The history of the Eucharist divided into three parts : the first treating of the form of celebration : the second of the doctrine : the third of worship in the sacrament / written originally in French by monsieur L'Arroque ... done into English by J.W.

PART I. Containing the exteriour Form of Cele∣bration.

CHAP. I.

Wherein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament.

THE first thing that presents it self in the Celebration of the Eucharist, is the matter of the Sacrament, that is to say, the Bread and Wine; for three of the Evangelists and St. Paul testifie that Jesus Christ took Bread, and a Cup wherein there was Wine, and that he called the Wine, the fruit of the Vine: All the Holy Fathers unanimously avouch the same, all the Liturgies which are come to our hands depose the same, seeing we find these two Elements imployed in this mystery; and the form of Celebration proposed unto us by St. Justin Martyr, the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks, the

pretended Denis the Arcopagite in his Hierarchy, and generally all those which have writ on this subject, suffer us not to doubt of it, as neither doth the defence, which the Fathers and Councils have made, of offering any thing else but Bread and Wine in celebrating the Sacrament. Also all Christians generally agree herein; there∣fore it would be superfluous to stand to prove it, seeing the thing is clear, and it is granted by all the World, and all Christian Societies are agreed on this Subject. It will only be necessary to consider that Jesus Christ, which is the Wisdom of the Eternal Father, and who never did any thing but with a Wisdom and Conduct worthy of himself, did not chuse Bread and Wine to make them Symbols of his body and blood, but that he was thereunto induced for con∣siderable 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 com∣forts they find in his blessed Communion; he made choice of Elements which had some likeness and relation unto those things which they were to signifie and represent: as for Instance, When he instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the Sacrament whereby we are born into his Church, he made choice of water to be the sign and symbol of it; because it is proper to represent the vertue of his Blood and of his Spirit for the purifying of our souls: for as water hath the quality of cleansing our bodies from all uncleanness; so also the Blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ, have the vertue, the force, and efficacy of washing and purifying our souls from all fil∣thiness and impurities; therefore it is, that the Apostle calls Bap∣tism the washing of Regeneration, * 1.1 that is, of our New Birth; and for that reason it is that he saith elsewhere, * 1.2 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 Cove∣nant whereby he gives unto us life, after having given us our be∣ing, he chose Bread and Wine to represent unto us the vertue of his Sacrifice and of his Death, and which is the food of our souls: For as Bread & Wine are food very proper for nourishing the body, and for preserving this mortal and perishing life; even so his Body broken, and his Blood poured out, do divinely feed and nourish our souls, and do admirably preserve this heavenly and Spiritual life, whereof we enjoy even here below, some fore-tastes and first∣fruits, the accomplishment whereof we shall one day receive to our comfort in Heaven. And it is in regard of this wonderful ef∣fect, * 1.3 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 undetermin'd resemblance, and which of it self is not sufficient to make them Sacraments of this Divine Body, and of this precious Blood. It is necessary that the Benediction and Consecration con∣fer upon them this quality, and invest them with this dignity, which they cannot have by Nature; and that setting them apart from the prophane and common uses, which they have in Nature, it should apply them unto a Religious and Divine use in Grace. Nevertheless it may be affirm'd, that this likeness and relation which they have by Nature with the Body and Blood of this Di∣vine Saviour, were, as it may be said, the first ground and the first motive of the choice which our Saviour was pleas'd to make of them; for what St. Austin said in one of his Letters, may well be apply'd unto this matter: * 1.4 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 compo∣sition 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 gather'd from sundry grapes. This is the Notion of * 1.5 Theophilus of Antioch, of † 1.6 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 Bloud, because it increaseth blood in the body, and rejoiceth the heart. This is the Reason given by St. ‖ 1.7 Isidore Archbishop of Sevil, * 1.8 Bede, † 1.9 Rabanus, and ‖ 1.10 Christian Drutmer, and I make no que∣stion 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 insti∣tuting and celebrating the Sacrament, was pure, or mixed; the antient Christians made no scruple to mingle water with the Wine in the Communion. The Jewish Rituals, as a learned * 1.11 person, and extream∣ly well vers'd in the knowledge of the Uses and Customs of that Nation, observes, left it unto the free will and choice of every per∣son in celebrating the Passover, to use pure Wine, or Wine mixt with water; so that our blessed Saviour accommodating himself as much as he could in the Celebration of his Sacrament, with what was practis'd 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 imploy'd 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 perswasion that they esta∣blished 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 expresly mention it: for in shewing the manner of celebrating the Sacrament in his time, * 1.12 he observes posi∣tively 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 satisfy'd them∣selves 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 express'd, they be∣thought 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 repre∣sent the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Water should shew the believing people, and that the mingling the one with the other, should shew the indissoluble union which there is betwixt Christ and Be∣lievers; * 1.13 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 sub∣sist. 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 joyn'd together, then is effected the Spiri∣tual and Heavenly Sacrament. St. Cyprian was followed by the * 1.14 third Council of Braga in the year 675, by † 1.15 Isidore, by ‖ 1.16 Bede, by ‖‖ 1.17 Ber∣tram or Ratramne. But in fine, the Holy Fathers have thought this

mixture so Essential unto the Holy Sacrament, that the sixth Oecu∣menical 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 pas∣sage of this holy Doctor, whereof the Armenians made use to au∣thorize the practice of their Churches, and having explain'd it, they make this Decree: * 1.18 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 un∣to the Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius the IVth. but they arrived not untill 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 directi∣on 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 As∣sembled, which might have been so in regard of the Latines, but not of the Greeks, who were gone home; in this Instruction I say, The Armenians were enjoyn'd to conform themselves unto all the other Chri∣stians, * 1.19 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 Li∣turgies that they continued in the Custom of not mingling Water with the Wine in the holy Cup. * 1.20 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 repre∣sent the Water and Blood which issued out of the pierced side of Jesus Christ at his passion, and when he was on the Cross; * 1.21 It is the Doctrine of the Eastern Council before mentioned, and which was Assembled in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Con∣stantinople. As for St. Athanasius he resembles this mixture unto the Union of the Eternal Word with the human Nature; * 1.22 The mysti∣cal Cup of the Communion, saith he, was given, mingled with Water, be∣cause the pure Wine doth signifie the Divine Nature which is unmixed, and in that 'tis temper'd with Water, it intimates the Ʋnion which is be∣twixt us. And there is no question to be made but these Holy Doctors pleas'd themselves in searching out these Mystical significa∣tions 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 Antient Church, so they also discovered other Mysteries in making the Bread: for they believed that the Bread of the Eucharist being a Body compos'd of sundry grains, represented very well the Body of the Church composed of sun∣dry believers united into one Society: It is also the Doctrine of S. Cyprian; * 1.23 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 toge∣ther, and reduc'd to one, he again signified the same faithful People, composed of sundry Persons in one and the same Body. It is the fre∣quent Doctrine of * 1.24 S. Augustin, and generally of all the Holy Fathers, of † 1.25 Theophilus of Antioch, of ‖ 1.26 S. Chrysostom, of * 1.27 Isidore of Sevil, of † 1.28 Bede, of ‖ 1.29 Walafridus Strabo, of ‖‖ 1.30 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 Hereticks, totake occasion either to slander the Innocency of her Mysteries by the Gnosticks, or to corrupt their purity by the Montanists and Pepusi∣ans, 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 intend to examine in the fol∣lowing Chapter.

CHAP. II.

Wherein is discoursed of sundry sorts of Sects and He∣resies, only so as may be sufficient to give light unto the present Subject.

THE first Hereticks which the Devil stirred up to trouble the Church upon the matter of the Sacraments, were the Gnosticks, that is, such as assumed to themselves that proud and insolent Title, to perswade the ignorant People that they were possest with great Wisdom, and that they were able to dive into the knowledge of the most obscure and difficult Mysteries: some derive their Ori∣ginal from the Nicolaïtans; others say they had for their Leader an eminent Heretick called Carpocrates: but from what Original soever they came, it cannot be doubted, but it was very pernicious, seeing it produced so cursed an off-spring; certainly this fountain was very corrupt, seeing the streams were so infectious; and the Root of this cursed Tree was very venemous, seeing the Branches produced no less than the bitter Fruit of mortal Poison; an in∣famous brood as ever was, whose Mysteries abounded with Abo∣mination and Horrour; 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 de∣sires, and being Slaves unto their passions and disordered Lusts, they polluted themselves frequently with Women, which were in com∣mon amongst them; and coveting nothing more than this filthy pra∣ctice, 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 E∣vil Spirit, is, that they acted their greatest abominations in their As∣semblies, 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 Antients 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 o∣dious unto all the World, he would have forborn to have related the Brutalities and Filthinesses which they were not ashamed to com∣mit. 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 horrour; 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, * 1.31 which these miserable Wretches pretended to make in the Eucharist, need only read what S. Epi∣phanius hath writ in the Heresie of the Gnosticks, whilst I shall only mark, that when any of the Women, which they had debaucht, were with Child, they used means to make her miscarry, and discharge her burthen when they listed: then would they take the Infant and pound it in a Mortar with Honey, Pepper, and other Aromatick drugs; after which, this Fraternity of Swine and Doggs being as∣sembled, 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 compleat Sacrament: And because these abominable Hereticks as∣sumed the name of Christians, they were the cause that Pagans and Infidels imputed unto the whole Christian Church these hor∣rible impieties, and it was the end which Satan proposed in raising up these execrable Wretches. * 1.32 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, profest Enemies of our Religion, a large and ample Subject and Matter to scandalize and speak evil of the Gospel; in as much as this Infamy, which took its Original from the Gnosticks, 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 un∣lawful Copulations, wherewith they were asperst, of Brethren with Sisters, and Children with their own Mothers, as also of these barbarous and inhumane Feasts, where the flesh of some little innocent Infant was served up as meat and nourishment. * 1.33 S. Epi∣phanius hath also observed that it was a device of the Devil to slan∣der the purity of the Christian Religion, and to stop the progress of the Gospel of the Son of God; * 1.34 it is also unto the abominable Mysteries of the Gnosticks, that Origen imputes the cause of those same Infamous reports; and Cardinal Baronius in his Ecclesiasti∣cal Annals, refers them unto the same cause, and confes∣seth they were their Rise and Original. S. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his Catechisms derives these reproaches against Christians, and those calumnies wherewith they asperst their Holy Profession, not from the Mysteries of the Gnosticks 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: Ne∣vertheless S. Cyrill imputing something of that kind unto the Mon∣tanists, we shall be obliged to say something thereof, when we shall have done with the Gnosticks; 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 pro∣duced them; as Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras in their Apologies, Tatian against the Greeks, Theophilus of Antioch in his Books to Au∣tolycus, Tertullian in his Treatise to the Nations, and in his Apolo∣getick; Minutius Felix in his Octavius. The Second thing is, that although several have spoke of the Gnosticks 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 Gnosticks, it will be necessary, after ha∣ving 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 satisfie his Ambi∣tion, which made him aspire unto the chiefest power in the place of his Birth, he suffered himself to be corrupted with the inspi∣rations of the Devil, and as if he had been possest with a Prophe∣tick 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 ac∣complished, which Jesus Christ made of sending his Spirit after his Ascension into Heaven, and not upon the Apostles, as the Go∣spel doth testifie: S. Epiphanius and others say that he differed nothing from the Catholicks and the Orthodox as to matter of Do∣ctrine, 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 surprized, and was so obsti∣nate, that although he was one of the greatest Wits and learnedst Men of his time, yet he called the Catholicks 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 Gnosticks. * 1.35 Philastrius in his Catalogue of Heresies chargeth them with Celebrating the Mystery of the Cynicks, 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. * 1.36 S. Isidore of Damieta mentions somewhat in his Letters; but 'tis no∣thing in respect of what S. Cyrill of Jerusalem reports in his Cate∣chisms: 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 falsly. Apparently, nothing can be said more formal, nor more positively on this Subject: nevertheless I find S. Austin comes no∣thing short of S. Cyrill, and that he speaks as full as he, only saving that he doth not expresly mention the killing of a young Child: these are his words, It is reported that they have pernicious Sacra∣ments, * 1.37 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 dye, they esteem it a Martyr; but if it reco∣ver and live, it is esteemed amongst them as a great Priest or Sacrificer. Then distinguishing the Pepusians from the Cavaphrygians and Mon∣tanists, 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-will'd person: Neverthe∣less I would desire the Reader a little to suspend his Judgment, 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 deny'd it, and lookt 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. * 1.38 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 An∣tients

which was contemporary with Montanus, not one of those which opposed his Heresie 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 Gnosticks, 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 pre∣tended Paraclete, and of his Prophetesses, and hath preseved some fragments of their Works, * 1.39 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 rendred 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 imbraced such a Sect, wherein such execrable Myste∣ries were celebrated: nor lastly, that the Antients which lamented his misfortune, and his contending for the defence of the Disci∣pline of his Montanus, would have passed over in silence so consi∣derable 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 Antients, whose testimonies we have heard; I would only fol∣low the distinction which S. Epiphanius hath made of the Monta∣nists and Cataphrygians, from the Quintilians, * 1.40 the Priscillianists and the Pepusians, unto whom he seems to joyn 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 Chri∣stians, because the establishing of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, whom they adore, is the utter subversion of his, he useth his great∣est force and cunning, skill and power, to effect the wicked de∣vices 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 o∣ther. By the Gnosticks and the Pepusians he indeavoured 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 Cele∣bration. There were Hereticks 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 pro∣duction 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 nei∣ther celebrate Baptism nor the Lords 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 Per∣sons say, * 1.41 The Divine Mysteries ought not to be celebrated, which are the Symbols of invisible things, with things visible; nor to represent incor∣coporeal things, by things which are corporeal and sensible; that the compleat 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 baptize those which turn∣ed unto their Sect, and that the Sacrament of Baptism was not celebra∣ted 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, * 1.42 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 e∣quity, 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 Epi∣phanius was wont to joyn 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 wicked∣ness 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. Epi∣phanius 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 joyn 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 Tascodru∣gites, 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 Hereticks into the Catholick Church, and reducing them into three Orders: he will have the former to be admitted by Baptizing them; those of the Second, by Anointing them; and those of the Third sort, by making them only to Anathema∣tise their Heresie. In the first sort he ranges the Tascodrugites, un∣to whom in effect he imputes part of what Theodoret relates unto us of the Ascodrupites, as the laying aside Baptism, * 1.43 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 mi∣staken when he saith that the Tascodrugites rejected all Divine Knowledge; for on the contrary, they made our intire 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 imploys to do his work in seducing Mankind, there are scarce any more at his beck, nor more ready to execute his commands, than Sorcerers, South-sayers, Inchanters, and such as use Witchcrafts and Magick, so it is not to be wondred, 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 spued out, exercised the Magick Art, and by means of his Delusions and Witchcrafts, he seduced many ignorant Persons, which suffered themselves to be blinded by his Inchantments: Tertullian relates it in his Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks; Philastrius in his Catologue of Heresies; also S. Austin and Theodoret: This latter hath also recited some of his Inchantments and Witch∣crafts: 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 Im∣pieties and Dreams of these Hereticks, but only what they did in celebrating the Eucharist, and that S. Epiphanius hath taken from S. Irenaeus what he reports, let us inform our selves 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 skill'd in Magick, 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. * 1.44 He made shew (saith he) of consecrating

Cups full of Wine; and inlarging 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 Schole 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 con∣ceived, may fill your inward Man, and increase his knowledge in you, sowing the grain of Mustard-seed 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 it self above the brims, in doing whereof he destroyed sundry Persons by seducing of them. There∣fore the same S. Irenaeus supposed he had some familiar Spirit by whose inspirations he seemed to prophesie, and caused all those Women to prophesie 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, * 1.45 or Marcosians, there were prepared three Cha∣lices of Crystal glass, which were filled with White Wine, and that after Mark's inchantment, 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 Catholicks of his time, and that he filled them with White Wine, to give the great∣er likelihood and probability unto his Impostures and Witchcrafts, which only tended to the deluding those miserable Women which he seduced, and with whom he satisfy'd the disorder'd passions of his filthy lusts: for as our S. Hilary hath excellently well observed, It often is seen, * 1.46 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 learn'd of S. Irenaeus, or of Epi∣phanius, what he hath said, as S. Epiphanius had collected it out of S. Irenaeus. Ever since God put enmity betwixt the seed of the Wo∣man and the seed of the Serpent, because the Devil made use of this unhappy Instrument to seduce and ruine our first Parents, Mankind have generally an aversion against Serpents; I speak of the generality of men; for if some are to be found other∣wise 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 perswade some of those which made an out∣ward 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 ren∣dring 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, * 1.47 as having given unto mankind the Knowledge of good and Evil. They taught that Moses having understood the power and Ma∣jesty of them, made one of brass, and that all those that beheld it, were made whole; that Jesus Christ himself in the Gospel imita∣ted 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. Epi∣phanius, 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 Antients agree, is, that they bred up a Serpent or Snake, which they tam'd, and made to come out of the hollow place where he lay, at the time that they intended to celebrate their ridicu∣lous 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 it self 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, * 1.48 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 intend 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, ac∣cording 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 di∣stribute 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 Inchantments, 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, * 1.49 saith, That it is wonder∣ful in divers manners: we may say on the contrary, that the malice of the Devil worketh also diversly, and that he exerciseth an in∣finite number of Slights and Artifices; therefore S. John in his Revelations, * 1.50 speaks of the depths of Satan, to shew that he is a spring and Fountain of wiles and subtilties, and a bottomless Pit of frauds and deceits: Hitherto we have seen it in the great variety of Hereticks which he stirred up, to disturb the Church in the in∣joyment of the Ordinances, I mean of her Sacraments, which are as the sacred Chanels, whereby God conveys his graces unto her; but being still afraid not to succeed in his design, and of not ef∣fecting his malicious purposes, he maketh use of several means, and tries several ways to surprize 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 Hereticks 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 cal∣led 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, * 1.51 and that they so celebrated them. S. Austin adds, that they said, That men formerly did celebrate the Ob∣lations

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 celebra∣ting 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 Antients 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 Heresie 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 prin∣ciple of hating Wine as an evil thing, they made use of fair Wa∣ter in the Celebration of the Sacrament, they were called by the name of Aquarians or Hydroparastates: in fine, all the Antients which have treated of this Heresie, 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 Epi∣phanius say, That their Mysteries were not Mysteries, * 1.52 but that they were made falsly in imitation of true ones; and that our Saviour would re∣prove 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, * 1.53 Clement of A∣lexandria opposed these same Hereticks 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. * 1.54 S. Chrysostom also presseth this example of Jesus Christ against the same Hereticks, 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 Heresie. 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 evi∣dent enough in all his Treatise, that these latter Aquarians were very different from the former; for the former were wretched and wicked Hereticks, which detested and abominated Wine as a wicked Creature and an evil production; but as for those spo∣ken of by S. Cyprian, they had doubtless other sentiments; and in∣deed he neither calls them Enemies nor Hereticks; the former did celebrate their Mystery with Water, because they abominated Wine; but these did so for two reasons much different from the Encratites, * 1.55 the first proceeded from the ignorance and simplicity of some of their Teachers, Some (saith S. Cyprian in the begin∣ning 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; * 1.56 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: * 1.57 That in some places was offered Water in the Cup of our Lord, contrary to the Evan∣gelical and Apostolical discipline, forasmuch as Water alone cannot repre∣sent 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 un∣to the persecutions which Heathens made against Christians. All the discipline (saith S. Cyprian) of Religion and of the truth is wholly overthrown, * 1.58 if what was commanded, spiritually and faithfully be not ob∣served, 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 particular∣ly be discerned at that season. * 1.59 Thus much St. Cyprian would inti∣mate 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 Supper-time 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 Chri∣stians, 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 pur∣pose; The Devil not content to stir up the Eucratites in the second Century, to change the Essence of the Sacrament by using of Wa∣ter instead of Wine, which they had in aversion, and not content in the third with the simplicity, timidity, and weakness of some Ca∣tholick 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 Marsellis, as Pope Adrian stiles him, doth speak; for he makes mention of certain persons, * 1.60 That under pretence of sobriety, would not celebrate the Eucharist with Wine, but with Water on∣ly. 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 Commu∣nions have faithfully retained the use of Bread and Wine in the Ce∣lebration of the Sacrament, insomuch as even in those Countreys 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 Me∣cha 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. * 1.61 The Abassins also do in like man∣ner, as Francis Alvarez, in his Voyage into Ethiopia, doth testifie.

But upon this matter of the Wine of the Eucharist, it may not be altogether needless to consider what was the Sentiment of An∣tiquity touching the two Cups mentioned by St. Luke, which were distributed by our Saviour unto his Disciples, as is alledged 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 col∣lected the several judgments of those which preceded or were his contemporaries, what we find in his Writings shall suffice, and I hope the Reader will not be displeas'd to satisfie his curiosity on this matter: * 1.62 Some persons (saith he) would have this passage of the Gos∣pel understood, viz. That the Lord gave not two Cups; but rather they af∣firm 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 so∣ever 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 Testa∣ment, 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 My∣stery, which accords very well with the Christian Faith, viz. that both in the one and the other Cup, ought to be understood both the Old and New Te∣staments, especially seeing the Truth it self 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, * 1.63 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 Saviours 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 offer'd, and distributed the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which was to be instituted for the Salvation of Be∣lievers; he eat the Passover of the Jews, whereby Jesus Christ was pro∣mised 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 sate 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 be∣fore 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 Interpretati∣ons cited by St. Fulgentius, I find his own the most reasonable, be∣cause in effect St. Luke hath mentioned two several Cups, the Pas∣chal 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 Saviours 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 Saviours 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 Savi∣our 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 Evan∣gelists had not observed it of the Paschal, he contented himself to observe it of the Paschal, and not of the Eucharistick, the Evan∣gelists 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 writ∣ten of design and by consent.

CHAP. III.

Continuation of the considerations of the matter of the Eu∣charist, wherein is examined what S. Ignatius saith of certain Hereticks which rejected the Sacrament; the Heresie 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 leaven'd or unleaven'd.

SAint Ignatius was a Disciple of the Apostles, and parti∣cularly of St. John, Bishop and Pastor of the Church of Antioch, and moreover a glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ; for he suffer'd Martyrdom at Rome the first of Febru∣ary, Anno 107. or 109. in the Eleventh Year of the Empe∣ror Trajan; and if the Epistles which go in his name, were true∣ly 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 Hereticks 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 antient, seeing 'tis above 1300 years since Eusebius saw them; and after Eu∣sebius, they were cited by some of the Fathers of the Church; be∣cause it is of these seven that the moderate persons, both Roman Catholiks 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 perswade themselves that they were the genuine Issue of that Illustrious Martyr, as Messieurs de Saumaise, Blondel, Aubertin, Daillé; this latter having also exami∣ned in a particular Treatise, all the marks of forgery that he could discover in these Epistles. I freely confess my self to be in this Error if it be an Error, and that of a long time, I have therein ob∣served several things which suffered me not to believe that S. Igna∣tius

had writ them; but as this is not the place to shew it, and that besides it hath been performed by others, it shall suffice to consider what he hath said of these Hereticks; * 1.64 They abstain (saith he) from the Eucharist and from Prayer, because they believe not the Eu∣charist 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 signi∣ficant than that of Prayer, for there's nothing more frivolous, than to represent unto us those Hereticks 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 dependance 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 Lords 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 re∣peat 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 Bap∣tism: 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 Hereticks which did so, and that he who forged the Epistle of S. Ignatius living at that time, and op∣posing these Enemies of Christianity, hath expresly 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 Hereticks which I suppose to be the Docetes and Putatives, that is, those which denyed the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and which only allow'd 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 Hereticks denyed the Eucharist, for none of the Antients have observed it; which they would not have omitted to do, as well those which have treated of Heresies, as those which have written parti∣cularly against the Hereticks 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? * 1.65 For Tertullian doth formally tellus, that Marcion which was one of the chief of these Hereticks, persisted in the use of the Sacrament, seeing he declares that the God of Mar∣cion, shews 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 Here∣ticks which opposed not so much the Sacrament of the Eucharist, * 1.66 as the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, as Cardinal Bellarmin hath well observed, taking notice of the neglect of their Predecessors, and see∣ing they admitted the use of the Sacrament, they gave the Catho∣licks strong Arms to contradict them, they abstained from cele∣brating it as the Ascodrupites had done a long while before them, although upon another account; but besides these two sorts of Hereticks, both which, the one after the other, rejected the celebrating of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, although upon different princi∣ples, we shall see in the XII. Century a new Heretick that towards Flanders, and especially in Brabant where he spread abroad his He∣resie and the poyson of his pernitious Doctrine (it was one called Tanchelin) who having a design to ruin the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist, and to forbid the use of it unto all those which he could se∣duce, did so well by his cunning, and by the help of the evil Spirit under whom he had enrolled himself, that he perswaded the peo∣ple of Antwerp, (a great and populous City) that the participa∣tion of the Eucharist was not necessary unto Salvation; where∣fore they continued several years without communicating, as the Continuator of Sigebert doth inform us. * 1.67 We shall not now say any more, because that upon another Subject we shall be forc'd to inlarge upon this History, which plainly shews that the Devil doth not cease from time to time to make his Attempts against this great mystery of Christian Religion, knowing very well that '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 Sa∣crifice and Death, wherein we find immortality and life. Wherefore

having armed Hereticks to combate this Divine Sacrament, some after one manner, some after another, he stirred up the Jews and others to take occasion from the Sacrament, to reproach Christians; some to say, that they had reduced all the Service of their Religion unto an Oblation of Bread, or at least that they had invented a new Oblation: others that they were worshippers of Ceres and Bacchus, and that they religiously adored those imaginary Deities. In fine, Rabbi Benjamin, in S. Isidore of Damieta, * 1.68 urgeth this accusa∣tion against Christians, That they had invented a new and strange Obla∣tion, in consecrating Bread unto God, whereas the Law established Sacri∣fices in the Blood; which S. Isidore doth not deny, but only saith un∣to this Jew, That he ought not to be ignorant, That the Law it self consecrated the Shew-bread. And others reproach the Orthodox, in S. Austin, That they served Ceres and Bacchus, * 1.69 under pretence of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist: whereunto this holy Fa∣ther only replies, That although this be Bread and Wine, yet they do no∣thing 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 My∣steries with Bread steept in the Blood of a young Child, a calumny occasioned, in all likelihood, by the abominations of the Gnosticks; for I am not certain whether in Tertullian's time there were of those Pepusians which, as S. Austin doth report, made the Bread of their Eucharist with the Blood of a Child of a year old, which they drew from the body of the innocent Infant, by pricking it all over with a Needle, or some such sharp Instrument. * 1.70 But see here what Ter∣tullian 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 him∣self, That 'tis that Bread which was said to be steept in the Blood of a lit∣tle Child; which Calumny at that time much troubled the Christians? I said expresly that it seemeth it might be thus gathered from the words of this learned African; for I would not positively affirm this Induction to be absolutely necessary, especially when I consi∣der that Tert••llian himself represents unto us the unbelieving Hus∣band suspecting the Christian Wife to go about to poyson him: * 1.71 Will he (saith he) suffer these things without sighing, and without being in doubt whether it be Bread or Poyson. Therefore I leave the Reader at his liberty to incline unto which side he please.

But because a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand, as our Saviour saith in the Gospel, and that nothing is more pernicious unto a State than civil and intestine Wars, there's no question to be made but the Devil thought considerably to advance his design, when he, as it were, armed and stirred up the Greek Church against the Latin Church, touching the nature and quality of the Bread of the Eucharist; the Greeks affirming, That it was Leavened, and the Latins on the contrary contending for the use of Unleavened Bread. It must be granted the Greeks were mistaken in affirm∣ing 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, see∣ing there was none in all Judea, and that the Jews were not per∣mitted to have any? But it also must be confessed that the La∣tins were not wholly without Blame, to be so self-will'd or obstinate in employing unleavened Bread in their Eucharist, un∣der a pretence that Jesus Christ used it in his, making a gene∣ral Rule of a particular Occasion, which ought not in reason to be insisted upon: For inasmuch as our Saviour used unleavened Bread, it was through the custom of the time, which suffered him not to have any other, seeing there was no other in the whole Country: But in the main, the design of the Son of God being to give us, in the Symboles of his Sacrament, a Figure of the vertue and efficacy of his Body broken, and of his Blood shed for the nourishment of our Souls, by the relation they have unto the vertue of these two Elements for the nourishing our Bodies; it is very evident that he would have the same Bread used to make his Eucharist, and the same Wine, which were commonly used for the preserving of life; so that if there were any Christian Nation found, which used Bread without Leven for their ordinary Food, there is no question to be made, but they may be permitted to use it for the celebration of the Sacra∣ment, and that they ought to make use of it: But in all Coun∣treys 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 lea∣vened 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 Of∣ferings 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 plain∣ly 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 com∣mon use was leavened, and that of the Eucharist unleavened, see∣ing 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 expresly and on purpose for the celebrating of the Sa∣crament, 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, * 1.72 which wrote in the Eleventh Century, and of the ancient customs of the Monastry of Cluny, 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, * 1.73 assem∣bled 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 Inter∣pretation which he giveth unto the Council of Tours, which is the plainest of the two alledged 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 separate∣ly from ordinary Bread until about the seventh or eighth Cen∣tury, 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, * 1.74 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 diffe∣rence 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 Eucha∣rist, 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 Sacra∣ment, but in that space of time which passed betwixt the Ninth and the Eleventh Century. * 1.75 Father Sirmond hath at large justi∣fied this truth, and after his manner confirmed it with such clear and strong reasons, and particularly those above-mentioned, that nothing can be added unto what he hath said, having very so∣lidly refuted what Cardinal Baronius alledged against it, and shewn that Hugo Tuscus and Rupert de Duitz were deceived when they ima∣gined, as well as Baronius, that the Latin Church had always used unleavened Bread in the Eucharist. * 1.76 In the Council of Florance, held under Pope Eugenius the Fourth, where was made, by In∣terest 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 re∣tain 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. * 1.77 Nevertheless I can∣not 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 Opi∣nion 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 Obser∣vation 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. IV.

Wherein is shewed 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 en∣sued thereupon.

IT is not sufficient to shew that Bread and Wine have always been the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist amongst Christians, excepting some few Hereticks which had changed it, others that had miserably altered and corrupted the Cele∣bration; and in fine, others which had wholly rejected it, though upon several motives and different Principles: Neither is it suf∣ficient to have hinted at the reproaches which were made against Christians upon account of the Bread and Wine in this Divine Sa∣crament, 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, imployed by Christians in the celebra∣tion of their Sacrament. I make no question but they proceeded from the liberality of Believers, who being inflamed in those hap∣py times, with the divine fire of Charity, which the Antients term, The mother and root of all Riches, the death of Sin, the life of Virtue, and the way which leads unto Paradise; they chearfully 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, with∣out 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 Lords day, or

on the days when they Assembled to participate of this Sa∣crament 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, * 1.78 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 Pastours. 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. * 1.79 And Justin Martyr in his first Apo∣logy for the Christians (it is commonly called the second) shew∣eth 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 con∣clusion of that excellent work he saith, That after Prayers and the kiss of Charity, there was presented unto the Pastour, Bread, and a Cup mingled with Wine and Water; and that he having received these things, rendred 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 Ob∣lation: which he repeats again afterwards. * 1.80 S. Cyprian also men∣tions 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. * 1.81 In like manner S. Jerom, and Pope Innocent the first, inform us, that in their time the Deacon did publickly repeat in the Church the names of those which offered. S. Ambrose Bishop of Milain in the ar∣gument upon the 118. Psalm, and according to the Hebrews the 119. teacheth us, that he that would communicate after having re∣ceived holy Baptism, was obliged to offer his present or gift at the Altar: in the Constitutions which commonly go under the Apostles names, * 1.82 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; * 1.83 Sozomen observes in his Church-History, that the Emperour Va∣lens came to Church, offered the gift upon the Table. Theodoret re∣ports the same of the Emperour 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. * 1.84 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, ought 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 loosing daily some of its ardour and strength, these Oblations were not so numerous as they were wont to be, every one easily dis∣pensing 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 al∣most extinguished; whereunto tended that of the second Coun∣cil of Mascon Assembled Anno 585, * 1.85 which ordains that all the peo∣ple should offer every Lords day the Oblation of Bread and Wine; and that of the Council of Mayence, Anno 813. Which requires that Chri∣stian people should continually be put in mind to make the Oblations; * 1.86 which is also repeated in the fifth Book of the Capitularies of Charlemain 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 Antients. I know not whe∣ther that Woman mentioned by John the Deacon in the life of Gre∣gory the first needed those exhortations of presenting her offering un∣to God, or whether she did it of her own free will, and by that ardent zeal which inspired the primitive Christians with such commenda∣ble sentiments of pity and charity; * 1.87 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 her self, the body of Christ: And forasmuch as for the most part none were admit∣ted unto the participation of the Eucharist, but those which presented their Oblations, there is a very great number of Ca∣nons in the Councils which prescribe, to whom the Oblations were to be distributed, and to whom not; but it is not necessary to alledge more proofs of this Antient custome, seeing the matter admits of no difficulty.

Nevertheless, this is not all that we intend 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 Ob∣lations

of Believers being appointed not only for the Celebra∣tion of the Sacrament, but also for the support of the Ministers and Pastours, for relief of the Poor, and generally for the ne∣cessity of the Church; it cannot be questioned as I suppose, that besides the Bread and Wine, of which was taken what was con∣venient for the Sacrament, there were also other things offered; and if we should make any question of it, the directions which we shall alledge, will soon remove this doubt and scruple. In fine, the Pastours 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, * 1.88 Milk, Birds, Beasts or Roots upon the Altar; and in the fourth it allows of offering Oyl for the lights, and incense for the times of Oblation. But to prove what hath been said, by a better au∣thority, recourse must be had unto more Authentick Monuments, and to such as bear not the marks of Forgery, as these Canons do. The first of these Monuments which presents it self 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, * 1.89 (or as Mar∣tin 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, * 1.90 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; * 1.91 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 alledge as a fragment of a Letter of Pope Julius unto the Egyptians. * 1.92 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 alledged 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. Oecumenical, Council when it transcribes in the 32. Canon, that which hath been above alledg∣ed of the Synod of Carthage, and in transcribing they appro∣priate it unto themselves, and make it their own. But if any ask the reason of this proceeding of the Fathers, I mean where∣fore 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 an∣swer, that by reason of the silence of Antient Writers, it is very dif∣ficult to answer distinctly this question; yet I will nevertheless thereupon offer my conjectures: I say then in the first place, I sup∣pose 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 applyed 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 Church-men, and for the relief of the Poor; and so there being nothing else wan∣ting 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 imagin 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 inferr'd 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. * 1.93 And what renders this conjecture the more probable, is, what S. Austin observed, * 1.94 That many amongst the Christians carried sundry sorts of meat unto the Monuments of Martyrs, and after Prayers they carried them to their Houses, ate of them, and gave Alms, with an opinion that they were sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs.

But now 'tis high time to enquire what was the form of the Bread which was offered for the Celebration of the Eucharist. The Apostle S. Paul saies in the tenth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, That we are all partakers of one Bread: This makes me think that they of∣fered upon the holy Table a Loaf, greater or less, according to the number of Communicants; the unity of this Loaf represent∣ing 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: * 1.95 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 a∣go: They offered (saith he) a great Loaf, which served them all: * 1.96 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. * 1.97 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, * 1.98 That although it appear'd that the form and measure of Oblations did antiently 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 pro∣duced what hath been above alledged 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. Oth∣mar, in the Eighth Century, when Solomon Bishop of Constance open∣ed it; * 1.99 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 setled, 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 them∣selves 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; * 1.100 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 enclined 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 Ob∣lation: and thereupon having alledged the Texts of three Evange∣lists, and of St. Paul, the Council doth thus determine; In fine, what we can collect, is, That taking a whole Loaf, he brake it, and blessed it, and gave it by Parcels unto each of his Disciples, to shew us to do the like for time to come, and without doubt to signifie that each morsel is Bread, but that all Bread is not a Morsel; whence it is that he saith in the fol∣lowing 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 shew 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, &c. is it not to teach us that we should take a whole Loaf, and set it upon the Lords 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 shew 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 midling Oblations, intend∣ing, as I conjecture, that the quantity of Bread should be propor∣tioned 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 midling 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 of∣fered 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 justifie what we have said touching the nature and form of the Bread which Christians were accustom∣ed 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 Cen∣tury, of whom we have already spoke, makes great complaints, * 1.101 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 Testa∣ment a smaller measure than a handful, and if nothing ought 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 passa∣ges in his Liturgies, adds, This Author, otherwise pious, prudent, * 1.102 and very well versed in the Traditions of the Church, saith thereupon several other things; it appears that he had much adoe 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 Lords 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 ex∣pressions, all which things I have not thought fit here to recite. But what∣ever this learned Interpreter of the Roman Order could say or do, he could not hinder but that the use of these Wafers was esta∣blished 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; * 1.103 It is said, that antiently 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 consecra∣ted; 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 Lords day, or every third Sunday, or on great Festival days, or three times a year; and by reason of the Peoples 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 inlarged 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 great∣er 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 chang∣ed 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 Commu∣nicants,

that that, which was received by the hand at the Lords Table, and was put into the mouth, was Bread; to which pur∣pose, say they, these Wafers were very fit, which were present∣ed 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 hapned not as they suppose untill after the condemna∣tion 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 di∣vers 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 Cere∣monies, and the Form of Consecrating, that is to say, the Con∣secrating 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 particular∣ly: in the former sense it was the place where Christians assembled together for the worship of Almighty God, wherein they per∣formed 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 joyn their portion unto their Brethren. S. Paul ex∣plains himself clearly, * 1.104 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, * 1.105 he saith, That they all did persevere in the Doctrine and Communion of the Apostles, * 1.106 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, * 1.107 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, * 1.108 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. Jude, whose Epistle is only an abridgment of S. Peters, speaks so plainly, that he leaves us not the least cause of doubt, * 1.109 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 Antient 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: * 1.110 Our Supper (saith he) shews 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 Per∣sons 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 pre∣sent 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 at∣tended 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 joyned to the Celebration of the Sacrament, is what is not easily done; it will not be so hard to shew 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 cele∣brated the Eucharist. For I find that this was practised to∣wards the end of the IV. Century; but because there were great abuses crept into these Feasts, the Council of Lao∣dicea assembled about the year of our Lord 360. was con∣strained to forbid the use of them in the Temples and Churches; You must forbear (saith he) making the Agapae in the Temples, * 1.111 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 Eu∣charist was celebrated and consecrated, was the place where Be∣lievers 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 where∣in the Church of Christ was; at the first beginning of Christia∣nity, they assembled in private houses, sometimes in one place, sometimes in another; in private and obscure places to be shel∣tered, 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, whilest the Church was harrassed with Persecutions, and because that some∣times 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 Sepulchres of Martyrs; which by the Emperour 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 Sacra∣ment, 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 joyning to their Church-yards, which were places distant from the sight of Men, where by con∣sequence they assembled with greater safety. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius doth testifie 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 Emperours, during which they atempted some better and larger Buildings, than those which they had be∣fore. 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 Emperour, 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 untill Con∣stantine imbraced the Christian Religion. For then the Church breathing quietly under a Prince which cherisht her, and gratify'd 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 Monu∣ments of the Rest and Plenty which they enjoyed under the first Christian Emperour.

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 it self. I only say that it was in the IV. Century that they began to be consecrated, but after a manner intirely different from that at this time used a∣mongst the Latins; and that it was about the same time prohibi∣tions 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 Con∣secration was made: whilest 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 other∣wise. Moreover, the Roman Catholicks 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 then that the Corinthians made their Feasts of Charity, and made alto∣gether 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 con∣sider 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: * 1.112 For as S. Isidore of Sevill saith, It is called a Supper from the Communion of those which eat; * 1.113 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, com∣mon 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 pla∣ced, there to consecrate this august Sacrament, and there to di∣stribute 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 Con∣secration was made. In Minutius Felix, the Infidel demands, * 1.114 Where∣fore Christians have no Altars? and the Christian answers thus, whereby he confesseth they have none; Do you think that we hide what we do adore, because we have no Temples nor Altars? * 1.115 The Philoso∣pher 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 truely and intelligibly, the perfumes of a sweet smell, that is, prayers from a pure conscience. Christians neverthe∣less 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 Consecra∣tion and of celebrating the Eucharist; yet I judge that the first place of Antiquity where the Altar is mentioned, is (if my me∣mory fail me not) in the Book of Prayer made by Tertullian. * 1.116 Your Station (saith he) will be more solemn, if you stand-upright at the Altar of God. Since which time the Antient Doctors have fre∣quently used that manner of Speech; and as they frequently spake of the Altar, so they commonly spake of the Table: and I ve∣rily believe whosoever would collect the expressions of Table and Altar, which are to be found in the writings of the Antients, to denote the place where the Consecration of the Eucharist was made, might compose a compleat Volume of them: so that there being nothing more frequent in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Anti∣quity than the terms of Altar and of Table, to signify one and the same thing; it were to tire the Readers patience, to alledge proofs of so evident a truth, and which is owned by all: for I do not find that the Protestants deny unto the Roman Catholicks, that the Fathers have often called the holy Table an Al∣tar; and in truth they cannot without renouncing all sincerity and modesty: neither do I find that the Roman Catholicks do deny unto the Protestants, but that the same Fathers do often make men∣tion 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 numbred in the writings of S. Chrysostom, and S. Au∣stin; and if any desire to satisfie 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 E∣pistle to the Hermits, and in that which he writ unto the Ortho∣dox; 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 Iambicks 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, where∣unto 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 carryed them away; * 1.117 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 linnen cloth. * 1.118 S. Austin makes mention of a Catholick Bishop who was killed by these bar∣barous and inhuman Schismaticks with the Wood or pieces of an Altar which they had broken. S. Athanasius doth expresly ob∣serve in his Letter unto the Mourners, * 1.119 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. * 1.120 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, * 1.121 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 Catholick Bishop of Bagaia took to preserve himself from the Cru∣elty of the Donatists, which S. Austin tells us was slain by those cru∣el persons, which slew him with the pieces of the Altar, * 1.122 under which he lay. Moreover, it must be considered that when the Antients do speak of an Altar, they do not mean the thing whereon the Eu∣charist was celebrated, and which they promiscuously called Ta∣ble 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 Laodi∣cea, 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: * 1.123 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 accessi∣ble and alike common unto all persons, * 1.124 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, * 1.125 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 Pastour, of whom he speaks as of its most holy place. * 1.126 St. Chrysostom speaks plainly of the Al∣tar of the Temple where he lived, as having but one; and else∣where he takes occasion to exhort his hearers unto unity, be∣cause there is but one Baptism, one only Table, and one Baptis∣mal 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, * 1.127 when observing that the Church of An∣tioch was contrived after a manner very different from other Churches, * 1.128 he gives this reason, That the Altar therein stood to the West, and not to the East. St. Athanasius, making mention of the plunder∣ing 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; * 1.129 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, * 1.130 Marcellini and Faustin, representing in their re∣quest unto the Emperors, the ruine 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, * 1.131 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 ad∣mits of no difficulty. Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, writing a∣gainst 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 intend or mean se∣veral Churches, or that it must be an indefinite proposition, and not to be applied unto any particular place. This custom of one Ta∣ble 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, * 1.132 as Goar observes in his Notes upon the Euchologie or Ri∣tual of that Nation; nor amongst the Moscovites, by the rela∣tion of Sigismond, in his Memoirs of Muscovia; and amongst the Abassins, which are in Prester John's Country, as appears by the re∣lation 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 sheweth that by the Thirteen Altars, which, by the relation of Gregory the First, had been erected by Palladius, Bishop of Xaintus, must not be un∣derstood 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 un∣to those of Catholick 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, * 1.133 they began in such a manner to multiply Al∣tars in Churches, that the Emperour Charlemain, 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 no∣tice,

if he please, That movable Altars were not introduced a∣mongst 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 al∣ledge of Ives of Chartres, who died in the twelfth Century, not re∣garding, as I suppose, the use of these kinds of Altars, whatever may be, * 1.134 it sufficiently appears that they were unknown in the fifth Century, because Theodoret made use of the hands of his Dea∣cons, * 1.135 instead of an Altar, to celebrate the Sacrament in the Cell of Maris; and before him, the Martyr Lucian made use of his Breast. * 1.136

It may be inferr'd from what hath been said, That the antient Christians did not believe, as the Latins do at this time, That an Altar was absolutely necessary for the Celebration of the Sa∣crament, 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 Cele∣bration there performed is unlawful; but it was otherwise at the beginning▪ * 1.137 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; * 1.138 for that whereof mention is made by Gre∣gory 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 Sacra∣ment; whereunto amounts also what is said by St. Chrysostom in some of his Homilies, * 1.139 That the Altar is by nature a Stone, but it be∣comes holy when it receives the Body of Jesus Christ. The first unsus∣pected place of Antiquity, wherein there is mention made of the consecration of Altars, is the Council of Agde, in the year 506. for it prescribes this Rule, * 1.140 It hath seemed good unto the Council, that the Altars should be consecrated, not only by the Ʋnction of Chrisme, but also by the Priestly Benediction. * 1.141 The Council of Epaum••, Anno 517. only speaketh of the Unction of Chrisme. In the ninth Century they added Water unto the Chrisme, and the Odor of Incense, as we read in Raba••us, * 1.142 and in Walafridus Strabo, who refer un∣to the Council of Agde the first Institution of the Consecration and Benediction of Altars. But men rested not there; they augment∣ed 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 se∣cond 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, where∣with they cover their Altars, and of a kind of a Vail 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 an∣tient Christians, they contented themselves in spreading upon their Communion-Table, at the time of celebrating the Sacra∣ment, a clean Table-cloth, for decency sake, which is also pra∣ctised 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 testifie, whom we have alledged as Witnesses: * 1.143 Alvarez observing further that the Abassins found fault with the Mass of the Romanists, for not admi∣nistring the Communion unto all that assisted. Cassander, * 1.144 in his Liturgies, has observed, That in the Mass or Eucharist of the Armenians, all did communicate; which doth shew, if I mistake not, that this custom was very antient, seeing this People, who are fallen into ignorance, and multiply the number of Ceremo∣nies, rather than lessen them, have been careful faithfully to pre∣serve 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 Fome, that is, to re-ite∣rate the Celebration of the Sacrament as often as the Church should be filled with a new Assembly: * 1.145 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 ce∣lebrating 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, * 1.146 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 antients 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, * 1.147 and observes, That whilst the chiefest of them lived, neither of the others could consecrate, nor censure, * 1.148 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, * 1.149 and the rest content themselves in hearing him. Goar, 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 satisfie the motions of their Piety and Devotion; * 1.150 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. * 1.151 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, * 1.152 not of Ʋtica, as he is commonly called, but of Vita, com∣plains that Proculus, Executioner of the cruelties of Gensericus King of the Vandales, against Catholicks, That he had made Shirts and Drawers of them; this Body-cloth was to be of very fine Linen, and not of Silk, * 1.153 nor of Purple, nor of any coloured stuff, as Ra∣banus Archbishop of Mayence reports, which refers this ordinance unto Pope Silvester, others refer it unto Pope Eusebius. Venera∣ble Bede, * 1.154 speaking of the action of Joseph of Arimathea, who ha∣ving

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, * 1.155 from whence S. Isidore of Damieta saith, This clean Linen which is spead 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 Shew-Bread upon a Linen, or Table-Cloth. Some write that in Italy and in Germany they use two Cor∣porals of fine Linen, whereas in France there was but one. * 1.156 But as for Chalices they were not at all times nor in all places of one and the same matter: whil'st 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 Tertul∣lian; for answering an argument which the Catholicks drew from a picture they had in their Chalices, and which represented the good Shepherd carying the lost Sheep upon his back; Put in practice (saith he,) the very Pictures of your Chalices; * 1.157 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, * 1.158 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, * 1.159 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 exam∣ple, he adds, The blood of Christ is it not in a Glass? And although this Author saith there were many who would not imitate him in an Action which they could not but commend; yet I cannot be

perswaded, but that there were to be found other good Bishops, who considering, as Exuperius of Tholouse, and S. Caesarius of Arles, that the riches of the Church are the Patrimony of the Poor, did in suffering and calamitous times, imploy all the Gold and Silver of their Churches, either to sustain their Poor or re∣deem 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. * 1.160 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: * 1.161 The Chalices of Glass and Plates or Patins of Glass were antiently made use of in Livine Service, there is mention made of Plates of Glass in the Pontifical in the life of Pope Zephyrin, of a Glass Chalice in the 4th. Epistle of S. Jerom to Rusticus, speak∣ing 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 Heretick who lived presently after their days, to imitate the Catholick Church, using a Glass Chalice in his divine Service betwitched the people with certain impostures, and by Sorcery making the Wine which looked white in the Glass, to turn Red by his slights, so that the Wine seemed to be changed into Blood; but in the Council of Rheems held under Charles the great, Glass Chalices were forbidden and that very reasonably, because of the danger there was in that brittle stuff; you have thereupon the Canon, ut Calix de Consecrat. di∣stinct. 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 pro∣hibiting of Glass Chalices in the Reign of Charlemain, * 1.162 in one of the Councils of Rheems, he takes from the Canonist Gratian, whose autho∣rity is not always to be allowed, no more than the other Collectors of Canons; for as Monsieur de Launoy a Doctor of Sorbon hath ju∣diciously observed in his Treatise of the times, antiently appointed for administring holy Baptism, * 1.163 The Antient Collectors do change and cut off from the Canons of Councils what things they suppose either to be abolished and useless, or different from the customs of their times. They have (saith he) fitted the Antient Canons to the discipline of their own times. * 1.164 And Cardinal Bellarmine in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, * 1.165 saith in particular of Gratian, That he had not well chosen the Authors from whence he had gathered his Decrees; and he instances in some examples which he pretends to be so many mistakes in the Author, and indeed to return to the prohibition of Glass Chalicesby a Council of Rheems, we find no such matter, if my memory fail not,

in any of the Councils held under Charlemain, although we have a great number of them: as for Wooden Chalices, we have at this time the Canon whence Gratian took it, it is the 18. of the council of Trybur assembled Anno 895. * 1.166 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 Com∣municants. The Latin Church doth not suffer Consecration to be made in any thing but a Gold or Silver Chalice, or at least of Pew∣ter, 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. * 1.167 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, * 1.168 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 Antient Christians never ha∣ving been blamed for consecrating and administring 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 Ce∣lebration 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 spake always during his living in the Flesh, and during the course of his Ministry; otherwise he could not have been under∣stood 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 Saviours coming into the World, but was a corrupt Hebrew, and altered and mixt with Chaldee, and Sy∣riack; 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 Sa∣viour 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 meerly for convert∣ing the World, but also that they might preach the Gospel, admi∣nister the Sacraments, and in a word exercise all the other functi∣ons 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 antient 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 shews very clearly,

that every People and Nation desired to serve God in their own Language; S. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. John; * 1.169 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: * 1.170 and upon the 2 Epistle of the Thessa∣lonians, 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. * 1.171 of the 1 to the Corinthians saith, It hath been given to Preachers by reason of the Diversities of mens 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 Corin∣thians could not have understood them. And in his Therapeutick or man∣ner of healing the affections of the Greeks; * 1.172 We do plainly and evidently shew unto you the force and vigour of the Prophetical and Evan∣gelical Doctrine; for all parts of the World under the Sun are filled with the fame of it, * 1.173 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, * 1.174 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, * 1.175 The Gospel (saith he,) was in a very short space preached throughout the whole world, and the Barbarians and the Greeks received in their Cha∣racters 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, * 1.176 That the Holy Scri∣ptures were translated into several Languages. * 1.177 S. Austin; From thence it is, that the holy Scriptures which are a remedy of so many troubles in mens 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 Ʋlphilas Bishop of the Goths under the Emperour Constance, as Socrates doth testi∣fie 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 Gods 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 Antient Ma∣sters. 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 dyed in the year of our Lord 420. In the Arabick 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 trans∣ferr'd 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 a∣mongst the Christians ever thought of condemning this wise con∣duct of the Church until the year 1228 that a certain Council of Tholouse, * 1.178 assembled against the Albigenses and Waldenses made this Decree; We also forbid 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 Virgins 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 anony∣mous Author made an Apology in England for the Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Language of the Country; * 1.179 as is related by Ʋsher Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland. At

this time (saith that Author) our Bishops burn the Law of God, be∣cause 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 Lan∣guage 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 Ho∣ly Fathers have so frequently and carefully recommended the read∣ing 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 particu∣larly if it were performed, as hath been said, in a Language under∣stood by the People: All men will agree, if I mistake not, that Prayers, Invocation, and giving praises unto God, are the essen∣tial 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. * 1.180 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 Ro∣man words, each one praying unto God in their own Language, and ce∣lebrate 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. Gauden∣tius

Bishop of Bress exhorts his Neophytes, * 1.181 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 un∣known 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, then 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, then 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. * 1.182 S. Austin, Care must be taken to warn those which come from Schools, that being cloathed with Christian humility, they should learn not to despise those which endeavour rather to shun evil actions than words, &c. 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 aware, 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 publick place with the sound of the voice. * 1.183 Isidore of Sevil, The read∣ing of the word of God, is of no small profit unto those which hearken 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 cun∣tent to worship God; and having made the sign of the Cross, let him heark∣en attentively; there is a time to pray when all do pray, to pray in pri∣vate 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 com∣mands 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. * 1.184 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 bene∣diction should be confirmed; for the confirmation of the prayer is compleated by those which say Amen. Cassander in his Liturgies, cites these

words out of an antient Manuscript of the Roman order, * 1.185 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 peo∣ple in things to be understood by the distinction of the Spirit and of the Voice. And the Roman Pontifical, Imprinted at Venice, Anno 1582. speak∣ing of the Ordination of Readers, * 1.186 The Reader must read what he doth preach, and that he sing the Lessons, &c. Study therefore to pro∣nounce 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 cor∣rupted, through your negligence, to the prejudice of those who hear and be∣lieve 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 Communi∣cants. In the first place, all the antient 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 celebra∣ting; 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 Nazian∣zen said of Nonna, his Mother, in his 13th Oration, That her voice was never heard in the holy Assemblies, excepting at the necessa∣ry 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 spake to them in a Language which was understood by them. In the third place, it was antiently the custom amongst Christians, that when the Pastor had made an end of the Prayer, wherewith he conse∣crated the Eucharist, all the people, joyning 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 se∣cond Apology, whose Testimony shall suffice in so evident a mat∣ter: 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 Alexan∣dria,

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 Baptized; * 1.187 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 Eu∣charist, He had (saith he) often heard the Prayers, and answered A∣men 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, * 1.188 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 pre∣sence 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 se∣veral Nations, the English, Britans, Scotch, that is, Irish, the Picts, and the Latins. And what he saith of the unity of the Faith, ought, if I mistake not, to be understood also of the unity of Worship in essential things: for as each of those Nations retained the uni∣ty 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 Sylvius, afterwards Pope, under the name of Pius the second, thus relates it in his History of Bohemia; * 1.189 It is said that Cyrill, 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 Bap∣tised, that is to say, Converted; That as the matter was debated in the Sacred Colledge, 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 Cyrill 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, Em∣peror of the East, and of Pope Nicolas the First; he, with Me∣thodius, 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 antiently 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 Arch∣bishop, with power to celebrate Mass and Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue. We have just cause to commend (saith this Pope, * 1.190 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 re∣cited 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 enjoyns us this Com∣mandment when it saith, All Nations praise the Lord, and all People bless his name; and the Apostles, being filled with the Holy Ghost, spake 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 edifie 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 He∣brew, Greek, and Latine, 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 Latine: 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 Chri∣stians 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. * 1.191 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 expresly enjoyn 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, * 1.192 That it were better for the edification of the Church, tha•• publick 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 Co∣rinthians. * 1.193 George Cassander, who lived and dyed 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 antient Church, some heed were to be taken of the People in the publick 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 un∣derstand 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: * 1.194 And having alledged the words of Aeneas Sylvius, and those of Cajetan, he adds, Ʋnto those, who have the con∣duct and Government of the Church at this time, it were no hard mat∣ter to establish and settle these and the like things, according to the pure and antient 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 com∣mitted, 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, * 1.195 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 shew. This was also the Testimony of Erasmus which is cited in the Margin of Cassander's Book, just by the words first alledged: * 1.196 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 antient times, and that all things were so plainly and so distinctly spoken, that those which hearkened, might understand them. Queen Katherine de Medicis desired of the Pope by her Letters dated Anno. 1561. the use of the Language under∣stood

stood by the people, for the Celebration of the Sacrament, as is reported by the President De Thou, in his History. * 1.197

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 Frier Alvarez, the Baron Sigismund, James de Vitry, and several others; the Liburnians, the Illyrians or Sclavonians, as is observed by Aven∣tine, 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 Catholicks. 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 Antient Greek; but thereunto two things are replyed: first that the Corruption hapned 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 Di∣vine 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 antient Liturgies of St. Basil and of St. Chrysostom, which they make use of; and that by that means notwithstanding the alteration befaln their Language, they understand the things therein expressed. Therefore the peo∣ple make at this present the same Answers which they did here∣tofore; the 123. Constitution of the Emperor Jovinian who lived in the VI. Century may take place in this matter of the Lan∣guage understood by the people in Divine Service; for he com∣mands 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, * 1.198 That the Mass ought to be celebrated only in the vulgar Tongue: I answer,

that I pretend not to answer this question of my self, 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 Summ of Divine Offices; * 1.199 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 wholesom 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 ones peace than sing, and be silent than dance.

CHAP. VII.

Of the Ceremonies, and of the manner of Consecrati∣on.

JESƲS Christ celebrated his Sacrament with so much simpli∣city and so few Ceremonies according to the Nature of his Gospel, which is wholly Spiritual, that there is none ap∣pears 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. * 1.200 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 Sa∣crament; 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 where∣in 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 pre∣tended Denys the Areopagite, * 1.201 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 Apo∣stolical, (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 Fanns to drive away Flies, and other little insects, 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, conclu∣ding 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, * 1.202 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 sanctifie 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 imma∣culate 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; * 1.203 O Lord, Holy, Almighty and terri∣ble, which dwellest in the Holy Places, sanctifie 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, sanctifie 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 Thanks∣giving. 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 Commu∣nion Table, where they are to be consecrated, with so great Pomp, Solemnity and Ceremony, that the ignorant people dazled with the Ceremonies, forbear not to give unto these Elements before they are consecrated, such an honour as doth not belong unto them. * 1.204 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 Constitu∣tions, 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 shew how this consecrating Liturgy was couched; for after having ended the recital of the History of the Eucharist by these words, * 1.205 Do this in remembrance of me, for as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye shew 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 wouldest favourably behold these gifts which are presented before thee, and that thou wouldest therein do thy good pleasure for the honour of thy Christ, and that thou wouldest 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 Litur∣gy of St. James it is said, O Lord send thine Holy Spirit upon us, * 1.206 and upon these sacred Elements which are offered, to the end that coming up∣on them, he may sanctifie 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, * 1.207 to send down thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Loaves and these Chalices, to sanctifie 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. Chrysostome, 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 antiently, 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 con∣secrate the Divine Symbols, even in the West, during the space of a

thousand years. And to the end this truth should be made mani∣fest, this question must be throughly examined, to wit, whether the Antients did consecrate by Prayers and Invocations, and by thanks∣givings, 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 testifie, 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 sence and mean∣ing they signifie one and the same thing. The reason where∣of 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: there∣fore Justin Martyr speaks of Prayers which the Pastour made after having received the Bread and Wine mingled with Water which was presented unto him; * 1.208 he calls the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in the Act of Communion, The Bread and Wine whereon Prayers were made, and saith expresly, That this food is conse∣crated by Prayer. * 1.209 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 sanctifie the Creature. This is also the Language of Tertullian writing against Marcion, * 1.210 for he observes, that if Jesus Christ had not been the Son of the Creatour, as this Heretick de∣ny'd, he would not have given thanks unto another God upon a Creature that had been none of his. * 1.211 It is unto Prayer and Thanksgiving that Clemens of Alexandria refers the Consecration of the Eucharist of our Lord; * 1.212 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. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his Mystagogi∣cal Catechisms, The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Invo∣cation 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. * 1.213 Juvencus a Priest of Spain, in his Evangelical History which he compos'd in Latin verse; Having, saith he, devoutly prayed. * 1.214 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; * 1.215 The mystical Oyl, 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 else∣where. The Bread is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer. And elsewhere, * 1.216 The nature of visible things is transelemented by the virtue

of the benediction. St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, * 1.217 As often as we take the Sacraments, which by the mystery of holy Prayer are transfigured into his flesh and blood, we do shew the Lords death. Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia, describing the cruelties and rage of the Donatists against Catholicks, and marking particularly against what they shew'd it: What (saith he) is more sacrilegious than to break, tear, * 1.218 and destroy the Altars of God whereon you your selves have sometimes offered, &c. where the Almighty God, hath been invoked, where the Holy Ghost drawn down by Prayers, hath descended. * 1.219 Theophilus of Alexan∣dria 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, * 1.220 When our Saviour presented unto the Disciples the consecrated Bread and Wine, he said, This is my Body; in speaking after this manner, he shewed 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 brake it, * 1.221 in type of his immaculate Body, and blessed the Cup in figure of his pretious Blood. St. Chrysostom in his Homilies upon St. Matthew, The Lord gave thanks, shewing us how we should celebrate this Sacrament. * 1.222 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 E∣vagrius, reproving the pride and vanity of the Deacons which rashly advanced themselves above the Priests: Who can endure, (saith he,) * 1.223 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, * 1.224 We mean by prayers, those which we make in celebrating the Sacraments before we begin to bless what is upon the Lords Table, and by Benedi∣ctions those which are made when they are blessed and sanctified, and broke in pieces to be distributed. And in the Books of the Trini∣ty, We call that only the Body and blood of Jesus Christ, * 1.225 which being ta∣ken from the fruits of the Earth is consecrated by prayer. And else∣where, writing against the Donatists which rejected the Sacraments consecrated and administred by Sinners; What then, saith he, * 1.226 doth God hear an homicide praying either on the Water of Baptism, or on the Oyl, or up∣on the Eucharist. And in fine, in another place, * 1.227 it is not all sorts of Bread that is made the Body of Christ, but that which receives the blessing of Jesus Christ. S. Cyrill of Alexandria doth very frequently call the Eucharist, * 1.228 Eulogy, that is, Blessing, because there's no doubt but that 'tis conse∣crated by Blessing and Prayers. And that blessing is all one, in St. Cyril's sense, with Sanctification and Consecration, he shews

plainly, * 1.229 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, * 1.230 What do you call the Oblation which is offered be∣fore 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 Pre∣dictions; * 1.231 He affirms at his Table, that the Bread is his sacred Body. A fragment of a Liturgy attributed unto Proclus Bishop of Constantino∣ple, 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 of∣fered, and the Wine mingled with Water, into the Body it self, or to be the Body of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Victor of Antioch in his Commen∣tary upon St. Mark according to the Greek, * 1.232 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 un∣certain whose the Sermon is, the words whereof we intend to cite: They are consecrated by the invocation of Almighty God; * 1.233 and in the same Sermon he attributes it unto sanctification. The Sanctification (saith he) being pronounced, he saith, Take and drink. Facundus of Hermi∣ane, 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, * 1.234 What we say of the Lords Prayer presently after invocation, it is because the Apostles were wont to consecrate the host of the Oblation, * 1.235 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, * 1.236 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 Charlemain touching Images, The Sacrament of the Body and blood of our Lord, &c. is consecrated by the Priest by the in∣vocation of the name of God. * 1.237 Rabanus Maurus, The Lord first of all conse∣crated 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. * 1.238 And again, As the Body of Jesus Christ was embalmed with sweet Spices, was duely put into a new Sepulchre; so in like manner in his Church, his mystical Body being pre∣pared with the perfumes of Holy Prayer, it is administred in sacred Vessels, by the Ministry of Priests, * 1.239 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 above-mentioned and which are frequently alledged, they were doubtless sufficient to prove that in the Primitive Church the Consecration of the Sym∣bols 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 joyn the following testimonies unto the former: To begin with St. Fulgentius who in the Fragments of his Books against Fabian saith, * 1.240 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 sanctifie the Sacrifice and Bap∣tism, by his Divine Vertue. Macarius Bishop of Antioch in the eighth Act of the VI. general Council: We, saith he, * 1.241 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, * 1.242 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 intire 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, * 1.243 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, * 1.244 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 antient Formularies of an uncertain Au∣thor published by the late Monsieur Bignon, * 1.245 the Author whereof lived in the days of Louis 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, * 1.246 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 Empe∣ror of Constantinople, * 1.247 attributes the Consecration unto the benedi∣ction and Sanctification of the Holy Ghost. Which words are found cited in the IV. Act of the Council assembled against Photius, * 1.248 which the Latins call the VIII. Oecumenical Council. The Council of Cressy assembled Anno. 858. saith, * 1.249 That Consecratton is made by

Prayer, and by the sign of the Cross. Charles the Bald, King of France, and Emperour of the West, writing unto Pope Adrian the se∣cond, 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, * 1.250 as make the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by devout and holy Prayer. Hugh Maynard, a Benedictine Frier, alledges 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 Sa∣crifices are those which are consecrated with Prayers; * 1.251 and in the other, Sacrifices, that is, things made holy, because they are consecrated by mi∣stical Prayer. Which words, as is observed by this learned Frier, were upon a matter taken out of S. Isidore, lib. 6. Orig. c. 19. Rathe∣rius, Bishop of Verona in Italy, in the tenth Century, in his Trea∣tise of the contempt of Canons, * 1.252 first Part. The Oblation, saith he, which is to be presented and distributed unto the People, is consecrated chiefly 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 Goar, of the Order of Preaching Friers, who hath left us the Euchology or Ritual of the Greeks, with Notes of a very sound judgment, 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 cites these words of the Liturgy which goes under St. Chry∣sostom's name, * 1.253 We also offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody Sa∣crifice, and we beseech thee that thou wouldest 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, Goar makes a very long observation; * 1.254 in the first place he observes up∣on these words, send thy holy Spirit, That there is a very great difference betwixt the new Editions of this Liturgy of St. Chry∣sostom's and the antient Manuscripts; That some of the late Greeks have from hence drawn some kind of shew 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 Con∣secration was made by Prayers, as some Greeks have vainly sup∣posed, seeing, saith he, he attributes elsewhere unto the words of Christ, the vertue 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 o∣thers, have been deceived, and have cast the ignorant into Er∣ror; and 'tis not to be denied but the most part of the Greeks have written darkly and dubiously, and that gave way unto Er∣ror in minds that were unstedfast; And in fine, hath commend∣ed 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 mens labours, we should endeavour to do it by new inventions. But that it self shews plainly, that the Greeks did con∣secrate otherwise than the Latins. Besides, the Reader may easily perceive, both by what we have said, and by the proceeding of Bessarion, Arcudius, and Goar, what is the manner of the Con∣secration of the Symboles 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, * 1.255 the most favourable con∣struction he could contrive, because they attribute all the Con∣secration unto Prayers, and doth blame Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus, Simeon of Thessalonica, Gabriel of Philadelphia, Samonas, Jeremy, Patri∣arch of Constantinople, because they taught that the Consecration of Symboles was made by Prayers. But this proceeding suffici∣ently doth shew that the Greek Church never owned any other form of Consecration. But to return unto James Goar, * 1.256 he saith one thing which ought not to be past 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 ver∣tue of Consecration ought to be attributed, and to confirm what he saith, he alledges the Answer they made unto Pope Eugeni∣us, 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 compleat: the Answer, I say, which was made him in the behalf of the whole Nation, by the Bi∣shops 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 learn∣ed Goar had seen, before publishing his Euchology, the true Hi∣story of the Council of Florence, by Sylvester Sguropulus, great Ec∣clesiastick of the Church of Constantinople, and one of the five Coun∣sellors of the Patriarch, and by consequence of the chiefest of the Assembly of the Greeks, he would not have said that the four Bishops above-mentioned had answered Pope Eugenius in be∣half of the whole Nation; * 1.257 for the truth is, the Greek Emperor having at last agreed with the Latins upon four Articles, with∣out 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 conse∣crate the Bread and the Cup; and that the Greeks erred very much in using of Prayers, and invoking the Holy Ghost, after pro∣nouncing the words of our Lord. Whereupon there were seve∣ral contests between the Emperor of Constantinople and the La∣tins, * 1.258 who said unto them, If you would believe, as the great St. Ba∣sil and the great St. Chrysostom taught, thus to consecrate and sancti∣fie 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 Popes Palace, ex∣cepting Mark of Ephesus, the most zealous of the whole Nation, and that the Question being again re-assum'd, 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 com∣mand Mark of Ephesus to set down something in writing touch∣ing this Question, which he did; and he therein shewed that the Holy Fathers taught to consecrate the Divine Oblations; * 1.259 as (saith he) all our Priests do consecrate. In the Eighth Chapter of the same Section, the same Historian, who was always pre∣sent, writes, 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 Pro∣tonotary write: and as this Bishop spake by order of the Em∣peror,

and drew near the end of his discourse, he bid him speak touching the mystical Sacrifice, saying, * 1.260 What the Roman Church be∣lieveth 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 sanctifie and consecrate them: herein we agree with you, yet we say also that the Priest doth contribute thereunto, as the Husband-man by his Labour contributes unto the production of the Fruits of the Earth; but we re∣fer 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 un∣to this discourse of the Bishop of Nice, who spoke so well that he obtained a Cardinals Cap, and was afterwards sufficiently known by the name of Cardinal Bessarion; * 1.261 It was (saith the Hi∣storian) the design and scope of the Cardinal of Nice to deliver him∣self 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 oc∣casion 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 Bi∣shop 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 con∣cord things were carried. It was then after this manner things pas∣sed 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 re∣assume our discourse, say, That if some of the antient Doctors of the Church made the Consecration of the Symboles 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 Conse∣cration by Prayer, as for Instance, St. Chrysostome, 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 Conse∣cration unto these words, This is my Body, but as unto words de∣claring what was before befaln: 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, where∣by 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 Conse∣cration unto these words, This is my Body, are not of the num∣ber of those who have already declared in favour of a Conse∣cration by the vertue of Prayer, of necessity their thoughts must be interpreted after the manner as hath been said, or freely con∣fess 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, * 1.262 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 Catholicks, the rashness of one, or of a few, ought to be op∣posed, 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, * 1.263 Whatsoever a private person believes more than others, or against others, were he Doctor, Bishop, Confessor, Martyr, let them be ac∣counted as low opinions, proper to himself, hidden and private, and let it not be owned to have the authority of an opinion, commonly, publickly, and generally received. Arcudius, a Greek Latinized, doth not differ much from the thoughts of Vincentius, when speaking of the man∣ner and form of Consecration, * 1.264 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; joyn the lesser number unto the great∣er, and follow the judgment of the most considerable, the most learned, and of those which are much of the greatest number: which words Goar finds much to his liking, * 1.265 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 Consecra∣tion, and the great consequence of it, let us compare the Con∣secration of Pagans, unto that of Christians, for many times these sorts of Comparisons do tend very much to the clearing of mat∣ters in question. The Pagans called Consecration a certain For∣mulary, whereby their Priests caused the Divinity which they adored, to be present in his Image; and this Formulary was no∣thing 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, * 1.266 but they change their fate by Consecration: And Minutius Felix, See it is melt∣ed, forged, wrought, and is not yet a God; see it is polished, built, e∣rected, 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. * 1.267 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. Ar∣nobius brings in the Pagan answering the Christian after this man∣ner, You err, and are deceived, * 1.268 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 in∣troduce, * 1.269 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, * 1.270 saith, That when they were made, they felt it not, nor when they are worship∣ed they know it not, for they became not sensible by Consecration. But as for the Sanctification and Consecration of Christians, it con∣sisted 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 sanctifie 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 sanctifie our Souls, or to nourish them, depending upon the Holy and Religious use unto which they are apply'd, and on the efficacy of the Spirit acting at the same time; to the end that they should not only signifie, but also that they should seal in our Souls, and that they should exhibit and communicate, when they are administred, the things which they signifie and represent. Now let us see if this were the belief of the Holy Fathers of the Church. * 1.271 Origen upon Levitiecus: There is, born in my house (saith he) the First∣ling

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, * 1.272 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 sanctifie any thing is to devote it unto God. The great St. * 1.273 Basil, Sanctification consists in adhering locally and in∣separably 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, * 1.274 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. Cyrill of Alex∣andria in his Commentaries upon Esay, * 1.275 What is said to be sanctified shall not always partake of sanctification, but rather it signifies to be con∣secrated unto the glory of God, as what he saith unto Moses, Sanctifie unto me all the first-born which open the Matrix, all the Males unto the Lord, * 1.276 and in those places, [sanctifie] 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 alter'd from what it was not, * 1.277 when it is sanctified. And in his Paschal Ho∣milies, To sanctifie, is to consecrate and offer some excellent Oblation unto the God of the whole Ʋniverse. Hesychius of Jerusalem, That which is sanctified and offered, begins to be sanctified, even by being offered; it was not then Holy before. The Frier Jovius in the Li∣brary of the Patriarch Photius, * 1.278 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 imploy'd about any common use. Even Thomas Aquinas himself, who although he lived in an Age wherein the Do∣ctrine 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. * 1.279 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 applyed unto the service of God.

I should here end the examination of the question of Conse∣cration, 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 Consecra∣tion 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 shew, that they consecrated with a loud voice; this also is justified by most of the Liturgies which remain unto us, where it is expresly ob∣served, that the pronouncing of these words was done with a loud voice, as in those attributed unto St. Peter, St. Mark, * 1.280 St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom. Raoul de Tongres writes that it was so practised even in the Church of Millan, conformable unto the Liturgy of St. Ambrose, which this Church retained very punctu∣ally almost unto these last times. Hugh Maynard and James Goar 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 Emperour Justi∣nian who reigned in the V. Century, viz. the 123, wherein he ordains to make the Divine Oblation; that is to say, as Photius ex∣plains it in his Nomocanon, Tit. 3. Can. 1. The Prayers of the holy Com∣munion, 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. Cen∣tury; 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. More∣over those which in that Age wrote of Divine and Ecclesiasti∣cal 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, * 1.281 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 man∣ner 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 cloakt himself under the name of Al∣cuin who was dead about two hundred years before this Treatise was composed, * 1.282 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 Sacra∣mental 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 antient custome contrary to what is even unto this day practised amongst the Greeks, the Syrians, the E∣thiopians, 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 antient the custom of consecrating with a low voice, have had recourse un∣to the spiritual Meadow of John Moschus who lived in the VII. Century; Its true he relates two different Histories (at least if they may be called Histories) which being joyned together con∣tain 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 easiy 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 Consecra∣tion 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 ha∣ving blessed and sanctified it; which simplicity was very pleasing unto those who lived in the following Age. For Justin Martyr doth testifie that the Consecration of the Symbols was followed by the Communion of Believers, which necessarily presupposed the break∣ing the Bread, therefore he forbore expressing it at large. But their Successors, thinking they ought to raise and advance the dig∣nity of this Mystery, and to elevate the simplicity of it, with di∣vers 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; joyned 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 scan∣dalized 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 Chri∣stianity 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 antient, 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: * 1.283 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 Sa∣muel, 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 wouldest receive of us who are sin∣ners, these gifts which we offer unto thee: Grant that our Oblation may be agreeable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, for the propi∣tiation 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 cal∣led not only Oblation, but also Sacrifice, as we have shewn in examining whence the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were taken. * 1.284 And in fine, St. Cyprian doth positively call this Action a Sacrifice in that place of his formerly alledged. 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 shew∣ed in the foregoing Chapter: but because that in some sort re∣lates 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 Constitu∣tions, * 1.285 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 wouldest accept them for the ho∣nour of thy Son, and that thou wouldest send the Holy Ghost upon this Sacrifice, &c. It is very likely they did after this manner, thinking that Jesus Christ who began the Celebration of his Eu∣charist with Prayer, made a kind of Oblation unto God of the Bread and Wine, and shewed at the same time his willing∣ness

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 de∣sired of God that he would sanctifie 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 bro∣ken, 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 like∣lihood regard unto the disposition wherein he shewed himself to be, of exposing himself unto death for us, when he instituted the Sacrament and memorial of it. * 1.286 Our Lord (saith he) offered him∣self 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; * 1.287 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, * 1.288 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, * 1.289 the Oblations and Presents which have been offered, and hath been pleased to san∣ctifie and consecrate them by the grace of his Christ, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, he would also sanctifie their Souls, their Spirits, and Bodies, &c. in that of St. Chrysostom, We offer unto thee of thy goods; * 1.290 or as Germain 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 expresly 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; * 1.291 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 of∣fered 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 spake, as near as I can guess, of the Sacrifice of the Christi∣an Church, as of a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, and although they have not all expressed themselves after one manner, yet never∣theless 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 un∣to him the first-fruits of his Creatures, (that is to say) things which he gives us for our nourishment; * 1.292 so it is that St. Irenae∣us 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; * 1.293 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, * 1.294 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 antient 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. * 1.295 Thence it is that St. Isidore of Damietta confesseth unto Rabbi Benjamin, That the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread: * 1.296 That St. Fulgentius saith, That the Catholick 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. * 1.297 Century, taught, That our Lord had changed the Sacrifices of the Law, into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine: and that whereas the An∣tients 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, * 1.298 That the Lord left unto his Church these two gifts, Bread and Wine, to offer them in remembrance of him: * 1.299 And that Amalarius Fortunatus seeks a Sacrament of Je∣sus 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 Lyons, thus expresses his thoughts; * 1.300 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, * 1.301 and which shew that where any of the Fathers in∣stead 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 sence 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 ap∣pear 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, * 1.302 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 Chri∣stians 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. * 1.303 As for the famous Theodo∣ret, 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, san∣ctifying the whole lump by the first-fruits. Others in fine, have shew∣ed 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; * 1.304 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; * 1.305 We see prefigured in the High Priest Melchisedeck, the Sacra∣ment 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; * 1.306 That the Lord accomplish∣ing and perfecting the Image of his Sacrifice, offered Bread, and the Cup mixed with Water. And Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, doth not he say, * 1.307 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 shew 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 witnes∣sing 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 Sa∣craments of the Church, were ancienter than those of the Syna∣gogue, * 1.308 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 of∣fered unto Abraham Bread and Wine. And therefore it is, that the Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew, * 1.309 amongst his works, defines the Christian man, by him which offers the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. * 1.310 S. Jerome in one of his Letters touching Melchi∣sedeck, follows the Opinion of several ancient Doctors who prece∣ded him, and who had said, That Melchisedeck did not offer Sacri∣fices of flesh and blood, but that he consecrated the Sacrament of Jesus Christ with Bread and Wine, * 1.311 which is a pure and spotless Sacrifice. And elsewhere he saith, That our Saviour offered in type of his Blood, not Wa∣ter, but Wine. S. Austin was of no other mind, when he taught in divers parts of his Writings; * 1.312 for example, when he said, That Melchisedeck foreshewed the Sacrament of our Lord, to represent his eter∣nal 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 shewn; 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, * 1.313 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. * 1.314 And Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem, That the oblation of the Mystical Melchisedeck, is accom∣plished in Bread and Wine. And Cassiodorus, That the Institution of Mel∣chisedeck 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 fore∣shew 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, * 1.315 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, * 1.316 That it is Bread and Wine, which is spiritually sacrified by Christians, and which they do re∣ceive in the Divine Sacraments. See then three several Oblations pra∣ctised by several of the ancient Christians in the Celebration of their Sacrament; and which have all three given unto this Sacra∣ment the name of Sacrifice, and which the Holy Fathers have cal∣led a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, considering particularly that Oblation which is made unto God of the Symbols after their Con∣secration, and after the change which may thereunto happen af∣ter the sanctification: and this Tradition hath been so constant, so uniform, and so universal, that it may be said, That it hath been be∣lieved by all, at all times, and in all places; which be the three signs that Vincentius Lerinensis desired may be admitted, in receiving all Catholick 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 ne∣cessary 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 memorials, 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 Sa∣crifice; 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; * 1.317 the Sacrifice which we offer, saith S. Cyprian, is the passion of our Lord: But this is to be observed, that we make men∣tion of the Passion of our Lord in all the Sacrifices. Thereby in a man∣ner confounding the death of our Lord, with the commemora∣tion which we make of it in the Sacrament, by reason of the near relation which there is betwixt the Memorial, and the thing where∣of the remembrance is renewed. Accordingly Eusebius said, speak∣ing of the Institution of the Sacrament; * 1.318 That Jesus Christ command∣ed us to offer unto God, instead of the Sacrifice; the memorial of his Sacri∣fice. And S. Chrysostome having said, in speaking of the Oblation of the Sacrament, * 1.319 We alwayes make the same Sacrifice, adds presently by way of correction, But rather we make the commemoration of the Sa∣crifice: * 1.320 which S. Austin saith, is, to celebrate the type of his Sacri∣fice in remembrance of his passion. * 1.321 To celebrate the Sacrifice of our Lord by a Sacrament of commemoration: † 1.322 And to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us. There∣fore 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. * 1.323 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 so∣lemnities of Easter, but also on other daies; and he lied not, who being asked, answers, that he is sacrificed. Theodoret was of the same mind as the others; * 1.324 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 Mel∣chisedeck, 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 remem∣brance 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 un∣to our Benefactor, and to expect the injoyment of good things to come.

Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, contemporary and friend unto Gregory the First, followed the others steps, when he said, * 1.325 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, * 1.326 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 re∣semblance of this death and passion, whereof they are the representations, * 1.327 &c. 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, * 1.328 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 shewing forth of his love, because he so loved us as to die for us? If we descend lower, Pe∣ter Lombard Master of the Sentences, will tell us in the Twelfth Century, * 1.329 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 Al∣tar of the Cross. And Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century; That the Celebration of the Eucharist, * 1.330 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 Celebra∣tion 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 antient 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, * 1.331 That the venerable Myste∣ries 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 Memo∣rials of the bloody death of our Saviour. St. Ireneus observes this use as to the first regard; * 1.332 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, * 1.333 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 it self, and that after his Ascension they are celebrated by a Sacrament of Commemoration. But Justin Martyr hath joyned 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, * 1.334 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 deli∣vered 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 Wor∣ship and exteriour Service, we must consider, that they often take this word Sacrifice in a very large extended and improper sence; therefore 'tis, that they apply it unto all the acts of Piety and Devotion, and generally unto all things that pertain unto the wor∣ship 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, * 1.335 a Sacrifice well pleasing unto Almighty God. The Prophet calls it, * 1.336 rendring Calves of our lips, which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews explains, The fruit of the Lips, which confest the name of God. The Apostle gives the name of Sacrifices, unto the blessing, commu∣nication, * 1.337 and praises of God. St. Peter considers good works, as spi∣ritual sacrifices agreeable unto God through Jesus Christ; * 1.338 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 sa∣crifice of the Gospel, to offer the Gentiles; And elsewhere he fears

not to say, that our Faith is a Sacrifice. * 1.339 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. * 1.340 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, * 1.341 in making it to communicate after Baptism. And in another place, He gives the name of Sa∣crifice 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 contribu∣ting towards his maintenance: so Justin Martyr saith, * 1.342 That Prayers and Thanksgivings are the only perfect and agreeable sacrifices well∣pleasing 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, * 1.343 That the Christians sacrifice unto God for the safety of the Emperor, by pure prayer only? and that prayer-made by chast 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, * 1.344 of Glorificati∣on, of Benediction, Praise, Hymns, * 1.345 and of Prayer proceeding from a pure heart; and in fine, doth he not reckon amongst the propitiatory Sacrifices and Oblations, Mortifications, Humiliations, Contritions, Fastings, 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 con∣science, 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 antient Church, * 1.346 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, * 1.347 That he sacrificeth his discourse of Easter, and that when he is in Hea∣ven, he will there sacrifice unto God upon his Altar, * 1.348 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; * 1.349 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 pray∣er and Alms-deeds. And St. Ambrose, * 1.350 That wisdom is a very good Sacrifice; and Faith and Vertue, a good Oblation; that Prayer it self is

a Sacrifice. * 1.351 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 op∣poseth 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 enjoy∣ment of Blessedness and Felicity: The true Sacrifice (saith he) is every work which we do, * 1.352 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 antient Doctors of the Church, having given the name of Sacrifice un∣to 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 qualifie the holy Eucharist with the same Title, seeing that it makes one of the essential parts of the Worship of Chri∣stian 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 My∣stery 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 answer∣ing 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 under∣took

the defence of this holy Religion of the Son of God: for in all their Apologies they spake not one word of the exter∣nal 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 Re∣ligion wherein, by the confession and owning of those very per∣sons who defended it by the purity and innocency of their wri∣tings, there were no such Sacrifices as those, whom they desired to convert, did look for and expect: for instance, St Justin Mar∣try, 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, * 1.353 That there are no other Sa∣crifices 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. * 1.354 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, * 1.355 wherein he sheweth 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 o∣thers different from theirs; he indeed confesseth in the same Di∣alogue, 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, * 1.356 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 it self when they celebrate the Sacrament. It is what he designs by the wet and dry Food, and it is therein he saith that they shew 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 Crea∣tor of all things, Prayers and Thanksgivings in the Name of Christ Jesus; whence it is that he saith of Christians in general, * 1.357 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 ob∣jection that Justin Martyr did, on the behalf of the Enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, answereth no otherwise than he had done; he represents, That God, who made all things, hath no need of Blood, of Odors, 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 encrease, 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: * 1.358 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 Chri∣stians have no Temples nor Altars, the Christian answers, Do you think that we do conceal what we worship under a shew that we have no Tem∣ples 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 un∣feigned; That to live uprightly, do Justice, abstain from Evil, and hin∣der his Neighbour from hurt, is to offer a fat Sacrifice. These are our Sacrifices, * 1.359 (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 con∣sequence they also had no Sacrifice, because there is a strict re∣lation betwixt a a true Altar and a Sacrifice properly so called: And in the same Book, * 1.360 he opposeth unto the Sacrifices offered by the Pagans for the Emperours, 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, * 1.361 That the fairest and fattest Sacrifice which God requires, is prayer from a pure heart, an innocent soul, and a ho∣ly mind; and that 'tis that also which they offer for the preservati∣on of the Emperours. It is of prayer also, that he explains in the same work, * 1.362 this excellent Oblation; and that he saith elsewhere, That that is done by prayer only which God hath commanded, * 1.363 because the Creator of the Ʋniverse 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 glorifie him that was sacrificed for us, in sacrificing of our own

selves; that we honour him by prayers; * 1.364 that we do justly offer unto him this most excellent and most holy Sacrifice; * 1.365 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. * 1.366 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 Sa∣crifices should be offered unto God, but such as may be acceptable unto him; That the Sacrifices of Christians are prayers, praises, * 1.367 the reading the holy Scriptures, Hymns and Psalms, the instructing the igno∣rant, 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 A∣theists, because they did not sacrifice; He thus begins his Seventh Book, What then, will some say, * 1.368 think you that no Sacrifice at all ought to be made? There ought indeed none to be made (saith he) to the end to give you the opinion of your Varro, and not ours only. Lactantius his Contemporary, and of the same profession, * 1.369 having undertaken to treat of a Sacrifice, therein considers two things, The Gift, and the Sacrifice it self; And he saith, That the one and the other ought to be incorporeal, that is, Spiritual, to be offered unto God, that the in∣tegrity of the soul is the Oblation, that the Praise and Hymn is the Sacrifice; That if God is invisible, he must then be served with invisible things. He approves the Maxime of Trismegistus, That the Benediction only is the Sacrifice of the true God: And thence he concludes, That the highest manner of serving God, is the praise offered unto him by the mouth of a just man. And elsewhere he saith, That he will shew what is the orue Sacrifice of God, and the truest manner of serving him; And see here how he doth it; He saith first, That God doth not require of us either Sacrifices or perfumes, or other the like presents, that for incor∣poreal (that is, Spiritual Natures) there must be an incorporeal Sa∣crifice, (that is to say, Spiritual). And afterwards, What is it then, * 1.370 saith he, that God requires of man, but the service of the understand∣ing, 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 Sa∣crifice is, what proceeds out of the heart, and not what is taken out of the Coffer •• it is, what's offered not with the hand, but with the heart; it is the agreeable Sacrifice which the soul offers of it self. In fine, he con∣cludes, that righteousness is the only thing which God requires of us, and that it is therein the service and Sacrifice consists which God desires. * 1.371 It will not be unnecessary to join unto these Wit∣nesses, S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who refutes the Writing pub∣lished 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 sa∣crifice; yet this wicked wretch was not ignorant of what was practised in the Worship and Service of the Church, and there∣fore this reproach must needs have some shew of truth, other∣wise he had exposed himself unto the scorn and contempt of all the World. And S. Cyril answering in order, unto all that this Apo∣state had spewed out against the Religion of Jesus Christ, would not have failed to have cried, O the Impostor, if the Christians of his time, that is, of the Fifth Century, had truly sacrificed, and if they had amongst them real Sacrifices. Let us then see, and without prejudice exactly examine what S. Cyril replyed unto this Wretch's reproach: * 1.372 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: * 1.373 Ʋnto fire which formerly came down from Heaven upon the Sacrifices, and which we have not now, he opposeth the Holy Ghost, * 1.374 which proceeding from the Father by the Son, comes and illuminates the Church. Ʋnto Oxen, Sheep, Pidgeons, Doves, unto the Fruits, Meal and Oyl of the Israelites, be opposeth our spiritual and rea∣sonable Oblations: And explaining unto us wherein they consist, and their nature and quality; We offer unto God (saith he) an Odour of a sweet savour, all manner of vertue or truth, Faith, Hope, Charity, Justice, Temperance, Obedience, Humility, a continual Praise, and Thanksgiving (of the Lord and his works) and all the other ver∣tues; for this Sacrifice purely Spiritual, agrees well with God, whose Nature is purely simple and immaterial; the life and actions of a truly good man, are the perfumes of a reasonable service. And having alledged some passages of the holy Scriptures to confirm this Doctrine, He concludes as he began, * 1.375 We sacrifice unto God (saith he) Spiritual things, and instead of material fire, we are filled with the Holy Ghost.

From this same Fountain, proceeds another Doctrine of these first Conducters of the Christian Churches, which consists in in∣structing Believers, and teaching them what had succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law. I do not find after an exact scrutiny, that they alledge or insist upon the Sacrament, but they are con∣tented to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices, either the Spiritu∣tal Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel, or the truly propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, or both of them toge∣ther. In regard of the former, the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, * 1.376 said, That unto the Sacrifices of the Law, succeeded prayers, vows, and giving of thanks; and that the First fruits, Tythes,

and portions, and gifts of those times, are now changed into the Oblati∣ons which the Bishops offer unto God through Jesus Christ, who died for all. He means, the Oblations of Bread and Wine which Be∣lievers made, and generally all things presented by them unto God, in behalf of the Christian people. Thence it is, that he saith also elsewhere; * 1.377 That instead of Sacrifices which were made by shed∣ding of blood, Jesus Christ hath given to us a reasonable Sacrifice, My∣stical 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. * 1.378 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; * 1.379 but amongst all those means, I do not find the Sacrifice of the Eucharist: In the fifth he shews how the Ministers of the Gospel do make propitiation for the sins of the people, but he only alled∣ges for that, the instructions and remonstrances, by the which in con∣verting sinners, God is pleased to become favourable and propi∣tious unto them; and in the Ninth, * 1.380 he doth not apply the duty and functions of the legal Sacrifices, for offering Sacrifices, but un∣to Believers, who offer spiritual Sacrifices unto God. * 1.381 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, * 1.382 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 spi∣ritual Sacrifice of our own selves. * 1.383 Sacrifice (saith he) unto God a Sa∣crifice 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? * 1.384 Therefore it is, that the Authour of the Commentaries upon the Psalms inserted in S. Jerome's Works, placeth no other Sacrifices, * 1.385 instead of those of the Law, but spiritual Sacrifices, and the Ob∣lation 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. Chry∣sostome We have (saith he) our Sacrifice in Heaven, * 1.386 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 Spi∣rit, 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 mo∣desty, * 1.387 temperancee, alms-deeds, long-suffering, patience, and humility. And a little after he adds, That there be also other Oblations, which are true Sacrifices, to wit, the bodies of holy Martyrs.

As to the second regard, Origen considering the Sacrifice of the Cross, and looking upon it as the Body, the fulness and substance of all the typical and figurative Sacrifices of the Law; he opposes it unto them, as that only which they did represent, and which was to be the only true Sacrifice of the Christian Religion: for having observed, * 1.388 That the venom of the Devil is expell'd by the Sacri∣fices 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 Sacri∣fices which were successively offered unto God, then seemed needless, see∣ing that by one only Sacrifice, * 1.389 the whole Worship of Devils was destroy∣ed. And S. Chrysostome having said, That Jesus Christ taketh away the sins of the World, without being often crucified, gives this reason; for (saith he) he offered one sole Sacrifice for sins, but he al∣wayes cleanseth us by this sole Sacrifice. * 1.390 And elsewhere, When you are told that Jesus Christ is a Priest, do not imagine that he al∣wayes doth the Function; for he did it once, and then sat down and rested. And thereupon having observed, That standing related unto the humiliation of our Lord, and that as he continued not a Servant, so also he continued not a Sacrificer; He thus continues his Discourse, That shews the greatness of the Sacrifice, because it sufficed, being but One, and having been offered but once: and a little after, There is no other Sacrifice, one alone hath cleansed us, and without this Sacrifice, saith he, Hell fire could not be avoided. Therefore the Apostle turns these words every way, One Priest, one Sacrifice; fearing lest some, thinking there were several, should sin boldly, and without fear. S. Austin was of the same Judgment, * 1.391 seeing he taught, That the Lord washed, abolished, and extinguished by his Death, which is the sole, only and true Sacrifice offered for us, * 1.392 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; * 1.393 the sole, only and true Sacrifice by which Jesus Christ shed his blood for us; that the Sacrifice which Da∣vid offered, to the end God should forgive the sins of his people, was but a shadow of that which was for to come, to signifie, that by one only Sa∣crifice, which had been represented by the types of the Law, God should spiritually provide for the salvation of his people; for it is Jesus Christ himself who was given up, saith the Apostle, for our sins, and which rose again for our Justification; hence it is also, that he saith, that Christ our Passover is slain. S. Prosper doth not come short of S. Au∣stin, when he makes this question; * 1.394 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, * 1.395 as upon the Fifth Chapter, he seeks in Jesus Christ the accomplishment, inas∣much 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, speak∣ing of the Sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered for our sins, he saith, That he did it once and no more; because he dyed once for our sins, * 1.396 and now dieth no more. That the Apostle sheweth the great value of the Death of Christ, in that it was but once, and that it sufficeth to take away the sins of Believers for ever; That Christ who is our Sacrifice, was not offered a second time, that it was done once, and is not needful to be done again any more. In one of the Homilies of Easter, which ma∣ny attribute unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles, the Authour be he who it will, there maketh this reflection, * 1.397 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 of∣fered for the price of our Salvation. But S. Basil, or at least the Au∣thor 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, * 1.398 and desires but one, which is, That every one should present himself to God, a living Sa∣crifice, which may be well pleasing unto him; offering by a reasonable Sa∣crifice, the Sacrifice of Praise: for when the multitude of Legal Sacrifi∣ces were rejected as useless, he accepted in the last times, one only Sacri∣fice, 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 Sacri∣fices of the Law are no longer in force; * 1.399 he adds, There is one only Sacri∣fice, which is Christ, and the mortification of Saints for love of him; one only sprinkling, (that is to say) the washing of Regeneration; one Expia∣tion 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, * 1.400 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 our selves in those words, those Sacrifices were Fi∣gures, which foreshewed the only saving Sacrifice, neither have we been left destitute of a Sacrifice which we may offer unto God; which he ex∣pounds to be of praises and a contrite heart. Now of this constant Doctrine of the Fathers, proceeded certain uses which were Re∣ligiously 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 shewed; of obliging Believers to Communicate as often as the Sacrament was celebrated, as shall be hereafter de∣clared; of never celebrating the Sacrament without Communi∣cants, as all Liturgies do testifie, he that celebrates, speaking al∣most ever in the Plural number; And that Oblations were receiv∣ed only of those that were admitted unto the holy Sacrament, so that the liberty of presenting his gift, was alwaies followed by Communicating, * 1.401 as appears by a great many Canons, which are not necessary to be alledged upon a matter which is not contested, and which is known unto all that have any knowledge of Ecclesi∣astical Antiquity; which proceeding, makes me think those holy Doctors looked upon the Eucharist, as a Sacrament of Commu∣nion only. But 'tis time to proceed to the Consideration and Exa∣mination of the other parts of the outward Celebration of the Sa∣crament.

CHAP. IX.

Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread.

WE have Observed in the beginning of the fore∣going Chapter, that although Jesus Christ had broke the Bread presently after having Bles∣sed and Consecrated it, without any other Ce∣remony 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 suddainly. It is most certain, that our Saviour made no Elevation, when he Instituted and Celebrated his first Sacra∣ment; for none of the Evangelists have made any mention of it; the Christians which followed in the next immediate Age, pra∣ctised no such thing, as appears by the relation made unto us by S. Justin Martyr, of all that was practised in that time, in celebra∣ting this August Sacrament; the Liturgies of this Divine My∣stery, which may be seen in the Constitutions which pass in the Apostles name, in the Writings of the pretended Denys the Are∣opagite, and in S. Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogicks, do make no men∣tion of this Elevation: So that for four or five Ages of Christiani∣ty, 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 expresly 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, * 1.402 that the people being warned, in answering, Ʋnto thee O Lord! should think only of Jesus Christ. An Advertisement found in all the Litur∣gies which have been since made, and also even in that of the La∣tin 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. Chrysostome, * 1.403 but cannot be his, as the Learned of both Commu∣nions 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 Chrysostome, 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 Authour, 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 cele∣bration of Divine Mysteries; a Treatise which most Authors at∣tribute unto German who lived in the VIII. Century, and some unto another of the same name, who was Patriarch in the XII. After all, the Author of this Theory, being come unto the Inqui∣ry of this Elevation, crept into the Church about the VI. Cen∣tury, doth sufficiently give to understand, that it intended not the adoration of the Sacrament, but only to represent the Ele∣vation of our Saviour upon the Cross, * 1.404 and that was its lawful and genuine use and end. The Elevation of the pretious body (saith he) represents unto us the Elevation on the Cross, the Death of our Lord upon the Cross, and his Resurrection also. As for the Latins, the first that I remember, who bethought himself of finding out a My∣stery 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 Constanti∣nople, near 300. years before him; When the Bread and the Cup (saith he) are lifted up by the Ministry of the Deacon, * 1.405 there is Com∣memoration 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. Centu∣ry; nor in Amalarius Fortunatus, nor in Rabunus, Archbishop of Mayence, nor in Walafridus Strabo, nor in the pretended Alcuin,

Authors partly of the IX. and partly of the X. Century, although they all of them wrote of Divine Offices, and indeavoured to discover the Mystical significations of all things practised in Religion in their times, and especially in the Sacrament; unless it were Gregrory the first, who only left a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Sacrament. Its true that at the end of Rabanus his first Book of the Institution of Clerks, there is seen a Fragment by way of supplement, wherein mention is made of the Elevation whereof we treat, but against the truth of the Manuscripts, wherein this Fragment is not to be found, besides what the thing it self evidently declares, that this Famous Prelate was not the Author of it. Moreover, the Author, whosoever he was, with German and Ives of Chartres, refers the Elevation he mentions, unto the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross; The Elevation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the Priest, * 1.406 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 Sa∣crament 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 Com∣munion of Rome agree in all this with the Protestants; and James Goar of the Order of preaching Fryers, in his Notes upon the Ritual of the Greek Church observes, * 1.407 That it is not certain∣ly known when the lifting up the Host was joyned unto the Conse∣cration in the Latin Church; and rejects the Opinion of Durandus, who maintained it had never been separated from it; and he proves his by the silence of the Writers above mentioned, unto whom he joyns the Author of the Micrologue, who lived by every bodies confession, in the XI. Century, and the Roman Or∣der, which some suppose was writ at the same time: And he saith, that both these speak of the Elevation of the Oblation, * 1.408 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, * 1.409 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 un∣to Adoration, when he observes, that it was not joyned unto Consecration, but that it was made at the end of the Canon very near the Lords Prayer. Hugh Maynard, * 1.410 a Benedictine Fry∣er explains himself so fully in his Notes upon Gregory the first, in his Book of Sacraments, that nothing more can be said than

what he hath written. Now (saith he) in the Latin Church, as soon as the Bread and Wine is consecrated, they are lifted up, that the people there present, might adore them; which practice I do not judge to be antient, seeing there is no mention thereof to be found in our Books of the Sacraments, Printed, nor Written, nor in Pamelius, nor in the Roman Order, nor in Alcuin, Amalarius, Walafridus, Rabanus, who have fully explained the Order of the Mass; nor in the Micrologue, who hath also very exactly laboured in the same Subject. Afterwards this learned Fryer observes, that it is clearer than the Sun at Noon day, if the XV. Chapter of the Author of the Micrologue be considered, who would not have failed to have writ of this Ceremony had it been used in his time, (that is in the XI. Century) because he makes mention of lifting up the Bread and the Cup together before the Lords Prayer, which also appears more at large in the twenty third Chapter of the same Treatise; Nevertheless he excepts the Mozarabick Office, where∣in 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 no∣thing hath been added) and to say the truth, there is great likely∣hood 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 Lords Prayer, and some other Prayers, at the very instant of Commu∣nicating, and he proves it by the Liturgies of St. James, St. Chry∣sostom, by Anastasius the Sinaite, by George Codin, and by the Au∣thor 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 joyned 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 Sove∣reign 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 af∣ter

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 Goar doth, those which wrest 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 Symboles hid and covered until the very instant of communicating; and that then they were unco∣vered to be shewed to the people, to have them come to the ho∣ly Table in shewing 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 con∣siderable, which is, That it appears by the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny, written about the end of the eleventh Cen∣tury, 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, * 1.411 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 Cluny is exactly, not to say scrupulously, shewn 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, * 1.412 &c. 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, un∣to 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 re∣ferred Adoration to the Elevation of the Host, in his Rational of Divine Offices; for amongst several reasons of this Elevation, he alledges this last, * 1.413 contrary to the constant Doctrine of antient 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 Gre∣gory the Ninth, made their Constitutions for adoring the Sacra∣ment after Elevation, as shall be shewn 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 spo∣ken 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 Commu∣nion of the Latin Church a great while before the Adoration of the Host, and the Elevation therewith enjoyned: and by con∣sequence there have always been Christians in the West, who ne∣ver 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, immedi∣ately followed. For the holy Writers testifie, That the Lord had no sooner blessed the Bread, but he brake it to distribute it; and because the Hebrews Loaves were flat and spread round, and something long, like our Cakes and Biskets, 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 expresly ob∣serves 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 there∣in represents unto us the sufferings of Jesus Christ, particularly those of his Cross; it was the signification which Theodoret search∣ed therein in his Dialogues, * 1.414 when he saith, O. Remember what the Lord took and broke, and by what name he called that which he had ta∣ken. E. I will speak mystically, by reason of those which are not initi∣ated; (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 Divi∣nity in shewing the Type of that Passion? E. Not any. O. But of the

Body and Blood? E. It is true. O The body then was Crucified. And ve∣nerable Bede, * 1.415 He himself broke the Bread which he presented unto his Disciples, that he might shew the fraction of his Body. Also it is with∣out all doubt that Christians carefully observed this Ceremony, for they consecrated a Loaf greater or less, according to the num∣ber of Communicants, which was divided into several Morsels, to be distributed unto each Communicant; all the Liturgies that are extant, true or false, testifie this fraction, and all the holy Fathers confirm it. Accordingly we read in the life of Pope Ser∣gius, who held the Chair towards the end of the Seventh Centu∣ry, That he ordained that at the breaking the Bread of the Lord, * 1.416 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 antient Manuscripts, which contain several Liturgies for the Celebration of the Eu∣charist; 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 bro∣ken, O Lord, vouchsafe to send, if it be thy Will, * 1.417 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 an∣other of these Manuscripts, towards the year 1079. * 1.418 there is also mention made of the division of the Body of our Lord into se∣veral parts: and in fine, in a third, of the year 1032. or there∣abouts, it is observed, That whil'st the Bishop is making the Fraction, * 1.419 he saith, Lamb of God, &c. and that the Bread being broken, he bites in Communicating, in part of the Oblation. There is frequent men∣tion made of this Fraction in those antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny above-mentioned. * 1.420 The Interpreter of the Ro∣man Order, who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Cen∣tury, observes what we have already alledged 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: * 1.421 We are informed (saith he) that some persons of late times do find and think strange that the Roman Order enjoyns 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, &c. and what is read in the Acts of the Apostles, That the Primitive Church con∣tinued 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 her self 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 E∣leventh 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 di∣stribution of it. And indeed during Lent they did not fully ce∣lebrate the Eucharist, but on Saturday and Sunday, and on that day they kept some of the consecrated Symboles to Commu∣nicate the other days of the Week; and so they were constrain∣ed to do that at several times which our Saviour did at once, when he celebrated his Sacrament. Thereupon Humbert presseth his Enemy Nicetas, * 1.422 by the Example of the Son of God; We read (saith he) that the Lord himself gave unto his Disciples, not an im∣perfect, 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 content∣ed 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, af∣ter 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 Bles∣sing without the Distribution, doth not perfectly represent the Com∣memoration of Jesus Christ, no more than the distribution doth without the Benediction and the Breaking. I say nothing here of the Decre∣tal of Pope Alexander, which is a forged and a counterfeit piece, as are all the Decretals of the first Popes, until Siricius: it suffi∣ceth that until the days of Humbert, and also before, it was owned to be true, that so its authority might serve to prove the Cere∣mony of breaking the Bread as a thing essential in the Celebra∣tion of the Sacrament; also we see that most Christian Commu∣nions observe it at this time, not distributing the holy Bread un∣to 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, ac∣cording

to the number of Communicants; so that having blessed and consecrated it, they break it into little bits, to distribute it un∣to 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 Par∣cels, that is to say, the Pieces; amongst the Greeks, the Frag∣ments, that is to say, the Portions and Pieces of the Eucharist bro∣ken, 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, * 1.423 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 Se∣paration made from her by Berengarius and his followers, and the Albigenses and Waldenses and their adherents; whereby this pra∣ctice and custom hath been still observed, even in the West it self, which is not now practised in the extent of the Church of Rome.

CHAP. X.

Of the Distribution, and of the Communion, and first of the Time, the Place, and Posture of the Commu∣nicant.

IN the Celebration of the Sacrament, the breaking of Bread should be followed by the Distribution; but because the Di∣stribution contains several things under its compass, as the Time, the Place, the Posture of the Communicant the Per∣sons 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 seve∣rally, 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 in∣stitute and celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the Supper of the Passeover, and at the end of the Supper; the Evan∣gelists do witness it, and express themselves so fully, as that they give us not the least cause to doubt of it; which makes me be∣lieve, that the Apostles, and the Churches founded by their Preaching, practised the same during life. And to say the truth, it seems to be plainly found in the Eleventh Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Belivers of that Church, did celebrate this Divine Mysterie, and participate thereof, after having eaten altogether; so that the Celebration of the Sacra∣ment, was as it were the Seal, the Crown, and accomplishment of those Agapes, and Feasts of Charity; I know that all be not of this Opinion, and I do not intend to censure those who judge that the Celebration of the Sacrament was performed before the Agape. I will only say, that it is the Judgment of many Learn∣ed men, which they ground upon the following Reasons, which I am obliged to recite, that the Reader might judge of their so∣lidity. 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 Sup∣per.

Secondly, * 1.424 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 end∣ed with the Feast of Charity, it being unlikely, that the Sacrament would be solemnized before the Assembly was compleat, and that all which were accustomed to be present, were come. In the third place, had it been practised otherwise, they think S. Paul should not have had so great cause to have charged the Corinthians of having received the Bread and the Cup of the Lord unworthily; nor to command them to examine themselves before they come unto the Lords Table, because by this reckoning, the disorder he charges them with, should have happened after the Celebrati∣on of the Sacrament, and not before. So that the Apostle should only have had cause to blame the disorder of their Feast, with∣out mingling therewith any discourse of the Sacrament; yet ne∣vertheless, he doth the quite contrary; for he insists much more upon the Sacrament, than upon all the rest; which doth evi∣dently shew, that these first Christians assembled for their Feasts of Charity, began this Solemnity by the common Meal which they made all together, and did end it by the Sa∣crament 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 Cu∣stom, which remained in the V. Century. Tertullian saith in some of his Works, That the Eucharist was celebrated at supper time; * 1.425 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 conclu∣ded from the words of this Learned African, that the Celebra∣tion 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, * 1.426 that they happily imagi∣ned to be quit, under colour, That at Supper, Wine was offered in the Cup. All that can be inferr'd from these two passages of Antiqui∣ty, is, That in those times, the Eucharist was celebrated con∣jointly with the Agapes, or Feasts of Charity; but in such a man∣ner, that it was also very frequently celebrated, and most com∣monly 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; * 1.427 That some were wont to receive the Sacrament after Meal

time? but upon one day of the year only, to wit, Thursday before Easter, * 1.428 as is expresly observed by the Third Council of Car∣thage, assembled at the same time, ordering that this Sacrament should alwaies be celebrated fasting, excepting only the day that our Lord's Supper is celebrated; that is to say, the day whereon Com∣memoration 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, * 1.429 who wrote some years after the death of S. Austir, inform us, That the Christians of Egypt, those of Thebais, and a∣bout Alexandria; in several Cities and Villages, did celebrate and receive the Sacrament Saturday at Evening, after having sup∣ped together. But for the most part, the Sacrament was ce∣lebrated in the Morning, except it was on station and Fasting dayes, for then it was celebrated about Evening; excepting such dayes, it was celebrated in the Morning before day in times of persecution, and afterwards, at three of the Clock in the Morn∣ing, 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, * 1.430 and indeed, there is to be seen in his life, That he Ordained, that excepting on Christ∣mas 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, * 1.431 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: * 1.432 It must be observed, that in celebrating Masses on the principal Holy dayes only, that in Gods 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 Even∣ing Service. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, amongst several hours which he assigns for Prayer, puts the third in the

Morning; * 1.433 Because (saith he) it was at that hour that Pilate gave Sen∣tence against the Lord. S. Isidore of Sevil, gives this other reason for it, That the Holy Ghost at that time came down vpon 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 applyed unto the Subject we treat of; we must then seek elsewhere whether the time of the third hour w••s so destin'd 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 daies The time of Celebrating Mass (saith Walafridus Strabo) is different, * 1.434 according as the solemnity of Holy daies 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 Summ 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. * 1.435 Holy daies (saith he) the third hour, and the sixth hour, the Eve of Holy daies, which precede Lent, and Fast-daies, yet not of all, because the Saturdayes of Fast in Ember Weeks, Mass may be celebrated very late, and the Saturdayes 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, * 1.436 hinder us from partici∣pating of these Heavenly Sacraments, forbear but a little, the day draw∣eth 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, * 1.437 in some pla∣ces by reason of the great numbers of people, the Sacrament was ce∣lebrated 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. * 1.438 speaks of celebrating it at nine or ten of the Clock, And because on Fasting daies, 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 mo∣ment, 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 satisfie the Readers curiosity, we will insist no longer upon it, but shall pass unto the considerati∣on 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 As∣sembly 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 antient 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 after∣wards, 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 sheweth, that before those prohibitions, they therein entred 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. * 1.439 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. * 1.440 The fourth Council of Toledo, assem∣bled Anno. 633. hath left us this Canon, After the Lords 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 Quire, 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, * 1.441 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, * 1.442 in the Quire, 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 Emperour, whom it permits to enter into

the Sanctuary, when he would offer his Oblation unto God, * 1.443 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 antient Tradition, to include the Emperors 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 priviledge 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: * 1.444 For my part (saith he) I am not of that Opinion; for the Orthodox Emperours who do make Patriarchs, 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 Emperour 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 priviledge which their Monarch and So∣vereign enjoyed formerly; therefore after the Clergy have par∣ticipated 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 with∣in the rail of the Sanctuary, the Lay people communicate with∣out; 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 Quire, as James Goar hath observed, an Eye witness, * 1.445 who also ob∣serves, 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, * 1.446 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 ob∣serve 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 travelled in those Countreys many years; for he writes, that the Seculars and Lay folks, * 1.447 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 intend 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 men∣tions 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 Sacra∣ment 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, be∣fore 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 remain∣ing, we do not find any alteration to have hapned in the posture of the Communicant: For after having shewed 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, * 1.448 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 Lords Table to partake of the Eucharist; for he useth a term that properly signifies to present himself, and to be there stand∣ing, * 1.449 which gave occasion unto this observation of Mounsier de Valois, The Believers which were to communicate, drew near the Altar, and there they received from the Priests 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, * 1.450 wherein he speaks of standing at the Altar of God, that is to say at the Sacrament Table; and St. Chrysostom in∣forms us in one of his Homilies that it was so practised even in his time, * 1.451 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, * 1.452 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 crum 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 shew the religious respect with which we should participate of these Holy Mysteries. The VI. * 1.453 Oe∣cumenical 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, pro∣strates himself on his knees before the Object of his Adoration, to shew the motions of the profound humility of his Soul, and his self-denial before him, unto whom, by this action he confes∣seth, 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 shew 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 un∣to 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 Communi∣cant in his time, that is, in the VIII. Century, doth not speak a word of this inclination of the Body, * 1.454 in Goars Notes upon the Ritual of the Greeks. And what yet perswades me that Believers communicated standing, in the antient Church, and that this

custom was always practised in the greatest Christian Communi∣ons, 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 Abas∣sins, who also make a very considerable Christian Communion, do no otherwise receive the Sacrament: * 1.455 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 antient customs, but rather have added to the number of those observed by the antient Church, which is the usual practice of ignorance so to do; and if the custom of Com∣municating 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 kneel∣ing, 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 Com∣municate 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 Sacra∣ment, who dyed 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 vertue of what they believe of his presence in the Sacrament, because if so, then all those in the assembly should kneel during the Celebration of the Mystery, and yet it is only him that Communicates, that kneels in the moment that he receives the Sacrament. But be∣fore I leave this circumstance, it may not probably be unne∣cessary

to instance some customs that were practised in the an∣tient 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 Pastour, did kiss it; It is what St. Jorom mentioneth in his Book against John, Bishop of Jerusalem; * 1.456 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, cites these words of Paul the Deacon, speaking of the Bishop Fidelis: * 1.457 Go your way (saith he) Com∣municate, 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 Schismatick Novatian, and whom Cornelius had degraded amongst the common people, he saith, * 1.458 We have admitted him, unto the Commu∣nion as a Lay person. I farther observe, that as Believers went unto the Communion, the Deacon often pronounced these words, * 1.459 Ob∣serve, 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 ex∣horted the guides of Christian Churches, unto Union and Peace, * 1.460 and that he said unto them amongst other things, Know ye one ano∣ther. And it may be the Heretick Marcion intended the same custom, when having met the venerable old man St. Polycarp, Pastour of the Church of Smyrna, and glorious Martyr of Jesus Christ, he said unto him, Know us, as 'tis recited by St. * 1.461 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 Com∣munion, * 1.462 asks pardon, and kisseth the hand of him who gives him the Holy Bread. And James Goar, in his Notes upon this part of the Li∣turgy writes, that every one amongst the People setting himself in a readiness to approach unto the Communion Table, asks par∣don of all that are present, saying in the vulgar Tongue, * 1.463 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 publickly 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 Christi∣ans,

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 addres∣sed this excellent Exhortation unto his Flock, * 1.464 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 de∣manding 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 an∣tient customs of the Monastery of Clnny, written in that Age, testify, * 1.465 That they all demanded forgiveness before they Communicated, and that they kissed the hand of the Priest.

CHAP. XI.

Of him who administred, and of the Communicant, and of the Words of both of them.

HAVING treated of the Time and Place of the Commu∣nion, and of the Posture and Gesture of the Commu∣nicant; 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 pretious pledge of their Salvation. A little above a hundred years after, Christians received the Communion from the hands of the Dea∣cons: for assoon as the Pastour, 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: * 1.466 Those whom we call Deacons (saith this Saint) give unto each one that is present, the Bread, Wine, and Water, which were consecrated. It ap∣pears by St. Cyprian, * 1.467 that about a hundred years after the de∣cease of St. Justin, the Deacons yet administred 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 setled, 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, * 1.468 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 administring, 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, * 1.469 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; * 1.470 The Ministers must not give the Bread, neither may they bless the Cup. Commonly by the Ministers, is meant the Dea∣cons; 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 Mi∣nisters are distinguished from the Deacons, as being a degree be∣low them, therefore I make no doubt but by these Ministers, is to be understood the sub-Deacons, which shews, that the Deacons were not comprised in the prohibition which was made unto these Mi∣nisters. Also the IV. Council of Carthage suffers the Deacons to administer unto the people in case of necessity, * 1.471 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. Lawrence, saith, that he distributed the Cup; and St. Leo, in a Ser∣mon where he treats of his Martyrdom, * 1.472 and of his Triumph, ad∣vanceth his Dignity, by administring of the Sacraments; and else∣where making the Panegyrick of St. Vincent, who was also a Deacon and Levite, * 1.473 he saith, that he administred the Cup of our Lord Jesus unto Believers, for their Salvation. George Cassander alledgeth in his Liturgies, these words of a certain Book which treated of all the Divine Offices, * 1.474 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, * 1.475 as he was admini∣string the Cup unto the people, let it fall to the ground, whereby it was broken. In Spain, they administred 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 Dea∣cons 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 af∣terwards they administred 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 posses∣sion

of their Rights, yet nevertheless, they have commonly injoy∣ed the priviledge of administring the Cup of our Lord unto Chri∣stians, 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 gi∣veth 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 admini∣ster the Sacrament unto the people; and forasmuch as this abuse, as far as I remember, began in Italy; * 1.476 Pope Gelasius was also the first, if I am not mistaken, who indeavoured to prevent it, grie∣vously 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, * 1.477 in his Synodal Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese, which have passed until our daies, 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 administred 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. * 1.478 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, * 1.479 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 alwaies pra∣ctis'd amongst Christians, seeing that it is most certain, that in the two first Centuries, and probably a good part of the third, they hid not their Mysteries, and did not celebrate with the Doors shut, as appears by the Works of Justin Martyr, which shews 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 Litur∣gies; and I shall not stand to prove this matter, being indisputa∣ble, 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 Dea∣cons, to shut out the Catechumeni, the Energoumeni, the peni∣tents, and the uninitiated, do manifestly shew, 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 Be∣livers 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 priviledge 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 inga∣ged to make two Considerations of the persons of Communi∣cants; the first shall treat of the Communion of Adults, the se∣cond, 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, * 1.480 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 Lords Supper (saith he) ought to be common; * 1.481 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 appropri∣ate it unto your self, and to exclude and hinder others, but make it com∣mon unto all, us being the Supper of the Lord, and Master of all. These were also the thoughts of the Authour of the Commentaries up∣on S. Paul's Epistles in S. Jerom's Works, which he expresses in these words, * 1.482 The Supper of the Lord should be common unto all, because he gave the Sacraments unto all his Disciples alike. But the an∣cient Doctors were not content to censure those who did not Communicate being in the Assembly, and to shew them, that

the nature of the Sacrament invited them all unto the Commu∣nion; they moreover made Rules and Directions against this a∣buse; It is, whereunto tends this Decree of the Council of An∣tioch, Assembled Anno 341. Those who enter into the Assembly, * 1.483 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 con∣demned 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, * 1.484 All the Be∣lievers 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, * 1.485 That the Deacon should stand at the Mens Door, and the sub-Deacon at the Womens Door, to hinder that none should go out during the time of Oblation. Which conduct teacheth us, that as before the Comunion the Deacon cry'd, All you which are under penance, you which cannot pray, * 1.486 (that is, with the Believers) go out. So in like manner, he hindred Be∣lievers 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: * 1.487 That Sacrifices should be of∣fered 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 Ob∣lations as need, for the people; And the first Decretal which falsely bears the name of Pope Anaclet, commands, * 1.488 That the Consecrati∣on 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, * 1.489 as Gregory the First witnesseth, said aloud, Let all those which do not communicate, depart out of the Church; whence it may be conclu∣ded, 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 Epithete, as spoken of one deceased. It is to be observed (saith he) that according to the Ancient Fathers, * 1.490 none were to be present at the Divine Mysteries, but such as did commu∣nicate, and it is what the Consecration of the Sacraments do plainly de∣clare; 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 Au∣thor, 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, * 1.491 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, * 1.492 Anno 829. An Ad∣vertisement, That Theodulph Bishop of Orleans gives his Priests, Anno 797. * 1.493 And Herard Archbishop of Tours unto his, Anno 858. The Cano∣nist Gratian, represents unto us this Institution of Pope Soter in his Decree, * 1.494 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 publick, and having for their object, not one or two Per∣sons only, but all the Faithful in general, who ought to com∣municate; also all the Liturgies, Ancient and Modern, and all those who have commented upon them, give sufficiently to un∣derstand, that they have been all composed, and written in behalf of Communicants, without whom they were so far from cele∣brating the Sacrament, that Justin Martyr tells us, That it was sent unto those who were absent: which sheweth, they looked upon the Sacrament, as a Seal and Pledge of the Communi∣on amongst Believers. And therefore I suppose it is, that the Council of Laodicea, * 1.495 forbids it to be celebrated in private Hou∣ses; this Divine Sacrament being appointed in nature of a Sacrament of Communion, for the benefit of all Christians. Therefore it is, * 1.496 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, * 1.497 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 ob∣served in other Christian Communions, and which, I make no

doubt, was alwayes observed in the West, because at the time it ceased in the Latin Church, that is to say, in the Twelfth Cen∣tury at soonest, those who went out and departed from her, ob∣served 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, * 1.498 whose Nurse had carried her unto the Pagan Temple, where they made her eat Bread steept in Wine, both having been consecra∣ted unto Idols, and that afterwards, as her turn came to Com∣municate in the Christian Church, they had very much trouble to open the Childs Lips, into whose mouth, with much adoe, they poured a little of the Sacrifice of the Cup, but in vain, * 1.499 The Sacrament (saith he) not enduring to abide in this polluted Mouth and Body, and indeed she vomited what they had forced her to take. The same may be collected from another place in his Works, where he defines, with his Brethren and fellow Bishops, that nothing hinders the Baptizing of Infants presently after their Birth, be∣cause that for the most part the participation of the Sacrament followed the reception of Baptism; and to say the truth, it seem∣eth that he explains himself sufficiently, not to leave us the least doubt of it. In the Apostolical constitution, * 1.500 Children are count∣ed amongst those who ought to Communicate: this custom then is very antient, seeing we find it established in the third Century: but if it is antient, it was also of a large extent, this custom ha∣ving since continued in all Christian Climats and Countreys, and is at this time practised in all the Churches of the Greeks, the Russians or Moscovites, the Armenians, and Ethiopians, and we do not find that those Christian Communions have ever laid it aside; which doth fully prove what we said, That this custom was soon spread into all parts of the Christian World. But to speak particularly of the Latin Church, we must, as near as may be, follow the steps of this antient practice: and in the first place, I will instance in what hath been said by the Jesuit Maldonat, in his Commentaries upon St. John. * 1.501 I lay apart (saith he) the opi∣nion 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, * 1.502 but that also it is not permitted to give it unto them. And indeed Innocent the First shews plainly that it was the practice of his time, that is, of

the Fifth Century. As for St. Austin, his constant Doctrine, in a great many passages of his Works, is, That the Eucharist is ne∣cessary unto young Children for obtaining eternal Life. I shall content my self with two or three passages of this famous Doctor; * 1.503 Let us hear (saith he) the Lord saying of the Sacrament of the holy Ta∣ble, unto which no body approaches as they ought, unless they are first Baptized; If ye eat not my Flesh, and drink not my Blood, you have no Life in you. What more do we look for, what can be re∣plied 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 lit∣tle Children, and that they can have life in themselves, without the par∣ticipation of this Body and of this Blood? * 1.504 And in the same Book, It is with great reason that the Christians of Africa call Baptism, Salva∣tion, and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, Life; whence is that, as I think, but from an antient and Apostolical Tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold for certain, That no body can attain, either un∣to the Kingdom of God, or unto Salvation or eternal Life, without Bap∣tism and the participation of the Supper of our Lord. And writing against Julian the Pelagian; * 1.505 What (saith he) would you have me do? Is it that the Lord saying, If ye eat not my Flesh, &c. I ought to say, That young Children who dye without this Sacrament, shall have Life? The same thing may be justified by several other Doctors of the same time; but seeing it is owned by both sides, it would be needless: It may be only observed that Maldonat set not his bounds right when he included this use, or rather abuse, in or about the six first Centuries; for besides that there is mention made of Communicating Infants presently after Baptism, in Gregory the First his Book of Sacraments, * 1.506 we have a Canon in the Eleventh Council of Toledo, Anno 675. which plainly commands it. In the beginning of the Eighth Century, the Life of the Abbot Leufred affords an example of this custom; for we therein read, That Charles Martel having desired him by his Prayers to restore health unto his Son Griphon, who was afflicted with a great Feaver, a∣mongst several things which he did, 'tis observed that he gave unto him the Sacrament of the Body of our Lord. Charlemain, in a Treatise written by his order, and in his name, doth plainly shew that this was still practised in the West at the end of the Eighth Century; * 1.507 for he not only saith, That there is no Salvation without participating of the Eucharist, but he also mentioneth the Communion of little Children, * 1.508 whom he represents unto us, fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of our Lord: And in his Capi∣tularies he commands, That Priests have always the Sacrament ready to Communicate Sick Folks, be they old or young, that they may not dye 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 Ro∣man 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; * 1.509 Care is to be taken that young Children receive no Food after they are Baptized, and that they should not give them Suck without great necessity, untill they have participated of the Body of Christ. * 1.510 Nevertheless in S. Gregory's time it was not forbidden to give them Suck, but at the end of the E∣leventh, and beginning of the Twelfth Centuries this pity was shewed unto these poor Infants; and for the difficulty there was in making them swallow Bread, they were communicated with the blessed Wine only. * 1.511 So it was enjoined by Pope Paschal the Second, who succeeded unto Ʋrban the Second, Anno 1099. ac∣cording to Cardinal Bellarmin's computation: and this custom con∣tinued after his death, as Hugh of S. Victor testifies (who lived in the Twelfth Century) in his Ecclesiastical Books of Ceremo∣nies, Sacraments, Offices, and Observations; * 1.512 Ʋnto Children new born (saith he) must be administred, with the Priest's Finger, the Sacra∣ment, 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) re∣taining the form, and not the thing, give unto them Wine instead of Blood; which he wished might be abolished, if it could be done with∣out 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, * 1.513 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 pra∣ctised in the Church of Dordrecht in Holland, * 1.514 before it embraced the Protestant Reformed Religion. In fine, Simon of Thessalonica, Ca∣basilas, Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople, and Gabriel of Philadel∣phia, also defend this necessity of Communicating, not only of persons of discretion, but also of young Children. This Tra∣dition 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 Symbole 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, * 1.515 the Distributer nor the Com∣municant

said nothing, but the Deacons gave unto the Belie∣vers Bread and Wine which had been consecrated; * 1.516 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. Cy∣ril of Jerusalem, S. Austin, and elsewhere; but it must also be ob∣served 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 restified by S. Austin in his Ser∣mon unto the new Baptized in S. Fulgentius. In the days of Gre∣gory 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 Commu∣nicant, * 1.517 Servant of God, you do Communicate of the holy Body and pre∣cious 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 Sa∣crament, and it is wherein we will employ the following Chap∣ter.

CHAP. XII.

Of the things distributed and received.

WHat was distributed unto Believers in Com∣municating, were the things which had been Blessed and Consecrated, to be made the Sa∣craments 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 enquire if Christians have always participated of both Symboles, and if they have ever been permitted to Communicate under both kinds, as is spoken; or under one kind only. As for the Symbole 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 it self, 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 diffi∣culty then is to know the practice of the Church in the spe∣cies of Wine; we are indispensably forced to treat of the Com∣munion 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 expresly commanded them all to drink of it, as S. Matthew hath written: S. Mark hath said that they all drank of it. The Christians im∣mediately 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 be∣sides, both Roman Catholicks, 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 clear∣est 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, * 1.518 that in his time, there was distributed Consecra∣ted Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants. * 1.519 The pretended Ignatius tells us, of one only Cup distributed unto all; And S. Irenaeus, disputing against certain Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Body; * 1.520 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? * 1.521 And again, How do they again say, that the Body corrupteth (that is to say, with a final corruption), and that it re∣ceiveth not life; (to wit, in rising again) being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ. * 1.522 Origen on the Book of Numbers, What is this people which are wont to drink Blood? the Christian people, the faith∣ful 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 shew, that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion, * 1.523 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 unad∣visedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian, * 1.524 hath written a Treatise expresly of the Sacrament of the Cup, as S. Austin calls it, where he amply proves this Com∣munion which we examin; and in another place, writing, with his Brethren, unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome, touching the reso∣lution 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 incourage Christians unto Martyrdom; see here what they said, * 1.525 How should we incourage 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 Trea∣tise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church, he saith, * 1.526 That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present, as Justin Martyr also hath taught us. The Councils of Ancyra, An∣no 314. * 1.527 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, * 1.528 speaking in the V. Century of S. Vincent Levite, (that is to say, Deacon and glorious Martyr) saith, That he admini∣stred 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 ••onatists, 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. * 1.529 S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his My∣stagogicks, Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ, draw near unto the Cup of his Blood, &c. S. Basil said, the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is, That eating and drink∣ing, we should alwaies have him in remembrance who Died, and is Ri∣sen again for us; And elsewhere, * 1.530 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 alledged, and all the others which are now remaining, from which it is easie to collect the use and practice of communicating under both kinds. S Chrysostom in his Homilies upon S. Matthew, * 1.531 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 Christs side; * 1.532 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 it self. And upon the Second to the Corinthians, * 1.533 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 terri∣ble Mysteries, for we are all equally admitted there; it is not as under the old Law, the Priest ate 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, * 1.534 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 Sa∣crifices offered for sins, if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacri∣fice, wherein the true and full remission of sins is made? nevertheless, no person is hindred from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment, but ra∣ther 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 Belie∣vers, and did also participate with them of their Sacraments: * 1.535 To hide (saith he) their Infidelity, they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries, they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sa∣craments; to shelter themselves the better, they receive with an unwor∣thy 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 expell'd 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, * 1.536 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 lit∣tle, and that bad and muddy, just newly prest and made. Pope Gelasius at the end of the V. Century, * 1.537 in Gratians Decree: We have been informed (saith he) that some persons having only taken part of the ho∣ly Body, do refrain the Cup of the holy Blood; which persons doubtless, it being said, they are hindred by I know not what Superstition, ought to re∣ceive the whole Sacraments, or be quite excluded from them; because that the dividing of one and the same Mysterie, cannot be done without Sa∣criledge. * 1.538 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. * 1.539 The Third Council of Toledo, Assembled Anno 589. in the second Canon, Ordains; That the peoples 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, * 1.540 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 Sa∣crament. Some Priests communicate presently after saying the Lords Prayer, and then give the Blessing unto the people, which we forbid for the future; but that after the Lords 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 Quire, 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 Officia∣ted as to the manner, but in respect of the place only. Also the XI. Council of Toledo, * 1.541 Assembled Anno 675. in the Eleventh Canon plainly speaks also of the Communion under both the Sym∣bols 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 go∣ing about to change this wholsom custom, and to administer the Bread steept in the Consecrated Wine, the Council of Braga in Gallicia, made a Decree to stop the current of this practice; but before we alledge 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 par∣ticipation of the Sacrament, as hath been shewn; We have an in∣stance of the first, in the old Man Serapion, a Penitent, and Bed∣ridden, (for as I perceive in the Third Century, the Eucharist was administred to no sick folks, but such as were of the number of the Penitents, and in danger of Death); And we read in Eusebi∣us, 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, * 1.542 commanding that it should be steept, and put into the old Mans 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, * 1.543 and of the counterfeit Prosper, in what he hath written of Promi∣ses 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 steept in the Wine; the pretended Prosper speaks more formally. In a word, it is evident, that this kind of Com∣munion was not practised but in great necessity, * 1.544 and also as Cas∣sander hath judiciously observed, Those persons who steeped the Bread in the Wine, did plainly shew and declare, how necessary they be∣lieved 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 Ʋrban the second, as 'tis reported by Cardi∣nal Baronius, he collects, that according to the intent of the Coun∣cil, may be given in a Spoon, unto sick Persons ready to dye, the Body of our Lord steeped in the Blood, that they might swal∣low it the easier. And to shew that the Eucharist was not so ad∣ministred, 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 administred unto such as were not ex∣tream 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 sepa∣rate 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 ever∣lasting 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 mis-alledge, 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 ad∣ministring the Sacrament steeped; therefore we will rest satisfi∣ed with alledging that which properly relates to the Subject in hand, * 1.545 We are given to understand that some Persons present unto the peo∣ple, 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 Fa∣thers add, And whereas they give unto the people as a perfect Communion the Eucharist steeped, the example of the Scripture which is alledged, 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 shew the In∣stitution of the Sacrament. We are then arrived at the end of the VII. Century, without seeing any other attempt against the Com∣munion under both kinds separately, but that which was vigo∣rously 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, * 1.546 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 participa∣tion of the Body and Blood of our Lord. * 1.547 Theodulph Bishop of Orleans, in the same Century, speaking of life eternal: To obtain (saith he) this life, we are Baptized, and we eat the flesh of Christ and do drink his Blood, and afterwards, the Church continues the custom of re∣ceiving 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

Baptized), he is nourished with the body of our Lord, and drinks his Blood; because that immediately after Baptism, * 1.548 they received the Sa∣crament. Amalarius Fortunatus; It is to be observed (saith he) that every Sunday in Lent, all the believers, (except such as are excommu∣nicated) ought to receive the Sacraments of the Body and blood of Christ. Pope Nicholas the First, in his answer to the Bulgarians, requires, * 1.549 that the venerable Body of Christ, and his pretious Blood, be distinguished and discerned from other meat, and that the one and the other be re∣ceived. 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 dismist for e∣ver, Waldrad, his Concubine, * 1.550 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 priviledge 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, * 1.551 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 orders them, to warn Be∣lievers to come four times a year to the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; and in his first Sermon of Easter, * 1.552 Let us (saith he) ce∣lebrate the Feast, (that is to say) let us eat the flesh of the Lord, and drink his Blood; And again, Lay aside wickedness, * 1.553 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, * 1.554 He dared approach to re∣ceive the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God. And of him that had not followed the example of the Saints, * 1.555 How doth he presume without sighing and grieving, this day to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord; And in his second Sermon. * 1.556 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 dyed Anno 974. yet it is true, that the practice of administring 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 sub-Deacons, 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 antient manner of celebrating Mass, which he got from an antient Manuscript of the Priory of Saluza, of the Prebends 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 dedi∣cated to Maurill, Archbishop of Roan, and this John dyed, as the same Maynard in his Notes observes, * 1.557 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 permit∣ted to give the Communion with steeped Bread, not by authority, but by great necessity, for fear of shedding the Blood of Christ: where the Rea∣der may observe if he please, that the case is, by way of per∣mission; and farther, of a permission grounded not upon the au∣thority of a Council, but upon the necessity that is alledged, of the fear or danger of effusion: something of like nature is to be found in the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny, which were writ∣ten after the death of the Abbot Odilon, who dyed about the mid∣dle of the XI. Century, but in such a manner, as appears that this custom was peculiar to the Congregation of Cluny, the other Church∣es distributing both Symbols severally: * 1.558 Ʋuto all those unto whom he gives the holy Body, (say these antient customs) he first wets or steeps it in the Blood; but in the Margent, 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 it self, they would not fail of being guilty of some great neglect. * 1.559 Which words, Cassander alledged in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds; for he saw the Ma∣nuscripts before the customs were Printed, as they have been with∣in this six or seven years past; but it appears by the words above alledged, that in most Churches, the Bread and Wine of the Sa∣crament were given apart and distinct from one another. In the year 1095. Ʋrban 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, * 1.560 That no Body pre∣sume to Communicate at the Altar without receiving the Body apart, and also the Blood by it self, unless it be by necessity and with precaution. This necessity regards the sick above-mentioned, and this care, or pre∣caution,

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 un∣to the people; if it were not better to refer unto the same sub∣ject (that is to say) unto sick bed-rid 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, * 1.561 That the Body of the Lord be received separately, and also the Blood of the Lord; he speaks neither of necessity nor precaution: and with∣out that, the Canon is clear and intelligible and without any difficulty; it is no easiy matter to judge in what manner the Council exprest it self, it only can be said, that it seems to express it self, as Oderic Vital saith, if it be considered in the first place, that 'twas in this Council of Clermont, the Croy∣sade 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 be∣sieged in Antioch, did first Communicate, but under both Symbols distinctly, These things being heard, * 1.562 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 Coun∣cil of Clermont, most Churches did Communicate, as we have been informed by the antient customs of Cluny, under both kinds distinctly. But Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Ʋrban, Anno 1099. commands both Symbols to be distributed separately, * 1.563 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, * 1.564 is no lawful Com∣munion, and proves it by the authority of the Roman Order. It appears also that about fifty years before this Council of Cler∣mont, the steeped Sacrament was not always given unto Persons ready to depart this life, but the holy Bread, and the sanctified Cup apart; at least 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 dyed in the

year 1047. * 1.565 it saith, That being at the point of death, and having received the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, he dyed.

Nevertheless, the best and most holy things absolutely dege∣nerate from their institution, let us see the manner that the Com∣munion with the steeped Eucharist was introduced and establish∣ed 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, after∣wards 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. * 1.566 in this Letter which he writes unto one Lam∣bert, who demanded wherefore the Sacrament was then given steept, 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 daies, be∣cause of the great numbers of persons that then use to communi∣cate; 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 re∣ceive 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 daies, 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 steept in Wine, saying, That pious men had prudently directed, that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry, as our Lord had done, but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord, and that by this means it should happen, that ac∣cording 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 a∣void 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 re∣ceived it in the mouth, either together, or separately. And because some

considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Ju∣das, did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament, he saith, there's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped, and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him, because the actions which have a different occasion, cannot agree well together: Afterwards taking with many others, the Decree of the Council of Braga, of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament, for a Decree of Pope Julius, he saith, this De∣cree is no longer of force with modern persons, and that the cu∣stoms of the Church, which surpasse all others, as well in rea∣son, as in authority, hath overcome this ancient Constitution, that it should not be thought strange, because the Decrees of o∣ther Popes are changed for the like, and sometimes upon smaller occasions.

But although this Author of the XII. Century, of whom Car∣dinal Cusa cites something in Cassander, in his Liturgies, gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread, as esta∣blish'd in his time in the West; it cannot be said, that it was uni∣versally received in all Churches without exception. In fine, be∣sides what we alledged out of the Micrologue, and of Pope Pas∣chal, who made his Decree in the XII. Century; Arnold of Bonne∣val, contemporary with S. Bernard, in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord, in S. Cyprian's Works, sheweth us sufficiently, that in the same XII. Century wherein he lived, the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people, when he saith, * 1.567 It was under the Do∣ctor Christ Jesus, that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World, that Christians should drink Blood, whereof the use was so strictly pro∣hibited 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, * 1.568 or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus, who is the head of this Divine Body. We also (saith he) being made his Body, are tied and bound unto our head, both by the Sacrament, and by the matter of the Sacrament; and being members one of another, we mutually render each other the duties of love, we communicate by charity, we participate with eating one and the same meat, and drink one and the same drink, which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock, which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval, Peter de Celles, Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims, who lived at the end of the XII. Century; for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline, which is come to light

but within these seven or eight years, he speaks in this manner; The communication of the Body of Christ, * 1.569 and of the Blood of Christ pour∣ed 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 Ta∣rantes, * 1.570 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 Pa∣lude, testifies, that in his time, It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species. Richard de Media∣villa, was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason, that those unto whom they admi∣nister 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 cer∣tain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices, by means whereof, they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord, as Beatus Rhenanus, * 1.571 testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis; and Cassander in his Treatise of the Com∣munion under both kinds: * 1.572 both of them in their time, having seen of these Quills or little Pipes, which were used for com∣municating the Laity. Let us descend yet lower, and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance, an exam∣ple of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self, not in∣deed of the People, but of all the Cardinal Deacons; for Ʋrban 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 Al∣tar, in his Pontifical Habit; wherein all things were performed accord∣ing to the order of the Rubrick; and in fine, he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons, with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ; as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do; * 1.573 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 Consecra∣ted Wine; so from the distributing the Eucharist steeped, by lit∣tle 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 it self 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 Con∣stance. * 1.574 This present holy general Council of Constance lawfully Assem∣bled by the Holy Ghost, declares, discerns, and defines, that although Jesus Christ after Supper instituted and administred unto his Disci∣ples, 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 Sacra∣ment ought not to be celebrated after Supper, nor to be received of Be∣lievers but fasting, except in case of sickness or some other necessity, al∣lowed, or admitted by Law, or by the Church: and in like manner, that although in the Primitive Church, Believers received the Sacrament un∣der 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, withall that they should firmly believe and nothing doubt, that the intire 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 bodies fancy, without the Au∣thority 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, ought to be banished as Hereticks, and severely punished by the Diocesans of the places, or their Offi∣cials, or by the Inquisitors of the Heretical evil, in the Kingdoms or Pro∣vinces, 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 Hereticks, and their abet∣tors against the Catholick Faith. But notwithstanding the seve∣rity 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, * 1.575 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 Com∣municant should also receive the Blood. This Council of Basle, whereat this Archbishop was present, granted unto the Bohemians the Com∣munion 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, * 1.576 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 Grand-mother 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 Matthias 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 suffici∣ent ground for making a clear and certain Judgement of the Be∣lief 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 alwaies had in the dispensation of Sacra∣ments, to change in time, and place, what she thought fit, the

substance still remaining intire: it adds, * 1.577 That therefore the Holy Mo∣ther the Church, being sensible of this wholsom Authority in the admini∣stration of Sacraments, although that at the beginning of Christian Reli∣gion, 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 com∣manded it to pass into a Law, which shall not be allowed to be alter'd 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 intirely, 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 salva∣tion, who receive but under one kind. After all which, the Council makes these three Canons: If any one shall say, * 1.578 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 Sa∣crament of the Eucharist, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, * 1.579 that the holy Catholick 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, * 1.580 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 In∣stitution 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 publick Authority; the Albigenses, and Waldenses, had separated themselves from the Latin Church, to make a Body apart, which Body hath alwaies practised the Communion under both kinds: Secondly, that at the time the Council of Constance made her De∣cree, there was in Bohemia, besides the Calixtins, who only de∣sired 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 ma∣ny of the Waldenses, who, according to the testimony of Dubravius, had sheltered themselves in those parts ever since the XII. Centu∣ry, 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 Fathers daies, 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 Popes disposing and power, to grant it unto those whom he should think fitting, and upon what conditions he should judge convenient, without insisting here up∣on 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 Commu∣nion, 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 intelli∣gent 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, * 1.581 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 Georgi∣ans, 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 heither did they renounce their belief or worship, to imbrace the wor∣ship of the Latin Church, till the year 1599. the Jacobites, which are exceeding numerous, the Cophtites, or Christians in E∣gypt, 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 a∣mongst these Christian Nations; for some of them put the Bread and Wine both together in a Spoon, as the Muscovites; others ad∣minister the Sacrament steeped, as the Armenians; if we may cre∣dit 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 steept. There∣fore Humbert Cardinal of Blanoh-Selva, writing against the Ca∣lumnies 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 Goar, in his Notes upon the E••chology; 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 Chri∣stian Communion in the whole World, excepting only the La∣tin, 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 administring 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 Lai∣ty by the Ancients, because that means nothing else, as the learn∣ed on both sides agree, but to communicate with the people, and not with the Clergy; for instance, when a Clergy-man was degraded from his Office for some great sin, he was reduced to the degree of the common people, amongst whom he did com∣municate, and not with the Clergy, which is at this time practi∣sed 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 Communi∣on, whereof mention is made, but very seldom, in the Monu∣ments 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 Clergy-men which travelled from one Church to another without Attestations or Certificates, in which case they were civilly received by reason of their character, but without ad∣mitting them unto the Communion of Divine Mysteries, almost as S. Chrysostom served Ammonius, and Isidorus; which also administred unto Theophilus Bp. of Alexandria, a pretext for persecuting S. Chry∣sostome; Nor that Believers were suffered to carry home unto their Houses the Bread of the Eucharist, to take it when they pleas'd: 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 Eu∣charist steeped, because it was a thing extraordinary, and that beside it was shewn by this practice, that both Symbols were be∣lieved to be necessary, nor that the XI. Council of Toledo, per∣mits 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 suf∣ferance 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 un∣der 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 satisfie the curiosity of those who desire to be informed of what passed in the ancient Church, in the practice of so impor∣tant a matter, as is that of the Communion of the holy Cup; not but that a great number of other testimonies may be alledged for the establishment of this Tradition; but when I consider that if the great number of passages doth not prejudice the mat∣ter which is examined, yet it proves tedious unto the Reader, when too large: I shall forbear alledging any more to avoid ti∣ring 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. Au∣stin, 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 Charlemaine, 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 else∣where; 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 my self in touching a circum∣stance 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 Baptized Clovis the first of our Kings who imbraced the Christian Religion: this Prelate I say, did Consecrate unto God a Cup to distribute the Communion un∣to the people, upon which he caused three Latin Verses to be in∣graved, which are preserved unto our daies, although the Cha∣lice is not in being, the Church of Rheims having been constrain∣ed to melt it, and to pay it for their Ransom unto the Normans,

above 700. years ago; and these Verses plainly shew, 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 cites them in his Hi∣story of the Church of Rheims, and I'll make no difficulty of re∣presenting them in this History, in the same stile in which they were written;

Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro * 1.582 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 La∣tin Church, to administer the Sacrament mixt, 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 publick 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 con∣trary 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 La∣tin, 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 re∣ceived by Believers; I think fit to imploy this Chapter in the inquiry of this Custom and Practice. When Jesus Christ celebrated and instituted his first Sacrament, he said unto his Dis∣ciples, Take; the Greek word used by him in this place imports, to take with the hand, or receive with the hand what is given; accord∣ingly 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 Tertulli∣an teacheth us in his Treatise of Idolatry, where shewing, 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, * 1.583 Who come (saith he) from making Idols, to Church, who lifteth up unto God the Father, the hands which are the makers of Idols; * 1.584 And in fine which stretcheth forth those hands to re∣ceive the Body of the Lord, who gave Bodies unto Devils. And else∣where, We receive the Eucharist from no other hand but from his who doth preside; * 1.585 And in his Book of Prayer, Having (saith he) re∣ceived 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 un∣to the holy Table to take it. * 1.586 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 man∣ner of Communicating amongst the Protestants in Holland: yet this is still receiving the Sacrament with the hand; which was observed in S. Cyprians time, * 1.587 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 couragiously reject wicked

Sacrifices, being mindful of the Eucharist, and that which receives the Body of the Lord, might afterwards imbrace 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, * 1.588 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 over∣come by means of patience; * 1.589 Let patience (saith he) be strong and well rooted in the heart, that the sanctified Body and Temple of God, defile not it self by Adultery, and that the hand, after having received the Eu∣charist, defile not it self with the Sword and Blood-shedding. Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, contemporary with St. Cyprian, also sheweth plainly that it was so practised in the Church of Rome, when wri∣ting unto Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, he tells him that Novatian the Heretick, made those who came unto him to receive the Com∣munion, to swear that they would be of his party; * 1.590 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 loose, till they had ingaged 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 entred into its Communion, and forsaken the Hereticks amongst whom he had been Baptized; and amongst many things which he saith, he observes this circum∣stance, That he presented himself at the holy Table; * 1.591 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 Na∣zianzen had respect, when he said of Julian the Apostate, * 1.592 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 Gre∣gory, subscribes thereunto, and observes upon the place, That al∣most all the Antients, after Turtullian, testifie, that antiently, the Eu∣charist was given into the peoples 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 * 1.593

Jesus Christ. St. Basil his intimate friend, deposeth in favour of this same practice about the end of the V. Century; * 1.594 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 Commu∣nicant, * 1.595 That he take care that he lose none of it, and that not a crum 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 dyed the in beginning of the V. Century, gives us several proofs of this antient 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 imploying it to strike: consider what 'tis you receive with the hand, and keep it free from all covetousness, &c. Think that not only you receive it with the hand, but also that you put it unto the mouth. * 1.596 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. * 1.597 And in the third Tome, The Sera∣phin durst not touch it with his hand, but with the Tongs; 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 denyed the Divinity of the holy Ghost, went through complaisance to her Husband, who had quitted this Sect by the powerful Sermons of St Chry∣sostom, * 1.598 unto the Church of the Catholicks, and disposed her self to communicate with them; but he saith, That retaining what she had received, she bowed her self 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 applyed what St. * 1.599 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, * 1.600 assembled Anno 380. there is a Canon against those who received the Eucharist, and did not eat it, an Ordi∣nance which is found to be renewed in the fourteenth Canon of the Council of Toledo in the year four hundred, upon which Canon, * 1.601 Garsias Loaysa, a Spaniard, observes, That antiently 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 gi∣ving the Eucharist unto dead Bodies, doth no less justifie this practice, because the Fathers alledge for a reason, that it is written; * 1.602 Take, eat; and that dead Bodies can neither take nor eat. St. Austin, who was present at this Council, intended not to depart from this use; for writing against the Donatist Petilian, * 1.603 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 Wo∣men were obliged to receive the Sacrament with the hand indeed, * 1.604 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 Cloths, 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, * 1.605 when she communicates, have her Dominical; and if there be any which hath it not, let her not receive until the next Lords 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 re∣ceived 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, * 1.606 Take the part of the Sacrament, and put it into your mouth. Cardinal Ba∣ronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals, attributes unto Maximus, who lived about the year of our Lord 650. and whom he stiles defender of the Catholick verity, against the Monothelites, the same words but now alledged of St. Austins, or very near them, * 1.607 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 Cloaths, 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 expresly prohibits receiving the Sacrament any other way but with the hand only, and blames all those who imploy 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; * 1.608 The Apostle St. Paul doth boldly call man created after the image of God, the Body and

Temple of Christ; he then 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 par∣taketh of Divine grace, being sanctified both in Body and Soul. There∣fore if any desire to participate of the immaculate Body, and will pre∣sent 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 re∣ceive the immaculate Communion, we do by no means admit them, be∣cause they prefer an inanimate thing, and which is inferiour 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 Excommu∣nicated, 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 men∣tioned, either with the linnen cloths, 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. Oecumenical Council, establishing the ancient use of receiving the Sacrament with the hand only. And I do not see that the Roman Catholicks, * 1.609 or the Protestants, do deny it; for Cardinal Baronius in his Annals, the Frier Combe∣fis in his Augmentation of the Library of the Holy Fathers; Gabriel de Laubespine Bishop of Orleance, * 1.610 a very learned Prelate in the Discipline of the ancient Church, in his Ecclesiastical Ob∣servations; the famous Monsieur Arnold, in his excellent Book of frequent Communicating; * 1.611 and the Abbot of Billy, upon Gre∣gory 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 concurr herein with the Prote∣stants. It is true, Baronius and Combesis observe, that this custom continued longer in the Eastern Church; which I do not judge ought absolutely to be deny'd: but the better to follow its tra∣ces 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. * 1.612 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. * 1.613 alledging 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 de∣clares 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 se∣veral attributed unto S. Magnobode, there is mention first made of a certain blind person, that being drawn by the great reputati∣on 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, * 1.614 the per∣ception 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 Feaver, which all men thought incurable; she with tears desired to be carried to the man of God, Magnobode, whose Miracles had already been nois∣ed 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. * 1.615 He received them courteously, and put into the little Maids 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 extra∣ordinary, 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 conse∣quence 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 Col∣lection, 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. * 1.616 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 Se∣venth Century, it was received with the hand in England, which then related unto the Latin State, wherein we travel; for vene∣rable 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 Frier at the request of an Abbess. This man falling sick, * 1.617 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 an∣tient 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 daies, there it may be seen, that the Priests and Deacons receive the Communion with the hand, and the sub-Deacons with the mouth: * 1.618 That the Priests and Deacons in kissing the Bishop, receive of him with their hands, the Body of Christ, but the sub-Deacons in kissing the Bishops 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, alledges something of this Nature, touching the Priests and Deacons, relating to the Mass of Illyrica, * 1.619 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, * 1.620 and published by Mat∣thias Illyricus, a Protestant Lutheran. Of this Mass, this Benedi∣ctine Frier cites these words, * 1.621 Then the Priests and Deacons receiv∣ing 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 man∣ner 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 it self, gave the Communion unto King Lothair, and

that this Prince received in his hands the Body and Blood of our Lord: * 1.622 which is also to be concluded of all those which attend∣ed him, unto whom the Pope administred the Sacrament. I shall then make no difficulty to believe, that what the Roman Order speaks of sub-Deacons communicating with the mouth, was done by reason of the solemnity of the day, on these oc∣casions, to distinguish betwixt the sub-Deacons, and the Priests and Deacons, who are superiour unto them; besides, that this distinction began not to be made until before the Eleventh Cen∣tury. But in fine, if we enter in the Tenth Century, we shall find it something divided concerning this custom. Ratherius, Bi∣shop of Verona, died in the year 974. in what we have resting of his works, there may be seen the two wayes of receiving the Sacrament, with the hand and with the mouth; in the se∣cond Sermon of Easter, he speaks thus, But O sadness! * 1.623 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, say∣ing, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ profit you unto eternal life. But in the following page, see here what he saith, * 1.624 If they had seriously thought on these things, they would at least have avoided re∣ceiving 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 alledgeth these words of the seventy seventh, * 1.625 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 Sathan who of a long time posses∣sed them by a most wicked and evil intention, entred 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. * 1.626 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 Judgment, * 1.627 we truly accuse our selves, with what neglect and carelesness do we Consecrate the Bread which we are to distribute or present. Me∣thinks, 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 al∣ledged by Regino, of a Council of Rouan, in Cassander, * 1.628 and the President Duranti in one of his Books of the Ceremonies of the Catholick Church, l. 1. cap. 16. n. 12. In fine, Molanus

Doctor and Divine of Louvain, hath made a kind of Marty∣rology peculiar for the Saints of Flanders, that is, of the Countreys formerly inhabited by the people of Belgia, and up∣on the 6th. of June, speaking of Norbert, Founder of the Or∣der 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: * 1.629 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 Learn∣ed men of his time, had reason so to judge, being necessarily inferr'd from the words of the Continuator of Sigebert. Those poor people, of whom he speaks, were seduced by a certain Heretick called Tanchelin, or as 'tis in the Edition I have, Tan∣dem, who had perswaded the Inhabitants of Antwerp, which was a very populous City, That the participation of the Bo∣dy 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, * 1.630 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, &c. 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 re∣ceived the Sacrament with their hand until the Tenth Centu∣ry, excepting, it may be, some particular occasion, which can∣not prejudice the established Law, and generally received cu∣stom; 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 receiv∣ed 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 a∣bolished this custom, the Albigenses, and Waldenses, had separa∣ted themselves from its Communion, and carefully practised it amongst them, until the time the Protestants separated them∣selves, who continue to practise it at this time. As for the Greeks, James Goar, a Frier of the Order of preaching Friers, observes upon the Euchologie or Ritual of that Nation, * 1.631 That the Priest or Bishop gives the holy Eucharist into the hand, according to the ancient practice. And he represents the gesture wherein the Cler∣gy 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 Goar 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 antient 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. * 1.632 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 ones 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 In∣fidel, * 1.633 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 be∣lieve that 'tis that which is so call'd? * 1.634 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 Shews of Pagans; * 1.635 Who (saith he) runs unto a Show, after having been dis∣missed, (that is to say, after the Celebration of Divine Service) and also carryeth along with him the Eucharist, according to the usual custom. Gregory of Nazianzen, speaking of a great Sickness of Gorgonia, * 1.636 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 persecu∣tion, and that this custom, which still continued in the Desarts amongst the Friers, and all over Egypt, amongst the People, was innocent, and deserved no reproof: They were constrained (saith he) during the times of persecution, * 1.637 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 shew 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 Monastick 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 intire at once, and who takes of it daily, ought 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 vertue 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, * 1.638 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 publick? What is not permitted in the Church, is not permitted at home: I also refer unto this custom what S. Au∣stin saith of a believing Woman, * 1.639 That she mada a Plaister 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, * 1.640 but which Cardinal Baronius thinks was assembled in the days of Pope Hormisda, that is, in the begin∣ning 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, * 1.641 If it be proved that any one hath not eaten the Sacrament which he received in the Church, let him be Ana∣thematized 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 Anathe∣ma: 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, assem∣bled 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 con∣tinued till the end of the Sixth Century, and haply to the be∣ginning

of the Seventh; for John Moschus, who 'tis thought li∣ved about that time, * 1.642 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 peo∣ple did in the Twelfth Century hide 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, * 1.643 Brother to St. Ambrose, for being in great danger in a Storm at Sea, and being not yet Bap∣tized, he desired one of the Company, who was Baptized, 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, * 1.644 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 Syracusa, and of his Companions, Sailing in the Adriatick Sea, that is to say, that being in danger of Shipwrack, they re∣ceived (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 shew∣eth that it was practised in some places. He takes what he re∣ports, from the Acts of the life of S. Lawrence, Bishop of Dub∣lin, * 1.645 whence he cites these words, They discovered that four Priests went along with a great company of Men, who publickly carried the Eu∣charist 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 ex∣amine if those Acts of the life of S. Lawrence, 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 ma∣ny things which he hath taken the pains to collect, although there is no Forgery in the matter now mentioned. * 1.646

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 Eu∣charist, * 1.647 and keep it, would be an Act punishable (saith the learn∣ed 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 Sacra∣ment of Communion, not only with Jesus Christ, but also with Believers, who find in this Divine Mystery a pretious Earnest of the strict and in∣timate Union which they ought to have toge∣ther: 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. * 1.648 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, * 1.649 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 Bi∣shops 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 Ea∣ster the fourteenth day of March; in this Letter he speaks thus to the Pope, * 1.650 The Priests (saith he) which have been be∣fore 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; * 1.651 The holy Sacrament must not be sent unto other Churches at the Feast of Easter, un∣der the name of Eulogies. But so 'tis, that I find great dif∣ference betwixt what is said by Justin Martyr, and what is said by Irenaeus; the former speaketh of what was done to∣wards 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 conducters 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 al∣so 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 Baptized, who had preserved the purity of their Baptism, or at least who had not commited 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 faln 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. * 1.652 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 her self 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 Sacra∣ment of the Lords Supper, as a seal of this reconciliation, that they might depart 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, * 1.653 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 be∣fore

their sickness. There are to be seen in S. Cyprian's Epi∣stles, who lived at the same time, several the like directi∣ons touching those which had fallen during the time of per∣secution: but because many were not mindful of desiring reconciliation with the Church, from whose Communion they had fallen by their Apostasy, untill they were taken with some sickness which endangered their life; the first Council of Arles assembled Anno 314. * 1.654 forbids giving the Sa∣crament unto such as did so, unless they recovered their health, and did fruits worthy of repentance: But this it self shews that it was not refused unto any of those which being fallen, endeavoured to rise again by passing through the de∣grees 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 di∣rect the time and manner of absolving Penitents, which was inseparable from receiving of the Sacrament, which was gi∣ven 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 permit∣ting them to participate of this Divine Mystery. But if I am demanded, Whether this practice of administring the Sacrament unto bed-rid Penitents, and, after the third Century, unto o∣ther sick Folks at the time of death, doth not presuppose that the Eucharist was kept to the end it might be apply'd in these hasty necessities? to speak sincerely, I do not see there was any necessary consequence of one of these things un∣to 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 Bed-rid dying persons. To al∣ledge, 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 presanctifi∣ed in Lent, were not in my Opinion to argue, but trifle; be∣cause 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 acra∣ment that the remainder of the Sacrament was in some Churches burnt, and in others it was eaten by little Chil∣dren: but although this last custom continued a long time in our France, as shall appear in the following. Chapter, never∣theless

I find from the time of Charelemain, that is to say, in the VIII. Century, formal directions for keeping the Sacra∣ment; * 1.655 That the Priests (saith this Prince in his Capitularies) have always the Sacrament ready to communicate the Sick, whe∣ther Old or Young, to the end they should not dye without the Sa∣crament. 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 as∣sure 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 expresly forbidden, * 1.656 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 Bed-rid dying Pe∣nitents, 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 imploy Lay Persons, young Boys, Men and Women, to carry it: in fine, Denys Bishop of Alexandria, re∣lates in Eusebius the History of a certain Old Man called Sera∣pion, who having Apostatized 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 sick∣ness, whereof he dyed, he sent one of his Daughters Sons for a Priest, who being sick, sent him the Sacrament by the Child; He gave unto this Youth (saith Denys) some, * 1.657 or a little of the Sacrament, commanding that it should be moistned, and to put it in the Old Mans mouth, that he might the easier swallow it down; his grand Child being returned, steeped it, and poured it into the sick Mans mouth, who having by little and little let it down, present∣ly gave up the Ghost. So the Martyrology of Ado Bishop of Vien∣na, that of Bede, and the Roman, * 1.658 as also the Acts of the life of Pope Stephen the First, testifie, 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, * 1.659 who lived in the X. Century, and which Father Com∣befis 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 Desarts, 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 pre∣scribed after what manner they should do it. And Father Combefis in his Notes observes, * 1.660 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 Sa∣crament 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, * 1.661 who lived in the middle of the IX. Cen∣tury, 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 Ser∣mon is neither Leo the Fourth's, nor St. Ʋlrick's, as Gretser imagined; it is nothing else but a Synodical Letter of Ra∣therius 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, * 1.662 saith, That he hath lately been so informed: and we cannot doubt of it, because we have the Book it self 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, * 1.663 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, un∣til the end of the X. Century. The same Mr. de Valois ob∣serves upon the words of Denys Bishop of Alexandria above mentioned, * 1.664 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 Eu∣charist 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. * 1.665 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 antient Church touching the Eucharist, I find in the first place, that they made Plaisters of it; for St. Austin makes mention of a Child which being born blind, by reason that the Eye-lids were closed, and thereby deprived of sight, although the Eyes were full within; a Physician advising to open the Eye-lids with an Iron instrument, * 1.666 His pious Mother (saith he,) would not suffer it; but what the Physician would have done with his Lancet, she affected with a Plaister made of the Sacrament; the Child being then five years old or upwards, said that he remem∣bred it very well.

Secondly, the antient 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 flou∣rished towards the end of the Fourth Century; there is an evi∣dent proof of this custom; the truth is, I would not absolutely ingage that Amphilochius was Author of it: on the contrary, I take it to be forged and false, * 1.667 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, al∣though 'tis not easy precisely to know the time that he was sup∣posed to be the Author of it. Aeneas, Bishop of Paris, * 1.668 writing a∣gainst the Greeks in the Ninth Century, alledgeth 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 alledge may be read in the life of S. Basil Archbishop of Caesarea, which was faithfully Translated into Latin, word for word, by one called Eucivmius: we read then in this life, That St. Basil dividing the Bread into three parts, took one, * 1.669 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 Pidgeon, he waved it upon the Altar, or as 'tis said afterwards, upon the holy Table. A Council of Carthage, assem∣bled in the year 419. * 1.670 condemned this practice in one of its Ca∣nons, 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 Hi∣story of a young Youth that was a Frier, and that being gone out of the Monastry to see his Parents, without the Benediction, dyed 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 hapned again: then the Friers speedily went unto S. Bennet, and prayed him with tears to shew favour unto the deceased Party. * 1.671 Ʋnto whom (saith Gregory,) the Man of God, with his own hands gave the Communion of the Body of the Lord, say∣ing, 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 pra∣ctice at the end of the Eighth Century, which obliged the Sixth Oecumenical Council, in the year 691. to renew the Prohibition of that of Carthage, all which notwithstanding, hindred 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, * 1.672 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 interr'd the Eucharist with the Dead; And the latter doth even judge that it was so practic'd to drive away Devils, and to conduct the Believer straight unto Heaven.

In the third place, there were Churches where they burnt all that rested of the Communion, it was so practised in the Church of Jerusalem, as Hesychius one of its Priests doth testifie, in his Commentaries upon Leviticus; * 1.673 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 antient custom in the Church of Constantinople, * 1.674 that when several parcels of the immaculate Body of Christ our God re∣mained, 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 lit∣tle more Ceremony, according to the Decree of the Second Coun∣cil of Mascon, * 1.675 assembled in the year 585. And the Second Decre∣tal attributed unto S. Clement, commands, that all should be con∣sumed 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 opprest the stomach of those that eat it; the Fathers of the Council, to prevent this in∣convenience, commanded to offer, Midling Oblations, * 1.676 according to the use of the antient 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 antient customs of the Monastry of Cluny written at the end of the Eleventh Century, although that Con∣gregation 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 pra∣ctised when these customs were written, that is to say, towards the end of the Eleventh Century, although the Author doth con∣fess, that it was generally practised in all other Churches. * 1.677 Here∣tofore (saith he) so much care was taken, that after all had Communica∣ted, the Priests themselves, or as 'tis in the Margent, 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 re∣ferred unto this custom, what is said in the Eighth Book of Apo∣stolical Constitution, chap. 13. and what is mentioned by Theophi∣lus Bishop of Alexandria, in his Canonical Letter, in the Seventh Canon; but because these two places may admit of another inter∣pretation, we forbear citing them, the custom now in question be∣ing already sufficiently confirmed.

In the Fourth place, the Antients made no difficulty some∣times to take consecrated Wine, and mingle it with Ink, after∣wards dip their Pens in these two mingled Liquors, the more au∣thentically 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, * 1.678 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 Sepulcher of the chief of the A∣postles, and asking for the holy Cup, he poured the quickning

Blood into the Ink, and so with his own hand, signed the depo∣sition of Pyrrhus, who had been excommunicated. So it was also done by the eighth Council of Constantinople, assembled against Photius, * 1.679 in the year 869. For the Bishops subscribed the deposition of Photius, with Pens dipt not in Ink only, but in the Blood of Christ it self. See here two remarkable instances which were usually produced to prove this fourth Obser∣vation: 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; * 1.680 And after the peace had been confirmed, and interchange∣ably signed by the King and the Count, with the Blood of the Sa∣crament. 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 Conse∣cration, and just at the instant of Communicating; as we find by their Ritual, by German Patriarch of Constantinople, Cabasilas, Simon of Thessalonica, Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, and several others; and those who desire to see the My∣stical reasons of this mixture, * 1.681 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 exteriour wor∣ship 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 inricht with sundry Ceremonies, which were not pra∣ctised at the beginning: So also his words, being the founda∣tion 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 Gods permission.

The end of the first Part.

Notes

• * 1.1

  ••it 3.
• * 1.2

  Eph. 5.
• * 1.3

  John 6.
• * 1.4

  Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonif.
• * 1.5

  Comm. in Matth. c. 26.
• † 1.6

  Ep. 76.
• ‖ 1.7

  Lib. l. de∣offie. Eccl••s. c. 18.
• * 1.8

  Comm in Marc. 14.
• † 1.9

  Lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 In∣•••••• cleric. c. 31.
• ‖ 1.10

  Comm. in Matth. 26.
• * 1.11

  Buxt••••f. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hist. S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. § 20.
• * 1.12

  Just. Martyr Apolog. 2 or rather 1.
• * 1.13

  Cyprian ••p. 63.
• * 1.14

  Can. 2.
• † 1.15

  De offic. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 18.
• ‖ 1.16

  In Marc. 14.
• ‖‖ 1.17

  De Corp. & lang. Dom.
• * 1.18

  Concil. Trul∣lan. Can. 32.
• * 1.19

  To. 8. Con∣cil. p. 866.
• * 1.20

  Apud Cassand in Lit. C. 12.
• * 1.21

  Concil. Trull. Can. 32.
• * 1.22

  Athan. in Psal. 74. apud Combesis auct. Bibl. Pat. t. 2. pa. 435.
• * 1.23

  Cyprian. Ep. 76. vide 63.
• * 1.24

  Serm. ad In∣fant. tract. 26. in Joan. & Serm. 83. de divers.
• † 1.25

  Com. in Matth.
• ‖ 1.26

  Hom. 24. in 1 Cor.
• * 1.27

  De Off Eccles. lib. 1. c. 18.
• † 1.28

  Com. in 1 Cor. 10.
• ‖ 1.29

  De Reb. Eccles. c. 16.
• ‖‖ 1.30

  De Instit. Cler. lib. 1. c. 31.
• * 1.31

  Epiphan. hares. 26.
• * 1.32

  ••useb hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 7.
• * 1.33

  Epiph. ub. sup.
• * 1.34

  Orig. cor tra Cels l. 2. & l. 2. in Rom. Baron. ad an. 120. •• 125, 126, 129. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. 16.
• * 1.35

  Philast. de Haeres. l. 4. Bibl. Pat. p. 13.
• * 1.36

  Isid. Pelus. l. 1. Ep. 242. Cyrill Hie∣rosol. Carech. 16. p. 178.
• * 1.37

  August de haeres. 26.
• * 1.38

  Theodore••. haeret. sab. ••. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.39

  Apud Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 18.
• * 1.40

  Epiph. haer. 48. Extr.
• * 1.41

  Theoder. haret. fab. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.42

  Epiph. haer. 48.
• * 1.43

  Apud combef. Auct. Bib. Par. t. 2. p. 450.
• * 1.44

  Iren. adv. Haere•••• l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.45

  Epiph. haeres. 34. init.
• * 1.46

  Hilar. in frag. 23. Iren 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. Cap. 18. Epiph. haeres. 34.
• * 1.47

  Tertul. de praescript. Cap. 47.
• * 1.48

  August. haeres. 17. Epiph. haeres. 37.
• * 1.49

  Ephes. 3.
• * 1.50

  Rev. 2.
• * 1.51

  Epiph. haeres. 49. August. haeres. 28.
• * 1.52

  Epiph. haeres. 47.
• * 1.53

  Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 2. cap. 2.
• * 1.54

  Chrysost. hom. 83. in Matth.
• * 1.55

  Cyprian Ep. •• 3.
• * 1.56

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.57

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.58

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.59

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.60

  Genna••. l de Dogm. Eccles. c. 75.
• * 1.61

  Ramusio. vol. 1. p. 313. a••d several others also.
• * 1.62

  Fulgent. ad ••••rrand. Dia∣con de quin∣que quast c ••5.
• * 1.63

  Ibid. c. 38.
• * 1.64

  Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn.
• * 1.65

  Tertul. ad∣vers. Marc. l. 1. c. 14.
• * 1.66

  Lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. §. ne auth.
• * 1.67

  Supplem. Chron. Sigeb. ad an. 1124.
• * 1.68

  Isid. Pelus. l. 1. Ep. 401.
• * 1.69

  August contra Faust. l. 20. c. 13.
• * 1.70

  Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor. c. 5.
• * 1.71

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.72

  T. 4. Bibl. pa••. part. 2. p. 212. l. 3 c. 33. t. 4. Spicil.
• * 1.73

  Sirmond de Azymo, c.4.
• * 1.74

  Vit. Greg. l. 2. c. 41.
• * 1.75

  Sirmond de Azymo.
• * 1.76

  Hist Concil. Florent. Sguropuli. Sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278.
• * 1.77

  Raban. de in∣stit. Cleric. l. 1. c. 14.
• * 1.78

  Clement. Epist ad Cor. p. 53.
• * 1.79

  Just Mart. Apolog. 1. p. 60.
• * 1.80

  Cypr de ope∣rib. & E∣leemos.
• * 1.81

  Hieron. in ••e∣rem. c. 11. & in Ezech. c. 18. Innoc. ad D••∣cent. c. 3. Ambros. in. P••al. 118.
• * 1.82

  Conslit. A∣post. l. 8. s. 10.
• * 1.83

  Sozom. hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 15. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 17. Aug. Ep. 122.
• * 1.84

  Id. Serm. 215. de temp. if it were his.
• * 1.85

  Concil. Matisc. 2. can 4.
• * 1.86

  Con. Mogunt. an. 813. can. 44. Capitul. 858. c. 53. t. 3. Concil. Gall.
• * 1.87

  Vita Gregor. 1. l. 2. c. 41.
• * 1.88

  Can. 3. Apost. & can. 4.
• * 1.89

  Concil. Carthag. 3. can. 24.
• * 1.90

  Collect can. c. 55.
• * 1.91

  Concil. Aurel. 4 c 4.
• * 1.92

  Concil. 3. Bracar. c. 1. al. 2.
• * 1.93

  Theod. in Psalm 109.
• * 1.94

  Aug. de Civit. Del, l. 8. c. ult.
• * 1.95

  Ign. ad Philad. Id. ad Ephes.
• * 1.96

  Durand. Bat. l. 4. c. 53. •••• 3
• * 1.97

  Epiph. in Anch. Greg. 1. Dial. l. 4. c. 55.
• * 1.98

  Apud Cassan. in Liturg. p. 60.
• * 1.99

  V••t. O hmar. apud Sur. An. ••20. 16. Nov.
• * 1.100

  Concil. 16. Tolet c. 6.
• * 1.101

  Apud Cas∣sand in Li••∣turg. p. 61.
• * 1.102

  Ibid. p. 62.
• * 1.103

  Honor. Au∣gustodun. in gem. anim. c. 66.
• * 1.104

  1 Cor 11.
• * 1.105

  Acts 2.42.
• * 1.106

  verse 46.
• * 1.107

  Act. 20.7.
• * 1.108

  2 Pet. 2.13.
• * 1.109

  Jude 12.
• * 1.110

  Tertul. Apo∣log. cap. 39.
• * 1.111

  Concil. Lao∣dic. cap. 28.
• * 1.112

  Origen. l. 20. c. 2.
• * 1.113

  Chrysost. t. 5. homil. 21.
• * 1.114

  Min. Fel. in Octav.
• * 1.115

  Orig. contr. Cels. l. 8. p 389. ult. Edit.
• * 1.116

  Tertul. de Orat. c. ult.
• * 1.117

  Opta••. l. 6. page 94.
• * 1.118

  Aug. li••. 3. contra Cres••. cap. 43.
• * 1.119

  Page 847. Ep. 67.
• * 1.120

  Oration. in Bapt Christ Hom. 20 in 2. Cor.
• * 1.121

  S••crea••. l. i. ••. l. 1. c. 25. Sozom 〈◊〉〈◊〉 l 8. c 7.
• * 1.122

  August. l. 3. contra Crose. c. 43.
• * 1.123

  Theodor. hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 31. Synes. Ep. 67.
• * 1.124

  Hist. Eccl. l. 10. c. 4.
• * 1.125

  Id. l. 10. c. 4.
• * 1.126

  Chrysost. hom. 7. in Rom. Id. ••om. 18. 2 Cor. Hier. Ep. 2. Id. in cap. 3. Amos.
• * 1.127

  Soerat. hist. l. 5. c. 21.
• * 1.128

  Athan. ad So∣lit.
• * 1.129

  Apud Theod. l. 4. c. 20.
• * 1.130

  Libel. prec. p. 64. & 79.
• * 1.131

  Ignat. Ep. ad Philad.
• * 1.132

  Goar in Eu∣cholog. p. 16. Sigism. Baro de rebus Mos∣cov. Lib. itin. Aeth. c. 11.
• * 1.133

  Capit. Dom. Car. M. c. 6. 1.2. Coneil. Gal. & Capit. Car. M. &c. append. 1. ad l. 4. c. 7.
• * 1.134

  Hist. Relig c. 20.
• * 1.135

  Philost. l. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.136

  Niceph. Cal∣dist. l. 8. c. 31.
• * 1.137

  Add. 9. No∣ve••b. lect. 4.
• * 1.138

  Orat. in Chr. bapt. t. 3.
• * 1.139

  Hom 20. in 2 Cor.
• * 1.140

  ••••ath. Conc. •• 14.
• * 1.141

  ••. 26.
• * 1.142

  de instit. Cler. l. 2. c. 45. de reb. Eccl. c. 9.
• * 1.143

  Id. cap 84.
• * 1.144

  Cassand. in liturg. c. 26.
• * 1.145

  Leo. 1. Ep. 81. c. 2.
• * 1.146

  Apud Cassan. in Liturg. c. 35.
• * 1.147

  Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. c. 6.
• * 1.148

  Apud Cassian. in Litur. c. 35.
• * 1.149

  Goar in Euch. p. ••6.
• * 1.150

  Apud Cassan. uo•• supra.
• * 1.151

  Optar. l 6. p. 98.
• * 1.152

  Vict. Vitens. de persec. Afric. l. 1.
• * 1.153

  Raban de instit. cleric. l. 1. c. 33.
• * 1.154

  Beda in c. 15. Marc.
• * 1.155

  Isid. Pelus. l. 1. Ep. 123.
• * 1.156

  Radulph. Tungrens. de can. observant. propos. ult.
• * 1.157

  Tertul. de pudic. c. 7. Ibid. c. 10
• * 1.158

  Hieron. ep. 4. extr.
• * 1.159

  Vi•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Arel.
• * 1.160

  Greg. 1. dia∣log. l. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.161

  Baron. Martyr Rom. 7. Agust.
• * 1.162

  T. 1. Concil. p. 96.
• * 1.163

  Cap. 9. p. 184.
• * 1.164

  Ibid.
• * 1.165

  In Grat. ad an. 1145.
• * 1.166

  Tom. 7. Concil. p. 151.
• * 1.167

  T. 2. Sp••cil. c. 12. p. 638.
• * 1.168

  Optat. l. 6. p. 94.
• * 1.169

  Homil. 2. in Joan. Graec.
• * 1.170

  Hom. 3.
• * 1.171

  In. cap 14. 1 ad Cor.
• * 1.172

  Serm. 5. t. 4. p. 555.
• * 1.173

  See Cass••od. on Psalm 44.
• * 1.174

  Cap. 17.
• * 1.175

  Lib. 3.
• * 1.176

  Ad Damas. praefat. 122. t. 3 p. 698.
• * 1.177

  August••in. de doctr. Christ. l. 2. c 5.
• * 1.178

  Tom. 2. Spicil. c. 4. p. •• 24.
• * 1.179

  D•• Christian. Eccl. succes. p. 81.
• * 1.180

  Lib. 8. ult. Edit. p. 402.
• * 1.181

  Tract. 4. t. 2. Bibl. Pat. p. 20. Regul. brevior. q. ••78. t. 2.
• * 1.182

  De Catechis. rudib. c. 9. t. 4.
• * 1.183

  De divin. offic. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.184

  Lib. 3. c. 9.
• * 1.185

  Cap. 36.
• * 1.186

  Pontif. Rom. p. 8.
• * 1.187

  Apud Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 9.
• * 1.188

  In Cap. 14.1. ad Cori••••h.
• * 1.189

  Hist Bohem. c. 13.
• * 1.190

  Tom. 7. Concil part. 1. Ep. 247. p. 91.
• * 1.191

  T. 7. Concil. Pa••r. part. 2. Can. 9. p. 8••9.
• * 1.192

  Opuscul. t. 3. tract. 15. art. 8.
• * 1.193

  De offic. pii viri. p 865.
• * 1.194

  Ibid. p. 866.
• * 1.195

  Pag. 995.
• * 1.196

  D•• modo orandi.
• * 1.197

  Lib. 28.
• * 1.198

  Sess. 22. cap. 9.
• * 1.199

  Apud Cassan. in liturg. c. 36.
• * 1.200

  Just. Mart. Apol. 2. vel. 1.
• * 1.201

  Den. Areop. hierarch. Ec∣cles. c. 3.
• * 1.202

  Liturg. St. Jacob.
• * 1.203

  Liturg. St. Marc.
• * 1.204

  Cabasil. in Liturg. ex∣pos. c. 24.
• * 1.205

  Constitut. Apostol. l. 8. cap. 12.
• * 1.206

  Liturg Ja∣cob.
• * 1.207

  Liturg. Marc.
• * 1.208

  Just. Martyr. Apolog. 2.
• * 1.209

  Iren. l. 4. c. 34.
• * 1.210

  Tertul. ad∣vers. Marc. l. 1. c. 23.
• * 1.211

  Strom. l. 1. & paedag. l. 2. c. 2
• * 1.212

  Origen. contr. Cels. l. 8. & in Matth. c. 15.
• * 1.213

  Lib. 4.
• * 1.214

  Basil. de Sp. Sancto c. 27. t. 2. p. 351.
• * 1.215

  In Baptism. Christ. p. 8 22. Orat. Catech. c. 37. p. 536.
• * 1.216

  Ibid.
• * 1.217

  L. 4. de side, c. 5. t. 4.
• * 1.218

  Lib. 6.
• * 1.219

  Paschal. 1. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 87.
• * 1.220

  In Exod. tract. 2.
• * 1.221

  De natura Dei curiose nonscrutand••
• * 1.222

  Hom. 82. Graec.
• * 1.223

  Epist. 83.
• * 1.224

  In Sophon. ••3, Epist. 59.
• * 1.225

  Lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.226

  De Baptism. l. 5. c. 20.
• * 1.227

  Serm. 87. de divers.
• * 1.228

  Glaphir. in Genes. Exod. Levit. & in Joan.
• * 1.229

  Contra Anthropo∣mopth. c. 12.
• * 1.230

  Dialog. 2.
• * 1.231

  Part. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.232

  In cap. 14.
• * 1.233

  De Pasch. Hom. 5. Lib. 9. p. 405.
• * 1.234

  Epist. l. 7.
• * 1.235

  Epist 63.
• * 1.236

  De Eccles. offic. l. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.237

  De Instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 32.
• * 1.238

  Ibid. c. 33.
• * 1.239

  Serm. 11, t. 4. Bibl. Patr. part. 2.
• * 1.240

  Ex libro 8. p. 202.
• * 1.241

  Tom. 5. Con∣cil. p. 99. E.
• * 1.242

  Can. 6. t. 5. Concil. p. 430. C.
• * 1.243

  Act 6. Concil. 2. Niceni. t. 5. Concil. p. 756.
• * 1.244

  In Epist. 9. t. 1. p. 290.
• * 1.245

  C. 8. p. 121. ult. edit.
• * 1.246

  De ordine baptism. tit. 18.
• * 1.247

  Tom. 6. Con∣cil. p. 489.
• * 1.248

  Ibid. p 738.
• * 1.249

  Tom. 3. Conc. Gall. p. 129.
• * 1.250

  Supplem. Conc. Gal. p. 265.
• * 1.251

  P. 12. P. 13.
• * 1.252

  Tom. 2. Spicil. p. 183.
• * 1.253

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 p ••7.
• * 1.254

  Not. in Eu∣chol. p. 140, 141. num. 138 139.
• * 1.255

  L. 3. de con∣cord. cap. 25. ad 33.
• * 1.256

  In Euchol. p. 140, 141.
• * 1.257

  Hist. Conc. Florent. sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278.
• * 1.258

  Ibid. p. 278, 279.
• * 1.259

  Ibid.
• * 1.260

  Id. ibid. c. 8. p. 293.
• * 1.261

  Ibid. p. 293, 294.
• * 1.262

  Common.
• * 1.263

  Ibid.
• * 1.264

  L. 3. de con∣co••d. c. 31.
• * 1.265

  In Euchol. p. 140.
• * 1.266

  Apol. c. 12. Minut. in Oct.
• * 1.267

  L. 7. p. 378 ult. Edit.
• * 1.268

  L. 6. advers. Gent.
• * 1.269

  De vanitat. Idolor.
• * 1.270

  Instit. l. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.271

  In Levit. Hom. 11. p. 100.
• * 1.272

  Ibid.
• * 1.273

  Regul. bre∣vior. q 53. p. 642. D. t. 2.
• * 1.274

  L. 3. q. 85. t. 4. p. 98.
• * 1.275

  L. 1. Orat. 6. p. 178.
• * 1.276

  L. 7. & 8. in c. 10.34. & Dial. 6. t. 5. part. 1. p. 595.
• * 1.277

  Hom. 14. t. 5. part. 2. p. 187. In Levit. l. 7. c. 27.
• * 1.278

  Codic. 222. ex lib. 24, 25.
• * 1.279

  T. 2. q. 81. art. 8. num. 70.
• * 1.280

  De Observ. can. t. 10. Bibl. Patr. Not. in Gregor Sar. page 389. Not. 131. in Miss. Chrysost. Euchol.
• * 1.281

  Miss. Rom. tit. Rit. Celeb. Miss. c. 8. §. 5.
• * 1.282

  Alcuin. de Div. off. tlt. de Celebr. Miss. t. 10. Bibl. patr.
• * 1.283

  Liturg. S. Jacob.
• * 1.284

  Cypr. de oper. & E∣leemos.
• * 1.285

  Constit. Apost. l. 8. c. 12.
• * 1.286

  Cyprian. Ep. 63.
• * 1.287

  Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 13.
• * 1.288

  Liturg. S. Jacob.
• * 1.289

  Ibid.
• * 1.290

  Liturg. Chrys. Germ. Theor. p 403.
• * 1.291

  Missa Can.
• * 1.292

  Iren. l. 4. c. 32.
• * 1.293

  Ibid.
• * 1.294

  Just. Martyr. dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. Macar. Hom. 27.
• * 1.295

  l. 1. ep 401.
• * 1.296

  Fulgent. ad Pet. de side c. 19.
• * 1.297

  Bed. in Psal. 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern. l. 2. c. 2. t. 4.
• * 1.298

  In c. 5. ad Hebr.
• * 1.299

  Amalar. praesat. 2. l. de offic. & l. 3. cap. 25.
• * 1.300

  Eucher. in Genes. l. 2. c. 18.
• * 1.301

  Isidor. Hisp. in Gen. c. 12.
• * 1.302

  Idem de Allegor Idem de voc. c. 26.
• * 1.303

  Theodor. in Psal. 109, Heb. 10.
• * 1.304

  Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 4 p. 539. Cyprian. Ep. 63.
• * 1.305

  Ibid.
• * 1.306

  Ibid.
• * 1.307

  Euseb. de∣monst. l. 5. c. 3.
• * 1.308

  Ambros. l. de init. c. 8. t. 4. p. 349. Chrysost. in Psal. 109.
• * 1.309

  Hom. 19.
• * 1.310

  Hieron. Ep. 126.
• * 1.311

  Id. advers. Jovin. l. 2.
• * 1.312

  August. Ep. 95. Id. l. de 83. q. q. 61. t. 4. Id de Civit. Dei. l. 16. c 22.
• * 1.313

  Ib. l. 17 c. 5. Ib. c. 17. Id contr. ad∣vers. leg. l. 1. c. 20. Isid. Pelus l. 1. Ep. 431. Arnob. in Psal. 109.
• * 1.314

  Hesyc. in Le∣vit. l. 6. c. 23. Cassiod. in Psal. 109.
• * 1.315

  In cap. 5. ad Hebr.
• * 1.316

  T. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 532.
• * 1.317

  Cyprian Ep. 63.
• * 1.318

  Euseb. l. 1. Dem. c. 10.
• * 1.319

  Chrys. Hom. 17. ad Heb.
• * 1.320

  August. l. 83. quaest. q. 61.
• * 1.321

  Id. contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 21.
• † 1.322

  L. 3. de Trin. c. 4.
• * 1.323

  Id. Ep. 23.
• * 1.324

  Theodor. in Ep ad Heb. c. 8.4.
• * 1.325

  Eulog. apud Phot. Cod. ult.
• * 1.326

  Bertram. de corp. & Sang. Domini.
• * 1.327

  Id. Ibid.
• * 1.328

  Flor. in Expo∣sit. Miss.
• * 1.329

  Lombard. l. 4. sentent. dist. 12. litt. g.
• * 1.330

  Thom. sunn part. 3. q. 83. part. 1.
• * 1.331

  Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 26.
• * 1.332

  Iren. l. 4. cap. 34.
• * 1.333

  August. l. 20. contr. Faust. cap. 21.
• * 1.334

  Just. Mart. dialog. contr. Tryph. p. 259, 260.
• * 1.335

  Psal. 51.
• * 1.336

  Hosea. c. 14. Heb. 13. Philip. 4.
• * 1.337

  1 Peter 2.
• * 1.338

  Rom. 12. Rom. 15. Philip. 2.
• * 1.339

  2 Timoth. 4.
• * 1.340

  1 Peter 2. Rev. 1. &. 5.
• * 1.341

  Cypr. Ep. 59.
• * 1.342

  Just. Mart. contr. Tryph. p. 345. Strom. l. 7. p. 717.
• * 1.343

  Ad Scap. c. 2.
• * 1.344

  Apol. c. 30.
• * 1.345

  Contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 22. & 4. c. 1. De pat. c. 13. de jejun. c. 26. de usur. c. 8. Minut. in Oct.
• * 1.346

  Greg. Naz. orat. 20.
• * 1.347

  Id. orat. 42.
• * 1.348

  Chrysost. in Gen. hom. 9.
• * 1.349

  Id. in Mart. hom. 16.
• * 1.350

  Ambros. de fug saec. c. 8. t. 1.
• * 1.351

  Id. Ep. 59. Aurel. c. 29. &c. 3. collect. Mart. Bracar. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 29. in cod 41. Aug. de civit l. 10. c. 4. Ep. 95. Id. Hom. 50. de poenit. t. 10.
• * 1.352

  Id. de Civit. l. 10. c. 6.
• * 1.353

  Just. Marr. Apol. 2. vel 1. p. 58, 60.
• * 1.354

  Id. Ep. ad Di∣ogn. p. 495, 496.
• * 1.355

  Id. contr. Tryph. p. 238, 239, 240.
• * 1.356

  Ibid. p. 344, 345.
• * 1.357

  Ibid. p. 314. C.
• * 1.358

  Athenag. pro Christ. p. 13. Minut. in Octav.
• * 1.359

  Orig. contr. Cels. l. 8. p. 389. ult. Edit.
• * 1.360

  Ibid. p. 487.
• * 1.361

  Tertul. Apol. C. 30.
• * 1.362

  Ibid. c. 39.
• * 1.363

  Ibid. ad Scap. c. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 707.
• * 1.364

  Ibid. p. 717.
• * 1.365

  Ibid.
• * 1.366

  Ibid. p. 719.
• * 1.367

  Ibid. p. 728.
• * 1.368

  Arnob. contr. gent. lib. 7. init.
• * 1.369

  Lactant. instit, l. 6. c. 25.
• * 1.370

  Id. Epitem•• c. 2.
• * 1.371

  Cyril. Alex. l. 10. contr. Julian. t. 6, p. 343.
• * 1.372

  Ibid. p. 344. B.
• * 1.373

  Ibid. p. 345. B.
• * 1.374

  Ibid. C.
• * 1.375

  Ibid. p. 346. C.
• * 1.376

  Const. Apost. l. 2. c. 25.
• * 1.377

  Id. l. 6. c. 23.
• * 1.378

  Origen. Hom. 2. in Levit.
• * 1.379

  Ib. Hom. 5.
• * 1.380

  Ib. Hem. 9.
• * 1.381

  Id. Hom. 17. in Jos.
• * 1.382

  Zeno Veron. Hom. in Psal. 49.
• * 1.383

  Greg. Nazian. orat. 1.
• * 1.384

  Ambros. Ep. 59.
• * 1.385

  Hieron. in Ps. 49.50.9••.
• * 1.386

  Chrysost. Hom. 11. in cap. 6. ad Hebr.
• * 1.387

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.388

  Origen in Num. Hom. 17.
• * 1.389

  Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. 17.
• * 1.390

  Id. Hom. 13, in c. •• ad Hebr.
• * 1.391

  Aug. de Trinit. l. 4. c. 13.
• * 1.392

  Id. contr. ad∣vers. leg. l. 1. c. 18.
• * 1.393

  Idem contr. Faust. l. 20. c. 18.
• * 1.394

  Prosp. in Ps. 129.
• * 1.395

  Primas. in c. 5. Hebr. t. 1. Bibl. Pat. Id. inc. 7. extr.
• * 1.396

  Id. in c. 10.
• * 1.397

  Caesar. Hom. 5. de Pasch.
• * 1.398

  Basil. in c. 1. Es.
• * 1.399

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.400

  August. in Ps. 50.
• * 1.401

  Concil. Elibe∣rit. c. 28. & Carthag. 4. c. 93, 94. Constit. Apo∣stol. l. 4. c. 5. & l. 3. c. 8. Epiphan. in Panar. extr. Ambros. Ep. 59, & alibi.
• * 1.402

  Cyprian. de. Orat Dom.
• * 1.403

  Tab. Chrono∣log. p. 536, 537.
• * 1.404

  Germ. Con∣stantinop. in Theor. t. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 407.
• * 1.405

  Ivo Carnens. Ep. de Sacrif. Miss. t. 2. Bibl. Patr. p. 602.
• * 1.406

  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.
• * 1.407

  Goar in Eu∣cholog. p. 146. n. 158.
• * 1.408

  Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. patr. p. 15.
• * 1.409

  Goar ubi su∣pra.
• * 1.410

  Hug. Menard. in Sacram. Greg. p. 373, 374, 375.
• * 1.411

  Antiq. consue. Cluniac. Mo∣nast. t. 4. Spicil. Dach. l. 2. c. 30.
• * 1.412

  Ibid. p. 143.
• * 1.413

  Duran. Rat. Divin. O••lic. l. 4. de p••rt. can. fol. 169. n. 51.
• * 1.414

  Theod. Dial. 3. p. 147.
• * 1.415

  Bede in Marc. c. 14.
• * 1.416

  T. 5. Concil. p. 407. Extr.
• * 1.417

  Apperd. ad lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 265.
• * 1.418

  Ibid. p. 276.
• * 1.419

  In Notis, p 24.
• * 1.420

  L. 1. c. 13. p. 58. & l. 2. c. 30. p. 141. & alibi.
• * 1.421

  Apud Cassan. in litur. c. 29.
• * 1.422

  Humbert. contr. Nicet. t. 4. Bibl. Pat. part. 2. p. 246. ••id. p. 216. B.
• * 1.423

  Serm. de Azymo, c. 4. extr.
• * 1.424

  1 Cor. 11.21.
• * 1.425

  Tertul. de corona, c. 3.
• * 1.426

  Cypr. Ep. 63.
• * 1.427

  Aug. Ep. 118. c. 7.
• * 1.428

  Concil. Carth. 3. c 29.
• * 1.429

  Socr. l. 5. c. 21. & Grac. 22. Sozom. l. 7. c. 19.
• * 1.430

  Lib. Po••. in vi••a Telesph.
• * 1.431

  Hug. M••m in Sacram. Greg. p. 64.
• * 1.432

  Concil. Aurel. 3 c. 14.
• * 1.433

  Constit. Apost. l. 8 c. 34. Isid. Hispal. l. 1. de Offic. c. 19.
• * 1.434

  Walafr. Srrab de O••••c Ec∣cles. c. 23.
• * 1.435

  Apud Cas∣sand. in liturg. c. 37.
• * 1.436

  Ambros. in Psal. 118. Serm 8 t. 2. p. 945.
• * 1.437

  Aug Ep. 118. c. 4.
• * 1.438

  Concil. Bra∣car. 2. c. 9. t 4. Coucil.
• * 1.439

  Concil. Laod. c. 19.
• * 1.440

  Concil. Tol. ••. c. 18.
• * 1.441

  Herard. in cap. t. c. 24.
• * 1.442

  Vit. Leon. 4. t. 6. Concil. p. 416. D.
• * 1.443

  Concil. in Trullo. c. 69.
• * 1.444

  Balsam. in can. 69. Trullan.
• * 1.445

  Goar in En∣cholog. p. 150. n. 171.
• * 1.446

  Id. p. 151. n. 179.
• * 1.447

  Alvar. de Ae∣thiop. c. 11.
• * 1.448

  Apud Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 9.
• * 1.449

  Vales. in Eu∣seb. hist. l. 7. c. 9. p. 145.
• * 1.450

  Tertul. de Orat. c. ult.
• * 1.451

  Chrysost. t. 1. Hom. 22. de Simult. & ira, p. 260.
• * 1.452

  Cyrill. Hi••ro••. Mystag. 5.
• * 1.453

  Can. 101 t. 5. Concil. Goar•• in Euchol. p. 150.
• * 1.454

  Goar in En∣choi. p. 1••0.
• * 1.455

  Alvar. ubi supr.
• * 1.456

  Hieron. Ep. 62
• * 1.457

  In not. Val•••• ad Euseb. p. 134.
• * 1.458

  Apud. Euseb hist. l. 6. ••. 43.
• * 1.459

  Chrysost ora•• 1. cont. Jud. t. 1. p. 440.
• * 1.460

  De vit. Con∣stant. l. 2. c. 71. Ex••r.
• * 1.461

  Apud Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 14.
• * 1.462

  ••••u••g. Chrysost.
• * 1.463

  Goar in Eu∣cholog. p. 149. n. 169.
• * 1.464

  Chrysost. de prodi••. Jud. t. 5. p. 465.
• * 1.465

  L. 2. c. 30. t. 4. Spicileg. p. 145.
• * 1.466

  Just. Martyr. Apolog. 2.
• * 1.467

  Cyprian. de Laps. p. 175. ultim. edit.
• * 1.468

  Concil. An∣cyr. c. 2. Concil. Are∣lat. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.469

  Concil. Ni∣caen. 1. c. 18.
• * 1.470

  Concil. Lao∣dic. c. 25.
• * 1.471

  Concil. Car∣thag. 4. c. 38. Ambros. de offic. l. 1. c. 41.
• * 1.472

  Serm. infestiv. Laurent.
• * 1.473

  In nativit. Vincent. c. 2.
• * 1.474

  Apud Cas∣sandr. in li∣turg. c. 31.
• * 1.475

  Gregor. l. in dial. l. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.476

  Gelas. Ep. ••. ad Episc. ••u∣can. t. 3. Con∣cil. p. 636.
• * 1.477

  T. 6. Concil. p. 431. T. 2. Spicil. p. 261.
• * 1.478

  Concil. Paris. 6. l. 1. c. 15.
• * 1.479

  Isaac. Ling. can. tit. 5. c. 7. & 11. c. 23.
• * 1.480

  Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes.
• * 1.481

  Id. Hom. 27. in Ep. 1. ad Cor.
• * 1.482

  In c. 11. Ep. 1. ad Cor.
• * 1.483

  Concil. Anti∣och. c. 2.
• * 1.484

  Can. 9. Apo∣stol.
• * 1.485

  Constit. Apo∣stol. l. 8. c. 11.
• * 1.486

  Chrysost••. Hom. 3. in Ephes.
• * 1.487

  Pseudo Clem. decret. 2. Greg. I. l. Sa∣cram. p. 235.
• * 1.488

  Anaclet. de∣cret. 1.
• * 1.489

  Greg. I. l. 2. d••∣al.
• * 1.490

  Microlog••••. 51.
• * 1.491

  Walafr. Strab. de Beb. Ec∣cles. c. 22. Extr.
• * 1.492

  Cap. 7.
• * 1.493

  Cap. 28.
• * 1.494

  Grat. de Cons. Dist. 1. c. So∣ter.
• * 1.495

  Concil. Lao∣dic. c. 58.
• * 1.496

  Constit. Apo∣stol. l. 8. c. 13.
• * 1.497

  Apud. Cass. in Liturg.
• * 1.498

  Cypr. de laps. p. 175.
• * 1.499

  Id. Ep. 59.
• * 1.500

  Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 13.
• * 1.501

  Maldon. in c. 6. Joan. v. 53.
• * 1.502

  Ep. ad Syn. Mil. apud Aug. Ep. 93.
• * 1.503

  Aug. de pec. mer. & rem. l. 1. c 20.
• * 1.504

  Id. ibid. 24.
• * 1.505

  Id. contr. Jul. l. 2. c. 1. & alibi.
• * 1.506

  Lib. Sacram. Greg. p. 73.74. Conc. Tol. 11. Can. 11. Vit. Leufr. c. 17. in Chron. Insulae Lirin.
• * 1.507

  De Imag. l. 2. c. 27.
• * 1.508

  Capit. l. 1. c. 16. Suppl. Conc. Gal. p. 183. c. 7. Ibid. p. 306. c. 8.
• * 1.509

  Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 84.
• * 1.510

  Greg. lib. Sac. p. 73.
• * 1.511

  Pasch. 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. conc. patr. 1. p. 530.
• * 1.512

  L. 1. c. 20. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 1376.
• * 1.513

  Lindan. Panop l. 4. c. 25.
• * 1.514

  Apud Arcad. de concord. l. 3. c. 40.
• * 1.515

  Apolog. 2.
• * 1.516

  Serom. l. 1. p. 271.
• * 1.517

  In Euchol. p. 83.
• * 1.518

  Apolog. 1.
• * 1.519

  Ep. ad Phila∣delph.
• * 1.520

  Advers. haer. l. 5. c. 2.
• * 1.521

  L. 4. c. 34.
• * 1.522

  Hom. 16.
• * 1.523

  Hom. 14. in Matth.
• * 1.524

  Ep. 63.
• * 1.525

  Ep. 54.
• * 1.526

  P. 175. ult. edit.
• * 1.527

  Apud Atha∣nas. Apolog. p. 732.
• * 1.528

  In natal. ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr. Parmen.
• * 1.529

  Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism. c. 3.
• * 1.530

  Ep. 289.
• * 1.531

  Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E.
• * 1.532

  Hom. 85. Graec.
• * 1.533

  Hom. 18.
• * 1.534

  L. 3. c. 57. t. 4.
• * 1.535

  Serm. ••. c. 5.
• * 1.536

  T 3. Concil. p. 382. F. ult. edit.
• * 1.537

  De consecr. dist. 2. Ep. ad Major. & Joan.
• * 1.538

  Fragm. 28. contr. Fabian. L. 2. de vita sua, c 15. p. 216.
• * 1.539

  T. 4. Concil. p. 503.
• * 1.540

  Ibid. p. 584, 587.
• * 1.541

  Ib. p. 825.
• * 1.542

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 44.
• * 1.543

  Dimid. temp. c. 6.
• * 1.544

  De commun. sub utraque spec. p. 1027.
• * 1.545

  T. 4. Concil. p. 832.
• * 1.546

  T. 3. Concil. Gall.
• * 1.547

  De ord. Bapt. z. c. 18.
• * 1.548

  T. 7. Spicil. p. 174.
• * 1.549

  T. 6. Concil. p. 619. c. 65.
• * 1.550

  Regino in Chro. ad an. 869.
• * 1.551

  De Contempt. can. part. 1. t. 2. Spicileg. p. 182. Ib. p. 262.
• * 1.552

  P. 309.
• * 1.553

  Page 310.
• * 1.554

  P. 311.
• * 1.555

  P. 313.
• * 1.556

  P. 320.
• * 1.557

  P. 277.
• * 1.558

  L. 2. c. 30. p. 146. t. 4. spicil.
• * 1.559

  Non rema∣neret.
• * 1.560

  T. 11. ad an. 1095.
• * 1.561

  Page 379.
• * 1.562

  T. 7. Spicil. p. 195.
• * 1.563

  Pascal. 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. part. 1. p. 130.
• * 1.564

  Cardinal Humbert a∣gainst the Greeks. t. 4. Bibl. patr. part 2. p. 217. A. Microlog. c. 18.
• * 1.565

  C. 8. t. 3. Spicil. p. 268.
• * 1.566

  T. 2. Spicil. p. 432.
• * 1.567

  Apud. Cypr. p. 329. ult. edit. vid. p. 330.
• * 1.568

  Ibid. p. 33••.
• * 1.569

  T. 3. Spicil. p. 99.
• * 1.570

  Apud. Cas∣sand. de Commun. sub utraque specie, p. 1043.
• * 1.571

  p. 438.
• * 1.572

  p. 1036.
• * 1.573

  T. 4. p. 306.
• * 1.574

  Sess. 13. t. 7. Concil. part. 2. p. 1042.
• * 1.575

  p. 1037,
• * 1.576

  T. 4. Spicileg. p. 413, 414, 415.
• * 1.577

  Sess. 21. c. 2. & 3. de doctr.
• * 1.578

  Can. 1.
• * 1.579

  Can. 2.
• * 1.580

  Can. 3.
• * 1.581

  Hist. Thuan. l. 27.
• * 1.582

  Flodoard. Histor. Re∣mens. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.583

  Tertul. de Idol. c. 7.
• * 1.584

  Id. de Coron. c. 3.
• * 1.585

  Id. de Orat. c. 14.
• * 1.586

  Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 271. Apud. Cas∣sand. in Li∣turg. c. 31.
• * 1.587

  Cyprian. Ep. 56.
• * 1.588

  Id. de laps. p. 175.
• * 1.589

  Id. de bono patient. p. 226.
• * 1.590

  Apud Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 43. Vales.
• * 1.591

  Ibid. l. 7. c. 3.
• * 1.592

  Greg. Nazian. orat. 1. in Jul. p. 70.
• * 1.593

  Id. orat. 11. p. 187.
• * 1.594

  Basil. Ep. 289. t. 3.
• * 1.595

  Cyril. Hie∣ros. 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.
• * 1.596

  Id. Hom. de simult. p. 285.
• * 1.597

  Id. in Seraph. p. 891.
• * 1.598

  Sozom. hist. l. 8. c. 5.
• * 1.599

  Apud Theo∣doret. Hist. l. 5. c. 17. Isid. Pelus. l. 5. Ep. ult.
• * 1.600

  T. 1. Concil. p. 684. Ib. p. 739.
• * 1.601

  Page. 47.
• * 1.602

  Can. 18. in Cod. Afric.
• * 1.603

  Contra Petil. l. 2. c. 23. t. 7.
• * 1.604

  Serm. 252. de temp. t. 10.
• * 1.605

  T. 1. Concil. Gall. Sir∣mond.
• * 1.606

  Hist. l. 10. c. 8.
• * 1.607

  Apud Baroni∣um Annal. Eccl. ad an. 57. n. 148.
• * 1.608

  Can. 101. T. 5. Concil. p. 349.
• * 1.609

  Ad an. 57. n. 147, 148.
• * 1.610

  T. 2. p. 1014. L. 1. obser. 16.
• * 1.611

  Part. 1. p. 265. P••g. 403. Pag. 747.
• * 1.612

  Concil Tolet. 11. can. 11.
• * 1.613

  Concil. Tolet. 16. c••n. 6.
• * 1.614

  Vita Magnob. c. 9. Append. t. 5. Spicileg. p. 137.
• * 1.615

  Ibid. c. 5. p. 141.
• * 1.616

  T. 7. Spi•••• 217.
• * 1.617

  Bed. Hist. Angl. l. 4. c. 24.
• * 1.618

  Ordo Rom. Bibl. Pat. t. 10. p. 10. ult. edit.
• * 1.619

  Pag. 383.
• * 1.620

  Pag. 380.
• * 1.621

  Pag. 390.
• * 1.622

  Regin. in Chron. ad an. 869.
• * 1.623

  T. 2. Spicileg. p. 314.
• * 1.624

  Ibid. p. 315.
• * 1.625

  Ibid. p. 316.
• * 1.626

  Ibid. p. 317.
• * 1.627

  Ibid. p. 325.
• * 1.628

  Apud. Cas∣sand. in Li∣turg. p. 80.
• * 1.629

  Supplem. Chron. Sigeb. ad an. 1184. Natal. Belg. p. 110.
• * 1.630

  T. 2. Spicil. p. 624.
• * 1.631

  In Euchol. p. 149. n. 170.
• * 1.632

  De Orat. c. 14.
• * 1.633

  Lib. 2. ad Ux. c. 5.
• * 1.634

  Cypr. de laps. p. 176.
• * 1.635

  Id. de Spect. p. 292.
• * 1.636

  Greg. Nazian. orat. 11. p. 187.
• * 1.637

  Basil. Ep. 289. t. 3.
• * 1.638

  Hieron. Ep. 50. c. 6.
• * 1.639

  Aug. oper. imperf. cont. Jul. l. 3. c. 164.
• * 1.640

  Ad An. 57. n. 150.
• * 1.641

  T. 4. Conc. p. 684. ult. edit.
• * 1.642

  C. 79. Bibl. Pat. t. 13. p. 1089. Continuat. Si∣geberti.
• * 1.643

  Ambros. de obitu Satyr. t. 4. p. 315.
• * 1.644

  Greg. I. Dia∣log. l. 3. c. 36.
• * 1.645

  Baron. ad an. 57. n. 151.
• * 1.646

  Arcud. de concord. l. 3. c. 59.
• * 1.647

  De la penit. publ. part. 1. l. 1. c. 7. p. 94.
• * 1.648

  Just. Mart. Apol. 1.
• * 1.649

  Apud Baron. ad ann. 311.9. S.
• * 1.650

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.651

  Concil. Laod. c. 14.
• * 1.652

  In. c. 24. l. 5.
• * 1.653

  A••ud. Euseb. hinor. l. 6. c. 44.
• * 1.654

  Concil. Arc∣lar. 1. c. 22.
• * 1.655

  Capitul. l. 1. c. 161.
• * 1.656

  Ep. 2. Pseudo-Clem.
• * 1.657

  Apud Euseb. hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 44.
• * 1.658

  Ad. d. 15 Aug. Apud Baron. ad an. 260. §. 5.
• * 1.659

  Combef. auct. Bibl Pat t. 2. Grac. l. p 986. cum 1014.
• * 1.660

  Ib. p. 1014.
• * 1.661

  T. 6. Concil. p. 431.
• * 1.662

  P. 138.
• * 1.663

  T. 2. Spicileg. p. 261.
• * 1.664

  P. 138.
• * 1.665

  T. 3. Concil. Gall p. 623.
• * 1.666

  Aug. Oper. Imperf. contr. Julian. l. 3. c. 164.
• * 1.667

  De Script. in an. 380.
• * 1.668

  Aen. Paris. t. 7. Spicileg. p. 80.
• * 1.669

  Vita. Basil. c. 8. in Vit. Pat. l. 1.
• * 1.670

  Cod. can. Eccles. Afric. just. 1. c. 18. T. 1. Concil. Gall. c. 12.
• * 1.671

  Greg. 1. dia∣log. l. 2.
• * 1.672

  Vita S. Oth∣mar. apud Surium, an. 720. 16. Novemb. De off. Eccles. Lib. 4. c. 14.
• * 1.673

  Hesych. in Levitic. l. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.674

  Evagr. hist. l. 4. c. 35.
• * 1.675

  Concil. Matis. 2. c. 6. Epist. 2. Clem.
• * 1.676

  Concil. Tolet. 16. c. 6.
• * 1.677

  Antiq. con∣suetud. Cluni∣ac. monast. l. 1. c. 13. t. 4. Spicil. Dach. p. 58.
• * 1.678

  Apud Baron, an. 648. §. 15.
• * 1.679

  In anteact. Synod. t. 6. Concil. p. 896.
• * 1.680

  Odo Aribert. edit. in not. Baluz. ad Agobard. p. 129.
• * 1.681

  Goar in Eu∣cholog. p. 148. n. 166, 167.