the other Masses, either by the disquiet of worldly cares, or by the dulness and weakness of humane frailty, and there with respect to receive this Sacrament, and to receive increase of Graces. Almost the very same thing is to be seen in the Breviary of the Latin Church.  
The Feast of the Sacrament was attended by Procession, wherein the Host is born with Pomp and Magnificence. Diesteim saith, 
Offic. fir. 6. infra Oct. Corp. Christ. lect. 4. & 5.  that it was Pope John the Twenty second which introduced this custom: But Bossius in his Chronicles; and after him, Genebrard, in his Chronology, Book iv place it much later; and say, that it began a hundred years after the Institution of the Holy Day, to be practised at Pavia; from whence it spread itself abroad into all the Western Churches, and especially at Angers, where Berengarius had been Archdeacon. Upon which, several observe, that this Institution is directly contrary unto the practice of the ancient Church; that very far from carrying in Procession the sacred Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Saviour, did administer them, the Doors shut, even from the III. Century; and concealed them not only from Unbelievers and Idolaters, but even also from the Catechumeny, which were made to go out when this divine Sacrament was to be administered. They add, that this Procession was very ill resented by many persons that lived in the Communion of the Roman Church. In fine, Queen Catherine de Medicis wrote unto the Pope in the Year 1561. as Monsieur de Thoul relates in his History, to demand of him, 
Thuan. Hist. l. 28.  That the Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ, which had been newly invented, might be abolished, because it was the occasion of many Scandals, and that it was no way necessary; for (said she) this Mystery was instituted for a spiritual Worship and Adoration, and not for Pomp and Pageantry. And George Cassander, in his Consultation addressed unto the Emperors, 
Cassand. Consult. de circumgest. Euchar.  Ferdinand the First, and Maximilian the Second; The practice (saith he) of carrying publicly the Bread of the Sacrament in public pomp, and often to expose it unto the sight of all the World, seemeth to have been introduced and received not very long ago, contrary unto the practice and intentions of the Ancients: for they had this Mystery in so great veneration, that they suffered none so much as to see or receive it, but the Faithful, whom they esteemed to be Members of Jesus Christ, and such as were worthy to partake of so great a Mystery; therefore before Consecration, the Catechumeny, the Possessed, the Penitents, and in a word, all those which were not fit to receive, were by the voice of the Deacon commanded to withdraw, and were turned out by the care of the Doorkeepers. This practice therefore of thus carrying this Bread ought to be abolished, without any prejudice unto the Church; on the contrary, it would receive great advantage thereby (provided the thing were prudently done) seeing it is but a late thing; and that without this Procession, the honour of the Sacrament is nothing lessened, and may still at this time be discontinued, seeing for the most part, this Ceremony seems rather for Pageantry and Show, than for the people's Devotion. By reason whereof (continueth he) Albert Crantz, a man of very great Judgement, doth commend in his Metropolis, Nicholas de Cusa, Legat in Germany, to have taken away the abuse which was committed in too often carrying about the Sacrament of the Eucharist in Procession upon Holy Days; and commanded that it should not be carried out in public, but betwixt the Octave of the Feast dedicated unto the Sacrament: And Albert adds a memorable reason for it; Because (saith he) the Heavenly Master instituted this Sacrament for Use, and not for Ostentation. And as for the Feast itself, it is certain it was instituted by Urban; not to carry the Sacrament in Procession, but to make the Assembly the greater; and to the end Men should so well prepare themselves by works of Piety, that they might on that day participate of this precious Sacrament, and receive it with respect; for it is what the words of the Decree do import; and if the Institution were duly kept, I think there would be nothing absurd in it.  
The silence of the Gentiles, and the ancient Disputes of Christians against them, and of theirs against the Christians, doth very much contribute unto the Illustration of the question which we examine. We have seen in the 9th. Chapter of the second part, that the Pagans as well as Heretics, had a particular knowledge of all that was believed and practised in the Church; and that there was scarce one of our Mysteries but they opposed, and upon which they made not some opposition against Christians. But they never disputed against them upon the point of the Eucharist; even not then itself, when the holy Fathers reproached them of adoring things which might be stolen away, and which must be kept under Lock and Key; things which sometimes was given in pawn. From whence several do infer, That the Adoration of the Sacrament was not practised amongst these Christians; there being no probability that the Gentiles would have spared them upon the Adoration of the Sacrament, which is subject unto all these inconveniences wherewith they charged their false Divinities. They farther observe, 
In octav. Orat. pro contra Graec.  That when Minutius Foelix and Tatian, called it an impious and ridiculous thing to adore what one sanctified; the former said unto them, You adore the Ox with the Egyptians, and you eat him afterwards. And that Theodoret wrote, 
Minut. Foel. Ibid. Quaest. in Genes. 9.55.  That it is the greatest folly in the World, to adore that which one eats. They observe, I say, that these Pagans would not have been without a reply, had the Church at that time given unto the Sacrament the Sovereign Worship of Religion, seeing it had been very easy for them to have retorted back these shameful reproaches upon this Object of their Adoration; and to say unto them, that they had not justice to condemn them for that which they eat, seeing that Christians did the very same thing: And because they never replied this unto the Church, it is concluded, That the Church did not adore the Sacrament. And what doth the more confirm these People in this Opinion, is, That the Heathens of these times do not fail to reproach the Latins, That they do eat the God which they Worship, as hath been represented in the 9th Chapter of the second Part, above recited.  
St. Austin establisheth this Maxim, 
Serm. 12. de Divers.  That the God which the Christians Worship, cannot be showed with pointing the Finger. Do not dispute with me I beseech you (saith he) and do not importune me in ask me, What is the God that I adore? for it is not an Idol towards which I may point my Finger and tell you, That is the God which I adore: Neither is it a Planet, nor a Star, nor the Sun, nor the Moon, that I may stretch out my hand towards Heaven and show you, That is the God which I adore. He also applies this Maxim particularly unto Jesus Christ Incarnate: 
Serm. 74. de Divers. Serm. 120. de Divers.  Whilst (saith he) we are in this Body, we are absent from the Lord; and if it were called in question or denied, and that we were asked, Where is your God? we are not able to show him. Jesus Christ is always with his Father, as to the presence of his Glory, and of his Divinity; As to his bodily presence, he is now above the Heavens, at the right hand of his Father; but he is in all Christians by a presence of Faith. It is in this sense that St. Cyril of Jerusalem said, 
Catech. 14.  He is now absent in regard of his Flesh; but he is present in the midst of us in Spirit. The Protestants hence do draw this induction, that these Maxims are inconsistent with the Adoration of the Sacrament; and that they cannot reasonably be established by persons which make the Eucharist an Object of Divine Adoration, because it cannot be denied, but that the Sacrament is a visible Object, which is apprehended by our senses, and by consequence, an Object which can be showed with the Finger; and of which it may be said, See there the God which I adore.  
They also pretend that the Holy Father's Disputes against the Ebionites, and the Docetes, two Sects of Heretics: the former of which said, That Jesus Christ was but a mere Man; The others, That he had only a shadow of a Body: They pretend, I say, that the silence of the Fathers, upon the subject of the Adoration of the Sacraments in disputing against these Heretics, is an evident proof that it was not adored in the Ancient Church; because, if it had been adored, they would have urged this Adoration both against the one and the other: because one adores not the Body of a common Man, nor an imaginary Body, and which hath nothing of a true Body, but a deceitful appearance. It is also what is farther inferred by some amongst them, from the silence of the same Fathers in their Disputes against the Aquarians, which celebrated the Eucharist with Water only; saying, They could not dispense themselves from alleging this act of Adoration; to represent unto them, that the Consecration not being to be performed with Water only, they would be guilty of the crime of Idolatry, to adore common Water as if it had been the Blood of Jesus Christ, whatever intention they might have had otherwise. They say the same of the Canon made by the third Council of Braga, Anno 675. against those which Consecrated Milk instead of Wine in the Holy Cup; the Father's satisfying themselves in saying, that the Institution of our Lord admitted not to celebrate with Milk; nevertheless, say the Protestants, if the Church had practised the Adoration of the Eucharist, had not that been the fit time to have spoken of it; and to have showed, That those which did celebrate the Sacrament with Milk, caused the Church to be guilty of Idolatry; because the People adoring the Cup, could not, in effect, adore any thing but Milk. How comes it to pass, say they again, that this public Service of Religion, this Adoration of the Sacrament, was never alleged to overthrow Nestorias; who said, in speaking of the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ, That he could not adore him which had been an Infant of two Months old, and which had sucked the Breasts.  
As for the Greek Church, I cannot tell how (after all that hath been said at the end of the XII. Chapter of the Second Part) it can be thought the Greeks adore the Sacrament. It is true, that all things which we therein observed, do not well agree, as many say, with this act of Adoration, no more than the reproach made by Arcudius (a Greek Latinised) against the Greeks; whereof we made mention in the same place: when he saith, That they give but little or no honour unto the Sacrament. As for Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, who wrote in the XIV. Century, he saith only, That believers, willing to show their Devotion and their Faith, adore, bless, and celebrate as God, that is to say, in the Act of communicating Jesus Christ; who is understood in his gifts. Nevertheless, certain words of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia, are cited; who was a Prelate at Venice about 45 years ago, the which do formally lay down the Adoration we treat of. But the Protestants answer thereunto, that besides that, the Greeks do several things which (as hath been showed) agree not with this Adoration. There never hath been in the Greek Church any Decree made for the adoring of the Eucharist; neither doth there appear any, in their public Books of Religion. They say moreover, That there is no certainty that the words cited under the name of Gabriel of Philadelphia, are his; because the Greek hath never been cited: And that if it were true that they had been spoke by this Prelate, it were not to be thought strange, that a Greek, living amongst the Latins, should be prevailed upon by the ordinary practice of those which adore the Sacrament with the Worship of Latry; but that his example and testimony conclude nothing touching the body of the Greek Church. In fine, Anthony Cancus, a Patrician of Venice, Archbishop of Corfou, answering unto Pope Gregory the XIII. which had commanded him particularly to inform him of the differences betwixt the Greek and Latin Church, observes expressly in his History of the Heresies of the Modern Greeks, the Manuscript whereof is to be seen in the King's Library, that there is no Christian Communion which renders less reverence, less honour, nor less Worship unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist, than the Greeks do. He also adds, that having taxed them with the little respect they give unto the Sacrament, that they answered him, That there was no command which required this Adoration. From whence he takes occasion to compare them unto Oecolampadius; who plainly taught, that the Sacrament should not be adored with the Worship of Latry: Let the Reader judge of this dispute; for it is not my business to decide it.  
Therefore from the consideration of the Greek Church, I pass unto that of Ethiopia, or the Abyssins'; in the which, according to the testimony of Francis Alvarez a Priest of Portugal, and an Eye-witness, 
In his Voyage into Fthiopia, cap. 11.  all the People as well Men as Women, go unto the Communion with their hands lift up and open; and during the whole Office, and all the time of the Communion, every one is standing; 
Damian a Goes, p. 507.  the which is confirmed by Zaga Zabo an Abyssin, who in the Explication of their Faith, translated by Damian Goes, observes, that in saying their Mass, they do not show the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as he saw that it was usually practised amongst the Latins. The which doth show how little credit is to be given unto a Liturgy of the Abyssins' which is put into Latin, in the Library of the Holy Fathers, without mentioning from whence it was taken, or who it is that translated it; and in the which there is mention made both of the Elevation and Adoration of the Sacrament; the which is directly contrary unto the Deposition of these two infallible Witnesses; whose testimonies we just now received; and the one of which, to wit, Alvarez, expressly observes, that the Abyssins' do not lift up the Sacrament in the Celebration of their Eucharist; which is the cause, as the other saith, that the Sacrament is not showed unto the People, as it is amongst the Latins. And in the West itself, there hath always been People which have celebrated the Sacrament without adoring or lifting it up, as we have showed at large in the first Part of this Historical Treatise; because, before the Introduction of the Elevation, or Adoration of it in the Latin Church, Berengarius, with his followers, were grown very eminent; who were immediately followed by the Albigensis and Waldensis, which spread themselves in France, Italy, England, in Bohemia and elsewhere; and all those celebrated the Eucharist without lifting up or adoring the Sacrament; which practice was followed by the Taborites of Bohemia, at the beginning of the XV. Century, and the which is also practised by Protestants, which are in very great numbers in all parts of Europe.  
In fine, to conclude this Chapter, and at the same time the whole History of the Eucharist, I will here insert two passages of St. Austin, to the end the Reader might judge of his Opinion touching the subject which we examine. In the first, he puts the Sacrament in the same degree with the other Symbols, and gives it only the respect which ought to be given unto Religious things, 
Lib. 3. de Trinit. c. 10.  To establish a Sign, (saith he) one employs sometimes a thing that was existent before upon Earth; as Jacob when he awaked after his Dream, made use of the Stone which served him for a Pillow while he slept; sometimes the thing one makes use of, is made on purpose for it, and should continue for some time after; as the Brazen Serpent which Moses lifted up in the Wilderness, and as our Characters and our Letters. But sometimes also it ought to cease to be, after having served the use whereunto it was destinated; as the Bread which we make on purpose to that end, and which is consumed in receiving of the Sacrament. But because these things being done by Men, are known unto Men, they may be honoured or respected as Religious things, but to cause admiration as miraculous things, it is what they cannot do. In the other of these two passages, he speaks of Baptism, and of the Lords Supper, and without making any difference betwixt the one and the other, as to the respect which we own them: He attributes unto them only a bare and common veneration; and also he will have us give it unto them, not through any carnal servitude, but by a spiritual liberty; that is to say, as he explains himself, not in venerating these Sacraments for their own sake, nor in taking the Sign for the thing signified; but in directing our Devotion unto the things whereunto they do relate. Him (saith he) that doth Worship or Venerate a Sign, 
Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christian. cap. 8. & 9  without knowing what it signifies, he is made subject to the Law; but he that celebrates a Sign which is useful, and Divinely instituted, in knowing what it doth signify, he doth not venerate that which is visible and temporal: but all his Devotion is lifted up unto him unto whom it ought to be referred. And I affirm, that such a person is free and spiritual, even though he had lived under the times of Bondage, wherein it was not yet convenient to explain the Signs unto carnal Men, they being to be brought under by this yoke. The Patriarches and Prophets, and all those of the Ancient Israel which the Holy Ghost made use of, were those spiritual Men, whereby we have received the aid and comfort of the holy Scriptures. But since the Resurrection of our Saviour Jesus Christ, in these times wherein the Ensign of our liberty hath manifestly appeared, we are not so much as burdened with the troublesome observation of Signs, whereof we have the knowledge already. Whereas the Ancients had such great numbers, we have but very few, and these few itself, which our Saviour and the example of the Apostles left us, are very easily practised, very easily understood, and of a most pure observation; as the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of our Saviour. Every one that receives them, knoweth them very well, and whereunto they have relation; and they be venerated, not by any carnal Obedience, but by a spiritual Liberty. Besides, as it is the Nature of a servile weakness to follow the literal sense, and to take the Signs for the things signified. I suppose, that it is also the Nature of Error and Extravagancy, to attribute unto Signs needless and frivolous Explications.  
God Almighty give us all Grace so well to distinguish Signs, from the things which they represent, that we may never give unto those, that which we ought only to render unto these; I mean, that Jesus Christ only may be the Object of our Worship and Adoration; and his Sacraments, that of our Veneration and Respect. So be it. Amen.     

AN Alphabetical Table OF THE Chief MATTERS contained in this BOOK.  
The Letters, A, B, C, mark the three Parts of the Work: A, The First Part: B, The Second: C, The Third.  

A.  
ACcidents cannot subsist without their Subject. B. Chap. 5. pag. 254  
Albigensis, their Doctrine, Manners, and Persecutions they suffered. B. ch. 18. 475  
Albigensis made profession of the Belief of Berengarius immediately after his death. Id. 474  
Albigensis and Waldensis had one and the same Belief. Id. 475  
There must be a distinction made betwixt the Adoration of Jesus Christ, and the respect and veneration due unto his Sacrament. C. ch. 4. 562  
Jesus Christ distributing his Sacrament unto his Disciples, commanded them not to adore what he gave them; neither did they adore it. Id. 563  
St. Paul speaks nothing of this Adoration in his censuring the Corinthians. Id. 564  
St. Luke says nothing of it in the Acts, where he makes mention of the Celebration of the Sacrament. Id. Ibid.  
The first Decrees made touching the adoring the Sacrament, was in the XIII. Century. Id. 576  
The use of ringing a Bell for the same Subject, instituted in the same Century. Id. ibid.  
Adoration of the Eucharist doth not agree with many things practised by the ancient Church. Id. 571  
To adore what one sacrificeth is an Impiety. Id. 583  
To adore what one eateth is absurd. Id. ibid.  
The Sacrament miraculously adored by Beasts, was unknown unto the ancient Church before Berengarius. A. Ch. 8. 80  
The Adoration of the Eucharist inconsistent with what the Ancients have said in their Disputes against the Heathens. Id. 581  
The Adoration of the Sacrament never retorted against Christians by the Gentiles. Idem. 482  
The Adoration of the Sacrament doth not appear in the Disputes of the Fathers against the ancient Heretics. Id. 584  
Adoration of the Sacrament is not practised by the Greeks nor Abyssins'. Id. ibid.   

B.  
BErtram did write by the Command of King Charles the Bald. B. ch. 13. 403  
Bertrams Book falsely attributed unto Oecolampadius. Id. 406  
Bertrams Book unadvisedly attributed unto John Scot Id. 403  
Berengarius much esteemed for his Sanctity. B. Ch. 17. 453  
Berengarius calumniated. Id. 454  
Berengarius his Adversaries could not answer his Arguments. 457  
Several disputed and argued for Berengarius. Id. 456  
Berengarius favourably heard by the Pope. Id. ibid.  
The Doctrine of Berengarius spread throughout the whole Church. Id. 454  
Berengarius retracts for fear of death, but perseveres again. Id. 460  
Epitaphs made by Hildebert, Bishop of Mentz, and by Baldric, Abbot of Bourgueil, and Bishop of Doll, in praise of Berengarius. Id. 461   

C.  
WHence proceeded the Reports of unlawful Copulations, and those inhuman Banquets wherewith the ancient Christians were scandalised. A. Ch. 2. 8  
The Celebration of the Sacrament altered by several Heretics, and rejected by others. Id. p. 16. & Ch. 3. 24  
Wherefore the Eucharist is called the Lord's Supper. A. Ch. 5. 40  
A general and particular Consideration of the place where the Symbols were consecrated. Id. 42  
The Eucharist celebrated but once a day in each Church; which is also still observed amongst the Greeks, Muscovites, and Abyssins'. Id. 49  
The matter of the Vessels employed in this Ceremony considered. Id. 50  
The Celebration, and generally, all the Divine Service was said in a Language understood by the People. A. Ch. 6. 55  
Consecration was made by Prayers, Blessing, and giving of Thanks. A. Ch. 7. 65  
The time and place of Celebration, and of the Communion. A. Ch. 10. 110  
The Communion was received standing. Id. 116  
The Greeks and Abyssins' do communicate standing. Id. 118  
The Communion standing. Id. ibid.  
There have been always in the West that did and do communicate so. Id. ibid.  
Certain Customs practised in the ancient Church, in the act of communicating. Id. ibid.  
The Communion under both kinds practised in all Christian Churches, and also in the Latin Church for above 1000 years. A. Ch. 12. 131  
The Introduction of the Communion with the steeped Eucharist. Id. 135  
The Communion under one Kind established at Constans, Anno 1415. and confirmed at Trent, Anno 1562. Id. 143, 144  
All Christians, except those of the Roman Church, communicate under both Kind's. Idem. 146  
The Remainders of the Sacrament burnt in some Churches, and eaten by little Children in others. A. Ch. 16. 170  
Preparations requisite for him that celebrates. C. Ch. 1. 521  
The Original Use of the Sign of the Cross, and of Material Crosses in the Worship of Religion. Id. 538  
Preparations required of the Receiver in respect of God and Jesus Christ. C. Ch. 2. 542  
Auricular Confession before receiving the Sacrament was not practised for above eight hundred years. C. Ch. 3. 549   

D.  
WHat Doctrines should be retained in the Church. A. p. 1  
Corruption of Doctrine is commonly the Consequence of the Corruption of Manners. A. Ch. 2. 7  
The Doctrine of the Council of Constantinople, in the Year 754. touching the Sacrament. B. Ch. 12. 365  
The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice, although it censures the Expressions of that of Constantinople, yet it condemns not its Doctrine. Id. 375   

E.  
BRead and Wine have ever been the Matter of the Eucharist. A. Ch. 1. p. 2  
Wherefore Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine, and wherein the Ancients placed the resemblance they have unto his Body and Blood. Id. 3  
The mixing of Water with the Wine, and its mystical signification. Id. 4  
Other mystical Significations in the composition of the Bread. Id. 5  
The Dispute touching Levened or Unlevened Bread. A. Ch. 3. 28  
Whence the Bread of the Eucharist came, the Form of it, with the Changes which happened unto it, and at what time. A. Ch. 4. 30, etc.  
Who they were that distributed the Sacrament, and what they said. A. Ch. 11. 121, etc.  
Who they were that had Right to communicate, and their Words. Id. 123  
Women sometimes distributed the Sacrament in Italy and France. Id. ibid.  
The Sacrament never celebrated without Communicants. Id. 126  
The Eucharist received by the hand of the Communicants. A. Ch. 13. 150  
This Custom ever practised in the West, Id. 154  
Communicant permitted to carry the Eucharist home, and along with them in Voyages. A. Ch. 14. 160  
The Eucharist sent unto the Absent, and the Sick; and by whom. A. Ch. 15. 164.  
Plasters made of the Eucharist. A. Ch. 16. 169  
The Eucharist interred with the Dead. Id. ibid.  
The Wine of the Eucharist mingled with Ink. Id. 171, 172  
The Greeks mix it with warm Water at the Instant of Communicating. Id. 172  
The Eucharist called Bread and Wine by the Fathers in the act of Communicating. B. Ch. 2. 199  
The Fathers affirm it is Bread and Wine, Bread which is broken, Corn, Wheat, the Fruit of the Vine, etc. Bread and Wine wherewith our Bodies are nourished; Bread, the matter whereof passeth the same fate of our common Food; Bread which is consumed in the Distribution of the Sacrament; things Inanimate. Idem. 200, 201, etc.  
They testify that the Bread and Wine lose not their substance by Consecration. Id. 206  
The Participation of the Eucharist breaks the Fast. Id. 210  
The Eucharist is a Subject whereof one receives a little, a bit, a piece, a morsel. Id. 211  
The Eucharist is the Sacrament; the Sign, Figure, Type, Antitype, Symbol, Image, the Similitude and Resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ, by opposition of the Truth absent. B. Ch. 3. 213  
The Eucharist is not barely the Sacrament, the Sign, etc. but a Sacrament in the lawful use of it, accompanied with all the virtue and efficacy of this divine Body, and this precious Blood. Id. 220  
When the Fathers say 'tis Bread and Wine, they never mince their words. Id. 221  
When they say it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, they use several Modifications unto their Expressions. Id. 223  
Alterations happened to the ancient Expressions, by whom, and how. B. Ch. 11. 361  
When the use of Incense was introduced in the Celebration of the Eucharist. C. Ch. 1. 523  
The Proof and Trial the Communicant should make of himself before Receiving, C. Ch. 3. 542  
This Proof comprehends all the Dispositions of the believing Soul in regard of the Sacrament. Id. ibid.   

F.  
HIm which maketh a thing is before that which is made. B. Ch. 5. p. 250  
Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament by Urban the Fourth, Anno 1264 C. Ch. 4. 579  
This Feast, for the Novelty of it, was not received at first but by the Church of Idem. 580  
When the Feast of the Procession of the Eucharist was instituted. Id. ibid.  
Several desired that this Feast might be abolished. Id. 582   

G.  
AT what time they began to keep the Sacrament for the Sick. A. Ch. 15. 165  
William of Malmesbury is deceived in speaking of the Conversion of Berengarius. B. Ch. 17. 460   

H.  
NO body can dwell in himself. B. Ch. 5. 262  
History of the VII. Century. B. Ch. 11. 361  
The state of the VIII. Century. B. Ch. 12. 365  
History of the IX. Century. B. Ch. 13. 385  
Continuation of the History of the IX. Century. B. Ch. 14. 425  
The Dignities and Creation of Herribold Bishop of Auxerr. Id. ibid.  
Continuation of the History of the IX. Century. B. Ch. 15. 430, etc.  
History of the X. Century; which was an Age neither of Light nor Darkness, but made up of both. B. Ch. 16. 439  
History of the XI. Century. B. Ch. 17. 450  
History of the XII. and XIII. Centuries. B. Ch. 18. 465  
History of the XIV. and XV. Centuries. B. Ch. 19 497   

I.  
WE should hold by what was done by Jesus Christ at first. A. Ch. 1. p. 1  
The Image and Figure cannot be the same thing whereof they are the Image and Figure. B. Ch. 3. 218  
Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Humanity, and present only by his Divinity. B. Ch. 4. 233  
The Ancients have only acknowledged two Comings of Jesus Christ. Id. 240  
The spiritual Presence of Jesus Christ is common with him and the Father. Id. ibid.  
Jesus Christ is present with the believing Soul by the Intercourse of Devotion. Id. 241  
Jesus Christ must be sought in Heaven in Communicating. Id. 242  
The Body of Jesus Christ, which was made 1600 Years ago, cannot be made every day. B. Ch. 5. 251  
In what sense the Books of Charlemagne condemn the term of Image in respect of the Sacrament. B. Ch. 12. 380  
John Scot wrote of the Sacrament by Command of Charles the Bald. B. Ch. 13. 403  
Adversaries of John Scot upon the Point of Predestination. Id. 415  
John Scot never accused by his Adversaries to have erred upon the Point of the Eucharist. Id. ibid.  
John Scot enroled in the number of Saints after his death. Id. 413  
The Book composed by John Scot by Command of the Emperor Charles the Bald, burnt at the Council of Verceil, 200 years after; viz. An. 1050. Id. 414   

L.  
A Body cannot be in several places at once; no, not the glorified Body of our our Lord Jesus Christ. B. Ch. 5. p. 247  
The glorified Body of Jesus Christ cannot exist invisibly, and after the manner of a Spirit, in one place; nor by consequence, in the Eucharist. Id. 248  
The place which containeth is greater than what is contained. Id. 251  
Two Bodies cannot be in one and the same place; and there cannot be Penetration of Dimensions. Id. 261  
Every part of a Body should answer unto every part of the place. Id. ibid.  
A Body cannot be whole and entire in one of its parts. Id. ibid.  
The Original of using Lamps and Lights in the Celebration of the Eucharist. C. Ch. 1. 531   

M.  
THe Flesh of Jesus Christ is to be eaten spiritually and corporally. B. Ch. 4. 234  
The Wicked do not eat the Body of Jesus Christ, but the Sacrament of it only. Idem. 237  
John Hus and Jerome of Prague put to death as Enemies of Transubstantiation, although they ever believed it. B. Ch. 19 508, etc.  
What a Mystery doth mean. B. Ch. 5. 259, etc.   

N.  
THe Nature of Bread remains after Consecration. B. Ch. 2. 206  
Nicholas the First keeps silent during the Disputes of the IX. Century. B. Ch. 15. 430  
The Silence of Nicholas the First no way favourable unto Paschas. Id. 431   

O.  
JOhn Damascen his particular Opinion of the Eucharist. B. Ch. 12. 365  
Paschas Radbert, a Friar of the Monastery of Corby, near Amiens, his Opinion. He was after Abbot of the same Convent. B. Ch. 13. 385  
Opinion of the Adversaries of Paschas. Id. 393, etc.  
The Opinion of Paschas is that of Roman Catholics, and the Opinion of his Adversaries that of Protestants, which are called Calvinists. Id. 405  
The Opinion of his Adversaries followed by the greatest Men in the IX. Century. Idem. 430  
The Silence of the Popes, Adrian the Second, and Nicholas the First prejudicial to the Opinion of Paschas. B. Ch. 15. 431  
The Opinion of Paschas had no advantage over that of his Adversaries during the X. Century. B. Ch. 16. 440  
It began to be established in the XI. Century. B. Ch. 17. 451  
Berengarius and his Follower's Opposition, with his several Condemnations, which hindered not but he persevered unto his death. Id. 455  
Berengarius calls the Opinion contrary to his, the Folly of Paschas, of the People, and of Lanfrank. Id. 454  
Berengarius his Opinion condemned after his death, by Urban the Second, in a Council held at Plaisance, Anno 1095. B. Ch. 18. 465  
Those which held this Belief assembled themselves in the Archbishopric of Treves, Anno 1106. Id. 466   

P.  
REflections of the holy Fathers upon the words of Institution of the Eucharist. B. Ch. 1. 187  
How they understood these words, This is my Body. Id. 188  
No Body can participate of himself. B. Ch. 5. 262  
How the Fathers instructed their Catechumeny. B. Ch. 7. 283  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only to adore, but venerate and respect: therefore it is to be explained according to the nature of the Subject in hand. C. Ch. 4. 563, etc.   

Q.  
THe Question of Communicating under both Kind's discussed at large. A. Ch. 12. 141, etc.  
Who opposeth not an Error, approves it. B. Ch. 15. 431  
Whosoever recovereth not a Man from Error, showeth that he erreth himself. Id. ibid.  
Whosoever defends not a Truth, suppresseth it. Id. ibid.  
The Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament fully examined. C. Ch. 4. 563, etc.   

R.  
THe Christians reproached for sacrificing Bread to God. A. Ch. 3. 25  
Christians reproached for serving Ceres and Bacchus. Id. ibid.  
Religious Women called the Blood of Jesus Christ common Wine B. Ch. 6. 273  
Remy of Auxerr, as well as Damascen, believed the Union of the Bread unto the Divinity. B. Ch. 13. 391  
Rupert de Duitz believed the Assumption of the Bread, and followed near hand the Opinion of Damascen, and of Remy of Auxerr. B. Ch. 18. 468   

S.  
THe Sacraments are simple in the Act, and wonderful in effect. Preface.  
The Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. A. Ch. 8. 82  
The reason why the Fathers gave the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice, but improperly. Id. 83, etc.  
They confess unto the Pagans they have neither Altars nor Sacrifices. Id. 94  
They never oppose the Eucharist unto the Sacrifices of the Law, but the Actions of Piety and Christian Religion, and the Sacrifice of the Cross. Id. 96  
The Elevation of the Sacrament to represent the Elevation of Christ on the Cross, when begun to be practised. A. Ch. 9 101  
The Elevation converted into the Adoration of the Host, in the XIII Century. Idem. 105  
There hath been always People in the West which have celebrated the Sacrament without Elevation or Adoration. Id. 103  
The breaking of the Bread of the Sacrament always practised in the Church, even amongst the Latins, until the XII. Century. A. Ch. 9 106  
The Sacraments have no Miracles in them. B. Ch. 2. 212  
It is unto the virtue and efficacy of the Sacrament that we must refer the Communion which we have with Jesus Christ, and our Vinification. B. Ch. 3. 230  
The Testimony of the Senses is infallible. B. Ch. 5. 257  
The Use of Flowers practised by the Latins in honour to the Sacrament, unknown unto the primitive Christians. C. Ch. 4. 573   

T.  
Alter, or Eucharistical Table, one and the same thing in the Writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church. A. Ch. 5. 44, 45.  
It was for a long time made of Wood, in the same form of Tables to eat upon; and not in the form of an Altar. Id. ibid.  
There was but one Table, or one Altar in a Church. Id. 47  
The Greeks, Muscovites, and Abyssins' now retain the same Custom. Id. 50  
What Fraud and Deceit is. B. Ch. 5. 260  
The Taborites of Bohemia, and their Belief. B. Ch. 19 505  
John Hus and Jerome of Prague ever held Transubstantiation. Id. 508   

V.  
THere can no Prescription be alleged against Truth. Preface.  
The Truth of God must be followed, and not the Traditions of Men. A. Ch. 1. p. 1  
A Body should be visible and palbable. B. Ch. 5. 247  
What may be seen and felt is a Body. Id. 264  
Waldensis, their Doctrine, Manners, and the Persecutions used against them. B. Ch. 18. 472, etc.  
Waldensis in Italy in the XIV. Century. B. Ch. 19 502  
Wickliff, his Doctrine and Followers, which were very numerous in England, under the name of Lollards, in the XIV. Century. Id. 499  
The Waldensis of Provence and Piedmont. Id. 512  
The Original of holy Vestments used in the Celebration of the Eucharist. C. Ch. 1. 539   
FINIS.