and not Bishop of Marsellis as Pope Adrian stiles him doth speak for he makes mention of certain persons Gennaâ— l de Dogm Eccles c. 75. That under pretence of sobriety would not celebrate the Eucharist with Wine but with Water only All the attempts of this Enemy of the Salvation of Mankind have proved vain in this regard God hath not suffered him to prevail in this matter over his Church for all Christian Communions have faithfully retained the use of Bread and Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament insomuch as even in those 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 Mecha and Ormus and steep them a whole night in Water next day they press them and with the Liquor that comes out they celebrate the Eucharist instead of Wine Ramusio vol. 1. p. 313. aâ—d several others also The Abassins also do in like manner 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 Antiquity 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 collected 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 Fulgent ad â—â—rrand Diacon de quinque quast c â—5 Some persons saith he would have this passage of the Gospel understood viz. That the Lord gave not two Cups but rather they affirm that he said so by way of anticipation and that there was indeed but one sole Cup of which first there is mention made that it should be divided and then that it should be given to the Disciples to drink of it Others there be that affirm That there were two Cups distributed but which opinion soever of them is followed the sense of the one and the other is no way contrary to the true Faith Those which think our Saviour gave two Cups say that it was done mystically and that by the former Cup he would prefigure his Passion and by the second that of his followers Others again have said that the two Cups did represent what had been commanded under the old Testament viz. that whosoever had not celebrated the Passover of the first Month in eating a Lamb should do it the second Month in eating a Kid. As for me adds St. Fulgentius it seems there is here discovered another Mystery which accords very well with the Christian Faith viz. that both in the one and the other Cup ought to be understood both the Old and New Testaments 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 Ibid. c. 38. in this part of the Gospel whereof we now dispute we are not permitted to understand any thing else but what we are taught by our 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 Believers he eat the Passover of the Jews whereby Jesus Christ was promised to come unto our Passover which he became when sacrificed himself In fine consider what the Evangelist St. Luke relates that he said unto his Disciples for he saith thus When the hour was come he 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 before I suffer he eat therefore the Passover by which he was represented to suffer before he suffered voluntarily for us there is also in the words of our Saviour something which ought diligently to be considered by Believers and wherein may be perceived a difference betwixt both Testaments for St. Luke thus speaketh of the Cup which he first mentioned And having taken the Cup he gave Thanks and said Take ye it and divide it amongst you but speaking afterwards of the Bread and the Cup he saith And having taken the Bread he gave Thanks and broke it and gave it unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Also he gave them the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Of all the opinions or divers Interpretations cited by St. Fulgentius I find his own the most reasonable because in effect St. Luke hath mentioned two several Cups the Paschal Cup and the Eucharistical Cup the former being a Sign and Seal of the first Covenant and the latter the Sign and Seal of the new Covenant If this Evangelist hath not taken notice of our 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 't is as if he should have made our Saviour say After this Supper and my now sitting at Table with you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine Secondly That although Jesus Christ might have said so of the two Cups the Paschal and Eucharistical yet nevertheless S. Luke seeing the two other Evangelists had not observed it of the Paschal he contented himself to observe it of the Paschal and not of the Eucharistick the Evangelists being accustomed to supply in this manner the omissions one of another I mean that the one observes some things the others had omitted that it might not be thought they had all written of design and by consent CHAP. III. Continuation of the considerations of the matter of the Eucharist wherein is examined what S. Ignatius saith of certain Hereticks which rejected the Sacrament the Heresie of one named Tanchelin who also
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 Communicating and he proves it by the Liturgies of St. James St. Chrysostom by Anastasius the Sinaite by George Codin and by the Author of the life of St. Basil attributed unto Amphilochius but which in all likelihood was not his and he observes that the Christians of Ethiopia practise the same Ceremony which is quite different from the Elevation of the Latin Church it being only done to call the People to the Communion in saying Holy things are for the Saints and not to have them adore the Eucharist as amongst the Latins Therefore it is that whereas the Elevation of the Latin Church is 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 Sovereign Adoration whereunto those which be present are invited by the elevating the Host presently after it is consecrated That of the Greek Church was not done till a good while after Consecration and as they were ready to communicate so that the intent of it was only to call Believers to the participation of the Sacrament But Maynard rests not there he answers as 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 uncovered to be shewed to the people to have them come to the holy 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 considerable which is That it appears by the antient customs of the Monastery of Cluny written about the end of the eleventh Century That even to that time the Elevation was not practised in the extent of the Latin Church not so much as that at first mentioned by Ives of Chartres Antiq. consue Cluniac Monast t. 4. Spicil Dach l. 2. c. 30. which tended only to represent the Elevation of the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Cross For in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these customs of the Congregation of 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 't is observed in one place That when he that celebrates saith throughout all Ages Ibid. p. 143. 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 unto the adoration of the Sacrament practised after the Eleventh Century I affirm That William Durand towards the end of the Thirteenth Century was the first as far as I can discover who referred Adoration to the Elevation of the Host in his Rational of Divine Offices for amongst several reasons of this Elevation he alledges this last Duran Rat. Divin Oâ—lic l. 4. de pâ—rt can fol. 169. n. 51. 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 Gregory the Ninth made their Constitutions for adoring the Sacrament 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 spoken of in the World and his followers were dispersed into all parts in great abundance and the Albigenses and Waldenses which soon followed him had separated themselves from the Communion of the Latin Church a great while before the Adoration of the Host and the Elevation therewith enjoyned and by consequence there have always been Christians in the West who never practised Elevation nor Adoration in their Eucharist not to instance Christian Communions in the East and elsewhere which likewise never practised it After Elevation comes the fraction which in the Sacrament of Jesus Christ and in that of the primitive Christians immediately followed For the holy Writers 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 observes of the Bread of the Eucharist that we break it The Bread which we break and that the Lord explaining this Mystery saith positively of the Bread That it is his Body broken for us he would teach us that this fraction of Bread is neither superfluous nor useless but that it makes part of the Sacrament and that it therein represents unto us the sufferings of Jesus Christ particularly those of his Cross it was the signification which Theodoret searched therein in his Dialogues Theod. Dial. 3. p. 147. when he saith O. Remember what the Lord took and broke and by what name he called that which he had taken E. I will speak mystically by reason of those which are not initiated he means that he will not name the Bread After that he had taken and broke it and distributed it to his Disciples he said This is my Body which is given for you or which is broken according to the Apostle and again
standing at the Altar of God that is to say at the Sacrament Table and St. Chrysostom informs us in one of his Homilies that it was so practised even in his time Chrysost t. 1. Hom. 22. de Simult ira p. 260. when he exhorts the Communicants or at least when he observes That they presented themselves at the Holy Table and that they there assisted standing on their legs But because this Sacrament is an Object worthy the respect of a Christian because it is the Memorial of the death of his Saviour and at the same time of his love and charity a bond of his Communion with him and an efficacious means savingly to apply unto him the holy Fruits of his bitter death and sufferings St. Cyrill of Jerusalem Cyrill Hiâ—roâ— Mystag 5. at the end of the IV. Century will have his Communicant approach unto the Holy Table not with the hand open and the fingers stretched out but in supporting the right hand with the left that he receive in the hollow of his hand the Body of Christ or as he says some lines before the Antitype of the Body of Christ that he takes care not to suffer any 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. Can. 101 t. 5. Concil Goarâ— in Euchol p. 150. Oecumenical Council ordained something of this kind to wit that one should present himself at the Communion holding his hands in form of a Cross which the Greeks observed a long while after and their Clergy observe it still at this day but as for the people for some time past they receive the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament both together in a spoon but I do not find that the people which came to the Communion were obliged to set themselves in Posture or Gesture of those which adore until that in the XIII Century the Adoration of the Sacrament was established in the Latin Church for this bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill desires is not properly the posture of him who really doth adore because he which adores prostrates himself on his knees before the Object of his Adoration to shew the motions of the profound humility of his Soul and his self-denial before him unto whom by this action he confesseth that he is but dust and ashes But as for St. Cyrill he only desires a little inclination of the Body in approaching unto the Mystical Table to 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 unto the Communion with the hands in form of a Cross without mentioning the bowing of the Body which St. Cyrill himself doth not prescribe unto the Communicant but for the reception of the Holy Cup. John Damaseen who borrowed of St. Cyrill and of the VI. Council what he saith of the posture of the Communicant in his time that is in the VIII Century doth not speak a word of this inclination of the Body Goar in Enchoi p. 1â—0 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 Communions excepting the Latin which changed this custom in the XIII Century is that besides the Greek Church which is of a very large extent and wherein they Communicate standing the Abassins who also make a very considerable Christian Communion do no otherwise receive the Sacrament Alvar. ubi supr During the time the Communion is distributed saith the same Priest Alvarez they are all standing Now it is most certain that the Christians which are fallen into ignorance as for example the Abassins and the Greeks have not taken away any 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 Communicating standing be still kept in the Eastern Churches it may also be affirmed it was observed in the West seeing that before the Latin Church had introduced in its service the Elevation of the Host to oblige the people to adore it and by consequence before the people were obliged to receive the Communion kneeling a considerable Body of Christians had separated from her and broke off which Body retained and practised the custom of Communicating standing as do at this time the Protestants of Europe called Calvinists excepting those of Holland who Communicate sitting and those of England who kneel in receiving the Communion but their Doctrine declaring sufficiently what they believe of the Sacrament it is easy to see that their kneeling is not addressed unto what they receive from the hands of the Priest at the Holy Table but only unto Jesus Christ who is in Heaven and whom they profoundly adore in the Act of the Communion as him who hath purchased for them this great Salvation whereof they are about to Communicate in receiving his Divine Sacrament and of himself by means of his Sacrament who 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 before I leave this circumstance it may not probably be unnecessary to instance some customs that were practised in the antient 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 Hieron Ep. 62 Is there any one that hath Communion with you by force is there any one that after having stretched out his hand turns away his face and that in receiving the Holy Food gives you a Judas kiss Monsieur de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebiâ—s his History cites these words of Paul the Deacon speaking of the
Bishop Fidelis In not Valâ—â— ad Euseb p. 134. Go your way saith he Communicate and give us the kiss It may be thought that Cornelius Bishop of Rome makes allusion unto this custom when speaking of one of the Bishops who had given Ordination unto the Schismatick Novatian and whom Cornelius had degraded amongst the common people he saith Apud Euseb hist l. 6. â— 43. We have admitted him unto the Communion as a Lay person I farther observe that as Believers went unto the Communion the Deacon often pronounced these words Chrysost oraâ— 1. cont Jud. t. 1. p. 440. Observe know and take notice one of the other that they should take care that there were no profane Person and that no Jew crept in amongst them to approach unto the Holy Table S. Chrysostom informs us so in one of his Orations against the Jews I know not whether the Emperor Constantine did not think of this innocent custom when he exhorted the guides of Christian Churches unto Union and Peace De vit Constant l. 2. c. 71. Exâ—r and that he said unto them amongst other things Know ye one another 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 't is recited by St. Apud Euseb hist l. 4. c. 14. Inâ—naeus in Eusebius In the Liturgy which bears S. Chrysostom's name which the Greeks make use of the Deacon fitting himself for the Communion â—â—uâ—g Chrysost 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 Liturgy writes that every one amongst the People setting himself in a readiness to approach unto the Communion Table asks pardon of all that are present saying in the vulgar Tongue Goar in Eucholog p. 149. n. 169. Christians forgive me and that those present answer with a tender love and charity God forgive you he saith moreover that these words are amongst the Eastern Nations a certain and infallible sign of a sincere and reciprocal Love and Charity that if any one should be found so obstinate as not to grant the pardon unto him which desires it 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 Christians and I confess it savours of the tenderness and love which our Saviour requires in his Children for he will have them forgive one another as he hath forgiven them Therefore St. Chrysostom addressed this excellent Exhortation unto his Flock Chrysost de prodiâ— Jud. t. 5. p. 465. Let us be mindful of the holy kiss which unites our souls reconciles Spirits and which unites us all into one body and seeing we are all partakers of one body let us all be mingled into one Body not in mingling our Bodies but in strictly uniting our Souls by the bonds of charity to the end that by so doing we may with assurance enjoy the fruits of the Table which is prepared for though we exceed in good works if we neglect peace and reconciliation we shall gather no benefit for our Salvation And this custom of demanding pardon before Communicating is not so particular unto the Nation of the Greeks but that I see it practised amongst the Latins and even in our France in the XI Century for the antient customs of the Monastery of Clnny written in that Age testify L. 2. c. 30. t. 4. Spicileg p. 145. That they all demanded forgiveness before they Communicated and that they kissed the hand of the Priest CHAP. XI Of him who administred and of the Communicant and of the Words of both of them HAVING treated of the Time and Place of the Communion and of the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant we are obliged to say something of the Persons who distribute the Sacrament of them who receive it and of the Words both of the one and the other As for the Persons who distributed it we find by the Holy Writers that as it was Jesus Christ who Blessed and Consecrated his Eucharist it was also him that distributed it for there was none but himself who did the office and functions of Celebration the Apostles assisting at this Divine Ceremony but as particular Believers which were to receive at the hands of their master this pretious pledge of their Salvation A little above a hundred years after Christians received the Communion from the hands of the Deacons for assoon as the 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 Just Martyr Apolog. 2. Those whom we call Deacons saith this Saint give unto each one that is present the Bread Wine and Water which were consecrated It appears by St. Cyprian Cyprian de Laps p. 175. ultim edit that about a hundred years after the decease of St. Justin the Deacons yet 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 Concil Ancyr c. 2. Concil Arelat 1. c. 15. assembled Anno 314. Nevertheless the Council of Arles in the same year did forbid it by this Canon Touching Deacons which we are informed do offer in sundry places we have thought good that it should not be done Offer is their taken for 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 Concil Nicaen 1. c. 18. or to touch it before the Bishops doth not forbid them to distribute it unto the people The Council of Laodicea about the year 360. hath a Canon yet more express for it is in these terms Concil Laodic c. 25. The Ministers must not give the Bread neither may they bless the Cup. Commonly by the Ministers is meant the Deacons but I do not judge they are so to be understood in this place and indeed in all the Canons of this Council I find that these Ministers are distinguished from the Deacons as being a degree below them therefore I make no doubt but by these Ministers is to be
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 Roman Order was written as some think at the end of the Eighth Century or the beginning of the Ninth and as others think in the Eleventh In that Book this Decree is to be seen Ord. Rom. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 84. Care is to be taken that young Children receive no Food after they are Baptized and that they should not give them Suck without great necessity untill they have participated of the Body of Christ Greg. lib. Sac. p. 73. Nevertheless in S. Gregory's time it was not forbidden to give them Suck but at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Centuries this pity was shewed unto these poor Infants and for the difficulty there was in making them swallow Bread they were communicated with the blessed Wine only Pasch 2. Ep. 32. t. 7. conc patr 1. p. 530. So it was enjoined by Pope Paschal the Second who succeeded unto Vrban the Second Anno 1099. according to Cardinal Bellarmin's computation and this custom continued after his death as Hugh of S. Victor testifies who lived in the Twelfth Century in his Ecclesiastical Books of Ceremonies Sacraments Offices and Observations L. 1. c. 20. t. 10. Bibl. Pat. p. 1376. Vnto Children new born saith he must be administred with the Priest's Finger the Sacrament in the species of blood because such in that state do naturally suck And he saith It must be so done according to the first Institution of the Church he laments the Ignorance of Priests who saith he retaining the form and not the thing give unto them Wine instead of Blood which he wished might be abolished if it could be done without offending the ignorant Nevertheless this practice of giving a little Wine unto young Children after Baptism continued a long time in divers parts of the Western Church Lindan Panop l. 4. c. 25. as appears by the words of Hugh of S. Victor and some have observed that not much above one hundred years ago the same thing was used and practised in the Church of Dordrecht in Holland Apud Arcad. de concord l. 3. c. 40. before it embraced the Protestant Reformed Religion In fine Simon of Thessalonica Cabasilas Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople and Gabriel of Philadelphia also defend this necessity of Communicating not only of persons of discretion but also of young Children This Tradition thus established there only rests to finish this Chapter to speak something touching the words of the Distributer and of the Communicant When the Lord gave unto the Disciples the Sacrament of Bread he said This is my Body and in giving them the 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 Apolog. 2. the Distributer nor the Communicant said nothing but the Deacons gave unto the Believers Bread and Wine which had been consecrated Serom. l. 1. p. 271. and it may be collected from Clement of Alexandria that it was so practised at the end of the Second Century Some time after it was said unto the Communicants in giving them the Sacrament the Body of Christ the Blood of Christ and the Receivers answered Amen as may be read in the Apostolical Constitutions S. Ambrose S. Cyril of Jerusalem S. Austin and elsewhere but it must also be observed that they said unto them Ye are the Body of Christ and that unto these words they answered Amen as they had answered in receiving the Sacrament as is restified by S. Austin in his Sermon unto the new Baptized in S. Fulgentius In the days of Gregory the First and after they said in distributing the Eucharist The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep ye unto Life everlasting The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ redeem ye unto Life everlasting But I do not find that Believers answered so punctually Amen Such Liberty the Church hath used in this circumstance of distributing the Sacrament Amongst the Greeks they say unto the Communicant In Euchol p. 83. Servant of God you do Communicate of the holy Body and precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in remission of Sins and unto Life everlasting But 't is time to consider the things which were given unto Believers when they did participate of the Sacrament and it is wherein we will employ the following Chapter CHAP. XII Of the things distributed and received WHat was distributed unto Believers in Communicating were the things which had been Blessed and Consecrated to be made the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord. I will not now examine the change which Consecration may thereunto bring this not being the place to treat of the Doctrine of the holy Fathers which shall appear in the second part of this Treatise it will suffice here to 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 difficulty then is to know the practice of the Church in the species of Wine we are indispensably forced to treat of the Communion under both kinds and to lay before the Readers eyes the practice of Christians with the changes and innovations which have therein happened Jesus Christ who distributed the Bread unto his Apostles gave unto them also the Cup and 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 immediately following the Apostles practised the very same but because it would make a whole Volume to collect the passages of the Ancients to prove the certainty of this matter and besides both Roman 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 clearest passages and to follow it until its abolishing at the Council of
all the Changes and Alterations which have thereupon ensued and the many Disputes and Contests which have frequently hapned in Europe from Paschas until Berengarius and from Berengarius until the great separation of the Protestants The method proposed by us necessarily requires that we should employ this Third Part in examining the Worship I mean to consider the dispositions and preparations which should go before the Celebration of the Sacrament and of the inclinations and motions of the Soul of the Communicant either towards God and Jesus Christ or in respect of the Sacrament it self that we should examine the great question of Latrie and that we should endeavour to discover what the Church hath from time to time required of those which approach'd unto the holy Table to participate of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation For it must not be imagined that these first Christians which abounded with Zeal and Piety contented themselves in Celebrating this Divine Sacrament with indifferency and meerly for fashion sake and only to declare what they believed of the Nature of the Symbols of their use and employment and that they omitted the necessary preparations both for celebrating and for worthily partaking thereof In fine the abode which I made in the Country of Ecclesiastical Antiquity and the inspection which for some years I made into the Records and Registers which contain the Laws and Customs of this great Empire have informed me that this great and sublime Mystery is not Celebrated and that none presume to Communicate without great preparation devotion and respect And that the People of that Country made the actions of Jesus Christ celebrating his Sacrament and that of the Apostles in Communicating the model of their Celebration whereunto nevertheless in process of time they added several Ceremonies which had not been used at first and the words of this same Saviour the foundation of their Doctrine and of their Faith upon this important Article of Religion They had also considered the Commemoration that the Lord and afterwards his Apostle commands us to make of his Person and of his Death and the proof and examination which this latter requires of us as the fountain and principle of all the dispositions necessary for Celebrating and for Conimunicating Having therefore treated at large of the two first Heads we are indispensibly obliged to treat of the third point thereby to finish and compleat this History And because the Celebration precedes the Communion and that the actions of him that Celebrates goes before them of the Communicant we will first treat of the preparations incumbent upon him which doth Celebrate the Holy Sacrament CHAP. I. Of the Preparations which precede the Celebration WHen Jesus Christ did Celebrate his Eucharist the Evangelists do not mention that he prepared himself by any Ceremony they only declare That after the Supper of the Passover was ended he took Bread and that having prayed unto his Father over this Bread he broke it and distributed it unto his Disciples I only say that at the very instant there is no question to be made but that he lifted up his Soul unto his Father to beseech him that he would make this Sacrament which he went about to Institute for a Seal of his Covenant saving and efficacious unto his Children unto the end of the World And that taking the Bread to make it a sign of his Body he did it with that reverence which of it self shewed that he went about doing something that was of great weight and moment The Evangelists nor St. Paul make no mention at all of any preparation accompanied with many external Ceremonies our Saviour designing to institute this Mystery with much plainness and simplicity agreeable unto the Nature of the Gospel the Worship whereof was to be wholly Spiritual and Divine according unto what Jesus Christ said unto the woman of Samaria That God is a Spirit and he must be worshipped by them which serve him in spirit and in truth About six or seven score years after the Conductors of the Christian Churches used no other Ceremony in the Celebration of the holy Sacrament for St. Justin Martyr St. Justin Martyr Apol. 2. who gives an ample description of the exteriour form of Celebrating the Sacrament which was observed in his time prescribes no other preparation unto us on behalf of the Pastor before the Sacrament but only that when the Sermon made unto the People was ended reading some portion of the holy Scriptures he made a prayer unto God and that when prayer was finished the Believers having saluted each other with the kiss of Charity there was presented unto him Bread Wine and Water over which things he prayed unto God to Consecrate them and the People having answered Amen the distribution was made unto the Communicants by the Ministry of the Deacons Nothing can be seen more simple nor more agreeable unto the Institution of this Sacrament then the manner that was used in Celebrating of it in the days of St. Justin seeing there is no mention made of any preparation made by him that Celebrates in order unto this holy Action being content to prepare and dispose himself thereunto in private by ardent and zealous prayers unto God that he would be pleased to enable him by his Grace to Celebrate this Venerable Sacrament with the Gravity Reverence and Devotion befitting so illustrious a Monument of his great kindness and love But this great simplicity was not to the liking of those which came after They thought God was to be served with more pomp and that the splendor of outward Ceremonies would advance the Dignity of the Mysteries of his Religion It often happens that we think God is like our own selves and that because we naturally love outward pomp and are exceedingly inclined unto Pageantries we fondly conceit that it is the same with the Almighty and that the Service which we address unto him would be much more acceptable for being beautified and enriched with a great many Ceremonies and attended with many mystical actions into which deep search must be made to understand their sense and meaning This is indeed the Spring and Original cause of all those which in process of time have been introduced by Men in the Celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist But because we here only enquire into those which Celebrate and of the preparations which they ought to make for this holy Action we must to prosecute our design consider what is hapned in this preparation since Justin Martyr In the Constitutions which go in the Apostles names there is a Liturgy for the Celebration of the Eucharist wherein after Prayers unto God for the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents for those which are ready to receive Baptism and for the faithful And after having dismissed all those which by the Laws of the Church could not be present at the Celebration of Divine Mysteries the Deacons did present upon the Altar Constit
consecrated Id. 42 The Eucharist celebrated but once a day in each Church which is also still observed amongst the Greeks Muscovites and Abyssins Id. 49 The matter of the Vessels employed in this Ceremony considered Id. 50 The Celebration and generally all the Divine Service was said in a Language understood by the People A. Ch. 6. 55 Consecration was made by Prayers Blessing and giving of Thanks A. Ch. 7. 65 The time and place of Celebration and of the Communion A. Ch. 10. 110 The Communion was received standing Id. 116 The Greeks and Abyssins do communicate standing Id. 118 The Communion standing Id. ibid. There have been always in the West that did and do communicate so Id. ibid. Certain Customs practised in the ancient Church in the act of communicating Id. ibid. The Communion under both kinds practised in all Christian Churches and also in the Latin Church for above 1000 years A. Ch. 12. 131 The Introduction of the Communion with the steeped Eucharist Id. 135 The Communion under one Kind established at Constans Anno 1415. and confirmed at Trent Anno 1562. Id. 143 144 All Christians except those of the Roman Church communicate under both Kinds Idem 146 The Remainders of the Sacrament burnt in some Churches and eaten by little Children in others A. Ch. 16. 170 Preparations requisite for him that celebrates C. Ch. 1. 521 The Original Use of the Sign of the Cross and of Material Crosses in the Worship of Religion Id. 538 Preparations required of the Receiver in respect of God and Jesus Christ C. Ch. 2. 542 Auricular Confession before receiving the Sacrament was not practised for above eight hundred years C. Ch. 3. 549 D. WHat Doctrines should be retained in the Church A. p. 1 Corruption of Doctrine is commonly the Consequence of the Corruption of Manners A. Ch. 2. 7 The Doctrine of the Council of Constantinople in the Year 754. touching the Sacrament B. Ch. 12. 365 The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice although it censures the Expressions of that of Constantinople yet it condemns not its Doctrine Id. 375 E. BRead and Wine have ever been the Matter of the Eucharist A. Ch. 1. p. 2 Wherefore Jesus Christ chose Bread and Wine and wherein the Ancients placed the resemblance they have unto his Body and Blood Id. 3 The mixing of Water with the Wine and its mystical signification Id. 4 Other mystical Significations in the composition of the Bread Id. 5 The Dispute touching Levened or Unlevened Bread A. Ch. 3. 28 Whence the Bread of the Eucharist came the Form of it with the Changes which happened unto it and at what time A. Ch. 4. 30 c. Who they were that distributed the Sacrament and what they said A. Ch. 11. 121 c. Who they were that had Right to communicate and their Words Id. 123 Women sometimes distributed the Sacrament in Italy and France Id. ibid. The Sacrament never celebrated without Communicants Id. 126 The Eucharist received by the hand of the Communicants A. Ch. 13. 150 This Custom ever practised in the West Id. 154 Communicant permitted to carry the Eucharist home and along with them in Voyages A. Ch. 14. 160 The Eucharist sent unto the Absent and the Sick and by whom A. Ch. 15. 164. Plaisters made of the Eucharist A. Ch. 16. 169 The Eucharist interred with the Dead Id. ibid. The Wine of the Eucharist mingled with Ink. Id. 171 172 The Greeks mix it with warm Water at the Instant of Communicating Id. 172 The Eucharist called Bread and Wine by the Fathers in the act of Communicating B. Ch. 2. 199 The Fathers affirm it is Bread and Wine Bread which is broken Corn Wheat the Fruit of the Vine c. Bread and Wine wherewith our Bodies are nourished Bread the matter whereof passeth the same fate of our common Food Bread which is consumed in the Distribution of the Sacrament things Inanimate Idem 200 201 c. They testifie that the Bread and Wine lose not their substance by Consecration Id. 206 The Participation of the Eucharist breaks the Fast Id. 210 The Eucharist is a Subject whereof one receives a little a bit a piece a morsel Id. 211 The Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign Figure Type Antitype Symbol Image the Similitude and Resemblance of the Body of Jesus Christ by opposition of the Truth absent B. Ch. 3. 213 The Eucharist is not barely the Sacrament the Sign c. but a Sacrament in the lawful use of it accompanied with all the vertue and efficacy of this divine Body and this precious Blood Id. 220 When the Fathers say 't is Bread and Wine they never mince their words Id. 221 When they say it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use several Modifications unto their Expressions Id. 223 Alterations happened to the ancient Expressions by whom and how B. Ch. 11. 361 When the use of Incense was introduced in the Celebration of the Eucharist C. Ch. 1. 523 The Proof and Trial the Communicant should make of himself before Receiving C. Ch. 3. 542 This Proof comprehends all the Dispositions of the believing Soul in regard of the Sacrament Id. ibid. F. HIm which maketh a thing is before that which is made B. Ch. 5. p. 250 Institution of the Feast of the Sacrament by Urban the Fourth Anno 1264 C. Ch. 4. 579 This Feast for the Novelty of it was not received at first but by the Church of Idem 580 When the Feast of the Procession of the Eucharist was instituted Id. ibid. Several desired that this Feast might be abolished Id. 582 G. AT what time they began to keep the Sacrament for the Sick A. Ch. 15. 165 William of Malmesbury is deceived in speaking of the Conversion of Berengarius B. Ch. 17. 460 H. NO body can dwell in himself B. Ch. 5. 262 History of the VII Century B. Ch. 11. 361 The state of the VIII Century B. Ch. 12. 365 History of the IX Century B. Ch. 13. 385 Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 14. 425 The Dignities and Creation of Herribold Bishop of Auxerr Id. ibid. Continuation of the History of the IX Century B. Ch. 15. 430 c. History of the X. Century which was an Age neither of Light nor Darkness but made up of both B. Ch. 16. 439 History of the XI Century B. Ch. 17. 450 History of the XII and XIII Centuries B. Ch. 18. 465 History of the XIV and XV. Centuries B. Ch. 19. 497 I. WE should hold by what was done by Jesus Christ at first A. Ch. 1. p. 1 The Image and Figure cannot be the same thing whereof they are the Image and Figure B. Ch. 3. 218 Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Humanity and present only by his Divinity B. Ch. 4. 233 The Ancients have only acknowledged two Comings of Jesus Christ Id. 240 The spiritual Presence of Jesus Christ is common with him and the Father Id. ibid. Jesus
manner of Trades and places of trust the quite contrary hath been practis'd the Courts of Judicature wherein was an equal number of Counsellors and Judges of both Religions for hearing and determining differences have been suppress'd and quite alter'd Attorneys Apothecaries Chirurgeons and generally all other mechanick and handycraft Trades not permittedto gain or eat their bread in quiet But which is most doleful of all to consider the Ministers of the Gospel are forbidden to preach the word of God many of them slain imprisoned and banished their Churches pull'd down to the ground and their flock dispers'd over the face of the Earth into England Sweden Italy Denmark Germany c. as Sheep having no Shepherd just as it happened unto their Predecessors the Albigenses and Waldenses for the same cause above Five hundred Years ago and the few that remain in the Land of their Nativity waiting for the time that their King and Sovereign like an other Cyrus or Charlemain his Royal and Religious Ancestor will give and proclaim deliverance unto the dispersed Tribes from their cruel Bondage and from so great a Famine of the Word for at present they many times see their young Infants yield up their innocent Souls in carrying them unto places far distant to receive the Seal of the Covenant of Baptism others yielding up their Spirits without the Benefit or Help of their Spiritual Guide's consolation at the hour of Death besides many other great Miseries which they daily suffer in Body Soul and Estate So that the Parisian Maacssre was a kindness being compared with the present usage which the Protestants of France do receive by the diligence of Romish Emissaries and from their own unkind Countrymen for that gave them a speedy deliverance from all miseries whereas they are now as it were held on the Rack and made suffer a thousand Deaths before they are freed from the Burden of one miserable Life When our Neighbours and Brethrens Houses are burning and all in a Flame for the same common Faith and Reformation all Christians that have any sense of Religion and Piety have great reason to unite their Prayers unto the God of Heaven That he would be pleased to avert his just Judgments from falling upon us for our great Impieties and preserve our Church and Nation from the sad calamities which have ruined so many Christian Families in France c. and which threaten the like usage unto the rest of the Reformed World I own it is the singular Blessing of God and by the Liberality of the great Encourager of Virtue and Learning his Grace the Lord Primate and Chancellor of Ireland that I am happy this day in addressing my self unto you almost in the Words of S. Paul unto Felix the Roman Governour in adventuring to speak the more freely in this matter because you have been for many years a Righteous Judge unto this Nation living so that Envy it self dares not whisper the least Corruption or sign of fear or favour to Friends or Enemies and are perfectly sensible of the verity of these things which I have only hinted at to avoid Prolixity lest I may be thought to write a Book of Martyrs rather than an Epistle Dedicatory Our Gentry and Gallants formerly were wont in great numbers to flock and resort unto Montpellier Montauban Bergerac c. where they freely exchanged their English Gold for the Nourishment and Recreations they there found both for Body and Soul But now it may too truly be said of those places in particular and of other whole Provinces in general That the Ark of God their Glory is departed from them and they as the Asiatick Churches are over-spread with thick and dark Clouds of Profaneness Atheism Ignorance and Superstition so that those who travel that way may justly fear it will be to their damage both in Body and Soul What was the pleasant and beautiful Jerusalem when the Christians were sent out of it unto Pella and other places And what is France but an Aceldama now that the Protestants are expell'd contrary to the proceedings of the wise and valiant Dealings of Lewis the Twelfth who before he would ruine his Subjects for Religion sent Commissaries and not Dragoons into the several parts of his Dominions to be justly informed of the truth of matters who upon the Report made unto him by his Commissaries swore a great Oath in presence of his Officers and Counsellors of State That the Protestants were the best Subjects he had in his Kingdom and thenceforward commanded that they should not be molested in Body or Estate And it is well known that the present King has much better knowledge and experience of his Protestant Subjects Loyalty than that great Prince had occasion to know so that it is hoped the sinister Councils of a Plotting Jesuitical Faction will not always prevail to the Ruine of so many faithful good Subjects and of so flourishing a Kingdom I have presumed here to present unto you an Epitome of the chiefest revolutions which have occurred upon this tremendous Article of Christian Religion in the Eastern and Western Churches from the Apostles days unto the last Age wherein the truth of the chiefest matters negotiated by Emperors Kings Councils Popes Prelates and the eminentest Doctors of the Church in the several Centuries are retrieved and recited with as great integrity and moderation aspossible can be I have endeavoured to accommodate my self unto the Author's sense and terms as near as I could and if any passage seems to vary from the Doctrine of the Church of England which I do not observe through the whole Book I hope to find a favourable Censure being only a Translator and not the Author If the Work be duely weighed it will not stand in need of much recommendation for the buying and reading of it such generous WINE needs no Bush all is Loyal and Orthodox here it recommends it self unto all sorts of Persons that desire to see the weightiest matters of Religion interwoven with the pleasant light and truth of the purest History of all Ages whereby Faith as well as Mens Reason is improved and confirmed to the eternal silencing of that common question of the Gentlemen of the Roman Persuasion unto Protestants in asking Where their Religion was before Luther and Calvin Here are Depths where Elephants may swim the learned and curious may find sweetness and satisfaction also the weakest Lamb the pious and devout Soul may wade without fear and go away plung'd and pleas'd in pleasure and delight And how could I better expose this Sacred Treasure of Ecclesiastical Antiquity unto publick view than by recommending my weak endeavours herein unto your favourable acceptance and Patronage having received the first design of coming to light near the famous Mansion of your worthy Progenitors where for several years I spent some of the pleasantest days of all my life wherein I freely confess as God's Glory and the good of his Church was chiefly designed by me
in the main so also I thought fit to express my Gratitude unto the great Family of the Windhams in particular a Family known to be truly Noble and Great in the number of its flourishing Branches as well as in Riches Honour and approved Loyalty unto their King and Country the true happiness and lasting prosperity whereof shall ever be sincerely wished and desired by Honoured Sir Your most obedient humble Servant Jos Walker THE Author's Preface Translated from the FRENCH THE Controversies about Religion being a kind of War or if you will a sort of Law-Suit wherein both Parties plead their Cause with some heat it seems to me very difficult to write and not let fall some words that may favour the interest of that side for which we are concerned because the flesh corrupts the acts of the Understanding and the old Man never fails to vitiate the purity of the thoughts of the new I do not here speak of those angry Writers who in all their Works do shew an unlimited passion for the Cause which they defend and meditate nothing but disparaging their Adversaries to make their own Party triumph by the Calumnies which they cast upon the others I speak of mild and peaceable Spirits who write with moderation who nevertheless do it not alwaies so successfully but they let drop some things which all do not approve of because their ever remains frailty in man and the innocency of the second Adam hath not a compleat victory over the first What I say is particularly verified in examining the Tradition of the Church upon the Articles of our Faith for both the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants pretending that it is favourable to their Cause each alledge out of the holy Fathers to establish their Belief and Religion This consideration makes me think that the surest way and most edifying means for Christians would be plainly to produce what hath been from time to time received and believed in the Church upon the points in Controversie and Historically without dispute to represent the sentiments of our Ancestors upon all the Articles which are to be examined This is what I have indeavoured to do upon the matter of the Eucharist which is and will be alwaies if God prevent it not by his grace a stone of stumbling and a means which the Devil will never fail to use to keep up amongst Christians that unhappy strife wherewith they are so pleased but which ought to draw tears of blood from those good Souls that are sensibly touched for the glory of God and that without ceasing by their prayers desire that he will give unto all the grace to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace The better to succeed in my design and to represent the Sacrament at large I have divided my Work into three Parts In the first I examine the outward Form of Celebration I prove that Bread and Wine have alwaies been the matter of the Sacrament amongst Christians I hint at the mixture of Water with the Wine in the holy Cup and I endeavour to discover the Original as well as the Mysterie which the ancient Doctors of the Church since S. Cyprian have sought for in this mixture I mention sundry Sects of Hereticks whereof some have changed the matter of the Sacrament others have corrupted the Celebration and lastly others have quite rejected it not suffering that it should be celebrated at all I omit not what S. Ignatius said of certain Hereticks who condemned the celebration nor the Heresie of one called Tanchelin who also denied it but through another Principle I make some mention of the Slanders which the Jews and others cast upon Christians by reason of the Sacrament And I treat of the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about the using of levened and unlevened Bread Then I consider whence the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament was taken what was the fashion of the Bread with the innovations and changes which have thereupon hapned From thence I proceed to the consideration of the place of Consecration of the matter of the Chalices and Patins that is to say the Vessels which were used in this holy action this consideration is followed with an inquiry of the Language wherein Consecration was made and wherein all the Service was generally performed and from this Inquiry I proceed to the Examination of Ceremonies and of the Form of Consecration I mean the words of Consecration to know whether the antient Church did consecrate by Prayers Blessings and giving of Thanks or by these words This is my Body as is now the practice of the Latin Church Then I treat of the Oblation or the Form of the Sacrifice and I shew the Reasons and Motives which obliged the holy Fathers to give to the Eucharist the name of Oblation and Sacrifice I annex unto the consideration of the Oblation that of the Elevation and of the Fraction and I shew at what time the Latins began to lift up the Host to warn the people to adore it moreover I examine the Distribution and Communion and in the first place the Time the Place and the Posture of the Communicant the Persons who distributed those who communicated with the words of the one and the other and then of the Thing distributed treating at large the Question of the Communion under both kinds I also shew that for several Ages Communicants received the Eucharist with their hand that they were permitted to carry it unto their Houses and to carry it along with them in their Journeys and Travels and that the ancient Christians were so little scrupulous in this matter that sometimes they sent the Sacrament unto the Sick by Lay persons Men Women Acolytes and young Boys and not only so but they made Plaisters of it they buried it with the Dead In some Churches they burnt the remainder of the Sacrament and in others they caused it to be eaten by little Infants Sometimes they took consecrated Wine and mixed it with Ink then they dipt their Pen in these mixt Liquors the more to confirm the Acts they intended to sign In the Second Part I describe the History of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers upon this weighty Article beginning with the reflections they have made upon the words of Institution and upon the interpretation they have given of these words This is my Body and after these Reflections I represent a great number of Testimonies wherein they call the Eucharist Bread and Wine in the very act of communicating they affirm it is Bread which is broken that it is Corn Wheat the fruit of the Vine Fruits of the Earth and like terms They positively say That it is Bread and Wine Bread wherewith our Bodies are nourished the matter whereof passeth through the natural accidents of our common Food Bread which is consumed in the celebration of the Sacrament They affirm that the Bread and the Cup which we receive at the Lord's Table are things
inanimate that the substance of Bread and Wine remain after Consecration and because one is found amongst them that much varies from this language I represent unto the Reader what some have said to reconcile this Authour with others who have expressed themselves otherwise than he hath done Then re-assuming the thred of my History I make appear that these same Doctors have believed that participating of the Eucharist broke the fast and that they have spoken of what is received in the Communion as of a thing whereof one received a little a morsel a piece a small portion And having seen what they believed and what they said of the things which we receive in the Eucharist I inquire what they taught of the Use the Office and Imploy of the sacred Symbols And they tell us that the Eucharist is the Sacrament the Sign the Figure the Type the Antitype the Symbol the Image the Similitude and the resemblance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And the better to instruct us in the nature and force of these expressions they will have us make these two observations First that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Sign a Figure an Image it is in opposition to the reality which they consider as absent The other is that they constantly hold that the Image and the Figure cannot be that whereof they are the Image and Figure And indeed not to leave their Doctrine exposed unto the stroaks of Calumny they declare that if the Eucharist be a Figure and an Image it is not a bare Figure nor an Image without operation but a Figure an Image and a Sacrament replenished with all the vertue and all the efficacy of the Body and Blood of our blessed Saviour clothed if it may be so said with the Majesty of his person and accompanied in the lawful Celebration with all the fruits and with all the benefits of his death and Sufferings But because the same Fathers who affirm that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine and who say that it is the Sign the Symbol the Figure and the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour do say also That it is his Body and his Blood that it passeth and is turned into his Body and Blood I have not omitted to report the explications which they give us thereupon and to shew which of those sorts of expressions they have limited for by this means it is easie to comprehend their words and intentions Having ended the Examination of their Doctrine I have applied my self unto the search and inquiry of its consequence to know if they believed the eating of the Flesh of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body the eating of the same Flesh by the wicked as well as by the righteous and the presence of the Lord upon Earth as to his Humanity and how they understood the following Maxims whether a Body can be in several places at the same time whether it can subsist invisibly after the manner of a Spirit without occupying any space whether what hath been done long since can still be done every day whether the Cause can be later than the Effect whether that which containeth ought not to be greater than that which is contained whether Accidents can exist without their Subject whether the Senses may be deceived in the report they make of sensible Objects when there is no defect in the Organ or in the medium or situation of the Object whether a Body ought to be visible and palpable and whether it ought to have its parts so distinguished the one from the other that each part ought to answer the respective part of place whether there may be penetration of dimensions whether one may dwell in himself whether a Body may be all intirely in one of its parts and whether whatsoever is seen and touched and falls under sense be a Body And to the end nothing be wanting to establish the Doctrine of the Fathers in the point of the Eucharist I add unto direct proofs a great many indirect proofs taken from their words and actions whence are drawn several inductions which contribute very much to shew what were their sentiments of this Article of our Faith Then I represent the Alterations and changes happened in the ancient expressions and Doctrine the contests of the Ninth Age whereunto if I mistake not I have given much light by certain considerations which shew as clear as the light which of the two Opinions had the better that of Paschasius or that of his Adversaries The History of the Tenth Age shall be represented in such a manner I hope as will not be displeasing unto the candid Reader seeing it will inform him that in that Age which I consider neither as an Age of Darkness nor of Light but participating of both wherein things passed otherwise than hath been hitherto believed I treat exactly of what passed in the Eleventh Century in regard of Berengarius and his Followers in regard of the Albigenses and Waldenses in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries of Wicklif and the Lollards in England in the Fourteenth Age of the Taborites in Bohemia in the Fifteenth and until the separation of the Protestants with some Observations which I make from Age to Age upon the Greek Church And in the last Part wherein I treat of the Worship I examine the preparations which precede the Celebration I inquire the time wherein Christians began to introduce in the exercise of their Religion the use of Incense and Candles especially at the Celebration of the Sacrament Unto this practice I add that of the sign of the Cross and also of material Crosses the consideration of holy Vestments and of those particularly appointed for this holy Ceremony not forgetting that of Flowers which were used in form of Coronets or otherwise in honour of the Eucharist I make one Chapter of the dispositions requisite for a Communicant in respect of God and of Jesus Christ and another of those which he ought to have in regard of the Sacrament which ingageth me to speak something of Auricular Confession and to inquire whether the Holy Fathers have requir'd it as a disposition absolutely necessary unto a lawful Communion And I conclude the whole Work with the question of the Adoration of the Sacrament which I treat of with some care and exactness to the end the Reader might see what hath been the Belief and practice of the ancient Church on so important a point as this is and when the first Decrees were made for worshipping the Host I know very well there can be nothing of testimony be it never so clear but the subtilty of men will find means to elude and this is it which hath rendred and will render the disputes of Religion immortal many of those who handle them seeking more their own than Gods glory and examining the passages of the Ancients with the prejudices they have been before prepossess'd with Thence it is that beholding them
figuratively and on the contrary that they spake literally and properly when they affirmed that it is Bread and Wine Now the Reader will perceive in perusing this Treatise what manner of speaking these Holy Doctors have used herein for it is enough for me here to propose unto him the means of right understanding them The fourth rule to be observed for the right understanding their testimonies is not to make them clash one against another nor to imbroil them in contradictions for it must be supposed that they were prudent and judicious enough not to contradict themselves and to keep themselves from a reproach which would have been cast on them had that befaln them There are two things in their works relating to the matter we treat of which should be carefully distinguished but in such sort as to take them always in good Sense I mean the ground of their Doctrine and its consequences And indeed the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers having had its consequences as the greatest number of Doctrines have had it is evident that of two explications which may be given unto it there is but one that is true that which shall make a contradiction betwixt the Doctrine and its consequences and the consequences and the Doctrine is false and contrary to their Intention whereas that that reconciles both is lawful and genuine for their Doctrine must be considered with its consequences as a Body whereof all the parts should have a dependance the one to the other and all tend to the same end as so many lines to the center I have examined a great many of these consequences in this History to the end that those who read it may judge if they agree with the foundation of the Doctrine and if the Doctrine and its consequences do favour the substantial change for if the consequences favour this change it will be a great presumption that the Doctrine doth not disfavour it although it should not so positively establish it as the Latins have done But also if all these consequences are directly opposite unto the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it will be a manifest proof that the ground of the Doctrine is no less opposite unto it and that the Antients have not received this Doctrine into the Object of their Faith and that they made it not an Article of their Belief This fourth rule shall be strengthened with a fifth which appears no less important unto me and which only demands that doubtful and uncertain passages ought to be explained by certain passages and the obscure by the clear and manifest ones This is a Maxim of Tertullian's which I 'll not alledge in this place because it is alledged in the Body of the Work but after all there 's nothing more just and reasonable It often befals most Authors to deliver themselves more happily at one time than at another though they treat of the same Subject it happens unto some through neglect or not having well digested their thoughts it being impossible to express themselves clearly on a Subject if the mind have only confused notions of it others do so for reason which may here be said particularly of the Fathers of the Church when they treat of the Sacraments principally of that of the Eucharist for there were certain Times and Places when they explained not themselves so clearly as at other times although they never said any thing contrary to their Sentiments the discipline of their times not suffering them to do otherwise But however the matter hapned it seems very just and equal when the mind of an Author would be known upon a matter which he hath treated in divers Places in some places clearer than at others to have recourse unto those Places wherein he hath most clearly explained himself and by those to interpret the others wherein he expressed himself more obscurely either through inadvertency or for reason more darkly and ambiguously this kind of proceeding is natural unto all Mankind and reason shews 't is the safest way can be taken in these occasions I will not fear to say that 't is the only means to terminate the Disputes and Controversies of Religion because they all arising from the several interpretations given unto passages of the Holy Scriptures and of those of the antient Doctors of the Church they might be easily reconciled if Men would agree that the most clear and intelligible should serve as a Commentary unto the more difficult and obscure Unto all these rules I will add a sixth which shall be the last The Fathers being on this occasion to be considered as witnesses examin'd to learn of them what was the belief of the antient Church touching the Sacrament there 's no question to be made but that the greater number ought to be preferr'd before the less and that the lesser number ought to submit unto the greater things being otherwise alike I mean both the one and the other being of equal Authority and their Testimony alike worthy of belief for instance if eight or ten amongst them should unanimously depose that the substance of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament is abolished by the Consecration and that there remain only the accidents and appearance which subsist miraculously without any Subject and that there was but one that said to the contrary It is not to be doubted but the testimony of the Ten ought to be preferr'd before one single Person because every one of the Ten is as credible in his particular as he that is alone of his own Opinion and that there is much more likelihood that one single Person may be mistaken in relating the belief of the Church than ten Persons that agree in their Testimonies But by the same reason if Ten be found that testifie that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and that on the contrary one single Person shall say it is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ we are obliged to confess that the belief for the which the ten Persons do declare hath been the true Belief of the antient Church and that the sentiments of this single Person is a particular Opinion which ought to be rejected or at the least if possible endeavour to recover him unto the general Opinion believed amongst the Christians of his time by giving unto his words a more mild Explication and the most favourable Construction that may be I think no Body can reasonably condemn the Means which I have proposed the practice whereof may conduce very much to the right understanding of the Holy Fathers provided we observe them sincerely and no other end be proposed in explaining their Testimonies but what I have had in reporting them in this Treatise that is a love of the Truth Tertul. de Virgin veland c. 1. Against which no prescription can be made neither by length of time by the credit of Persons nor by the Priviledges of Countreys To conclude the Reader may be pleased
to take notice that if in this History I have spoken of the Country of the Abassins as of the Kingdom of Prester John it was to accomnodate my self with the vulgar Opinion without making exact inquiry what it is and without troubling my self at this time to reconcile Historians and Travellers that have written diversly of it THE TABLE OF CHAPTERS PART I. Containing the outward form of Celebration CHAP. I. WHerein is treated of the Matter of the Sacrament Page 1 CHAP. II. Wherein is mention made of divers sorts of Hereticks as far only as may suffice to clear the Point in Question p. 7 CHAP. III. Progress of Considerations of the Matter of the Sacrament wherein is examined what is said by S. Ignatius of certain Hereticks that rejected the Sacrament the Heresie of one Tanchelin who also rejected it but by another principle the reproaches of Jews and other Enemies and the difference betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches about leavened and unleavened Bread p. 22 CHAP. IV. Wherein is shewed whence the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament was had and what was the form of the Bread with the innovations and changes which thereupon succeeded p. 30. CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament and first of the place where they were Consecrated and of the Matter of Chalices and Patins p. 39 CHAP. VI. Of the Language wherein Consecration and generally of all the Service p. 54 CHAP. VII Of the Ceremonies and form of Consecration p. 65 CHAP. VIII Of the Oblation or form of the Sacrifice p. 81 CHAP. IX Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread p. 101 CHAP. X. Of the Distribution and of the Communion and first of the Time the Place and Posture of Communicants p. 110 CHAP. XI Of him that distributes the Sacrament and of him that communicates with the words both of the one and the other p. 121 CHAP. XII Of the thing Distributed and Received p. 131 CHAP. XIII The Eucharist received with the Hand p. 150 CHAP. XIV Of the liberty of carrying the Eucharist home after having taken it in the Church and of carrying it in Journeys and Voyages p. 160 CHAP. XV. The Eucharist sâ—nt unto the absent and the Sick unto whom it was sometimes sent by Lay-persons Men Women Children c. p. 164 CHAP. XVI Divers Vses and divers Customs touching the Eucharist p. 169 PART II. Containing the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers CHAP. I. REflections made by the Holy Fathers upon the Institution of the Sacrament p. 187 CHAP. II. What the â—â—thers believed of the things we receive in the Sacrament and whâ—â— they said of them p. 199 CHAP. III. Of the use and office of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament p. 213 CHAP. IV. Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers p. 231 CHAP. V. Continuation of the Consequences of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers p. 246 CHAP. VI. Other proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers with the Inferences drawn by Protestants from them p. 265 CHAP. VII Continuation of the Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and of the Inductions of Protestants p. 277 CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers drawn by Protestants from some practices of the Ancient Church p. 291 CHAP. IX Other Proofs drawn from the silence of Pagans and of certain things objected against them by the Holy Fathers p. 298 CHAP. X. The last Proof drawn from what passed in regard of Hereticks either of their silence or of the Fathers dispute against them p. 308 CHAP. XI Of the change made in the Expressions or the History of the Seventh Century p. 361 CHAP. XII Wherein is Examined what ensued in the Eighth Century p. 365 CHAP. XIII Containing the History of the Ninth Century p. 385 CHAP. XIV Continuation of the Ninth Century wherein is treated of the Dignities and Promotions of Heribold p. 4â—5 CHAP. XV. Continuation of the History of the Ninth Century wherein is examined the silence of Pope Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church p. 430 CHAP. XVI Of the State of the Tenth Century p. 439 CHAP. XVII Of what passed in the Eleventh Century p. 450 CHAP. XVIII Continuation of the History of the Eucharist or the state of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries p. 465 CHAP. XIX The History of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries p. 497 PART III. Wherein is treated of the worshipping the Sacrament CHAP. I. OF the Preparations which go before the Celebration p. 521 CHAP. II. Of Dispositions necessary for the Communion and first of the Motions of the believing Soul in regard of God and of Jesus Christ p. 541 CHAP. III. Of the motions and dispositions of the Receiver in regard of the Sacrament p. 548 CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of Adoration is examined p. 556 THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST VINCENTIUS Lerinensis hath left us for a Maxim above M C. years ago Vincent In common That great heed must be taken to retain in the Catholick Church what hath been believed every where always and by all This Maxim appears so just and reasonable that Christians should make no difficulty to submit unto it however divided they be otherwise in matters of Religion and although the Author was not wholly without blame seeing there are some which think that he fought under the Ensigns of the demy Pelagians that he was very opposite unto St. Austins Doctrine touching Predestination and that it was against him that St. Prosper did write in answering the Objections which go under the name of Vincentius Nevertheless I do not judge that any fault is to be found in his Maxim nor that any difficulty ought to be made in receiving it seeing that St. Austin himself whose name and memory shall ever be in veneration amongst good Men hath written something to the same purpose before Vincentius Lerinensis Aug. l. 4. de bapt c. 24. t. 7. It is very justly supposed saith he that what the Catholick Church believes and hath not been instituted by Councils but hath been always believed is derived only from Apostolical Authority Vndertaking then to treat Historically of the Eucharist and by Gods assistante to shew what hath been believed in all Ages in the Church touching this so important point of our Salvation there is a necessity that we should look back unto Jesus Christ the Author of this august Sacrament and the true beginning of the Antiquity we are to inquire into for as the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian said If Jesus Christ only ought to be heard Cyprian Ep. 63. ad Caecil we should not regard what some before us have thought fit to be done but what Jesus Christ who is before all hath first done for we ought not to follow the customs of Men but the truth of God To know what he hath said and done in the institution of this Mystery the Evangelists and St. Paul must be consulted who tell us
being taken from the Offerings which Christians offered upon the Table in the Church at the usual times that they assembled unto the Communion as we shall make appear in the Fourth Chapter which will plainly evidence That these Offerings were of the very same kind of Bread as that which was used in the ordinary actions of Life and if in process of time there ensued any alteration it was not in respect of the nature or quality of Bread as if that of common use was leavened and that of the Eucharist unleavened seeing it was but one and the same sort of Bread all the difference consisted first in that the Bread of the Eucharist was to be of a round form secondly about the seventh Century they began to prepare it expresly and on purpose for the celebrating of the Sacrament as appears by the sixth Canon of the sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled Anno 693. which we will cite at large in the following Chapter by some words of Cardinal Humbert T. 4. Bibl. paâ— part 2. p. 212. l. 3 c. 33. t. 4. Spicil 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 Sirmond de Azymo c. 4 assembled Anno 567. and the first of the fifth Council of Arles held in the year 554. although to my seeming there is nothing very clear in these two Canons for authorising this Custom Also the same Sirmond doth confess in the same place That the Interpretation which he giveth unto the Council of Tours which is the plainest of the two 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 separately from ordinary Bread until about the seventh or eighth Century should have marked it before that time with the sign of the Cross But so it is for certain that the use of leavened Bread in the Eucharist continued still in the Latin Church in the time of Gregory the first Vit. Greg. l. 2. c. 41. as the History of that Woman doth import who admired that this Pope should call the Body of the Lord a Loaf which she knew very well she had made with her own hands And this custom continued not only in Gregory's time but also a good part of the Ninth Century at which time a great difference having broke out betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches we do not find that amongst sundry reproaches and some of them either very light or it may be unjust made by the Greeks against the Latins that they have in any manner touched the question of leavened or unleavened Bread which they would not have omitted if the Latins had used unleavened Bread in their Eucharist as they failed not to condemn this practice in the Eleventh Century at which time this contention was managed with greater heat on both sides a manifest sign that the Latin Church did not begin to use unleavened Bread in the celebration of her Sacrament but in that space of time which passed betwixt the Ninth and the Eleventh Century Sirmond de Azymo Father Sirmond hath at large justified this truth and after his manner confirmed it with such clear and strong reasons and particularly those above-mentioned that nothing can be added unto what he hath said having very solidly refuted what Cardinal Baronius alledged against it and shewn that Hugo Tuscus and Rupert de Duitz were deceived when they imagined as well as Baronius that the Latin Church had always used unleavened Bread in the Eucharist Hist Concil Florent Sguropuli Sect. 10. c. 1. p. 278. In the Council of Florance held under Pope Eugenius the Fourth where was made by Interest of State and Policy a seeming accord betwixt the Greek and Latin Churches it was concluded as to what concerned leavened or unleavened Bread That each Church should retain its own custom viz. That the Eastern Church should make their Eucharist with leavened Bread and the Western with unleavened Bread so that the one should not be obliged to follow the use and custom of the other Raban de instit Cleric l. 1. c. 14. Nevertheless I cannot pass by what Rabanus Archbishop of Mayence wrote in the Ninth Century That unleavened Bread should be sanctified and Wine mingled with Water to make the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which he proves by the authority of the Book of Leviticus and by the Example of Jesus Christ which used unleavened Bread in the Institution of his Sacrament But it must either be said That this Opinion was a particular Opinion of his own or that he intended only it should be so used the Thursday before Easter exactly to imitate the practice of our Saviour or in fine what I believe to be more probable That this custom began to be introduced into the Diocese of that Prelate if it were not safer to say That this long Observation of unleavened Bread was added unto Rabanus his works which I dare not affirm not being on the place to compare the Printed Copies with the Manuscripts CHAP. 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 ensued 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 Celebration and in fine others which had wholly rejected it though upon several motives and different Principles Neither is it sufficient to have hinted at the reproaches which were made against Christians upon account of the Bread and Wine in this Divine Sacrament and to have examined the great controversy which armed if it may be so said the Greek Church against the Latin Church in the XI Century touching the Nature and quality of the Bread of the Sacrament to know whether it should be Leavened or Unleavened To the end nothing should be wanting unto this consideration we must endeavour to find out from whence was taken the Bread and Wine imployed by Christians in the celebration of their Sacrament I make no question but they proceeded from the liberality of Believers who being inflamed in those happy times with the divine fire of Charity which the Antients
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 accustomed to use in the celebration of the Eucharist I cannot find that there happened any other alteration until at last in the Eleventh Century they began in some Churches in the West to change the form and quality of the Bread which had been always used in this Sacrament using instead of it little Hosts like Wafers round and white and very thin and slender Whereof the Interpreter of the Roman Order who lived towards the end of the Eleventh Century of whom we have already spoke makes great complaints Apud Cassand in Liâ—turg p. 61. not enduring this great innovation The quantity saith he of a handful is the least of all measures to make Bread of which quantity is very justly appointed unto those which sacrificed for the Ministry of the Altar and if there is not to be found in all the Old nor the New Testament a smaller measure than a handful and if nothing 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 passages in his Liturgies adds This Author otherwise pious prudent Ibid. p. 62. and very well versed in the Traditions of the Church saith thereupon several other things it appears that he had much 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 expressions all which things I have not thought fit here to recite But whatever this learned Interpreter of the Roman Order could say or do he could not hinder but that the use of these Wafers was established in the whole extent of the Latin Church and that also some other Christians who hold no Communion with the Latin Church have held and retained it amongst them although in other things they declare themselves to be contrary unto her both in Doctrine and Worship But yet things rested not there for instead of Bread in the Eucharist offered by Believers or at least Flower whereof it was made they obliged the people to offer pieces of Money as Honorius of Autun who lived in the Twelfth or Thirteenth Centuries doth inform us his words deserve to be here inserted Honor. Augustodun in gem anim c. 66. It is said that 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 consecrated for all those which offered Flower assisted at Mass and it was said for them in the Canon of all those which are here present which offer unto thee this Sacrifice of praise but after the Church was increased in number and decreased in holiness it was decreed by reason of carnal Men that those that could should communicate every 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 greater importance than many imagine for men are not usually inclined unto the changes of this Nature without some weighty reasons it must needs be that those which have changed the form the consistence and the quality of the Eucharist have been thereunto induced for some great design there be some which think that the motive there soon following it such change in the Doctrine was nothing else but a design to remove and banish from the mind and thoughts of Communicants that that which was received by the hand at the Lords Table and was put into the mouth was Bread to which purpose say they these Wafers were very fit which were presented unto them or rather were put into their Mouths seeing they have neither the form nor Figure of true Bread and that never any People or Nation in the World used this kind of food and what doth the more confirm them in this belief is that this change hapned not as they suppose untill after the condemnation of Berengar viz. towards the end of the XI Century But as these conjectures do not much concern us so I leave unto the Reader to determine whether they are to be admitted or not and proceed to the examination of the Consecration of the Symbols CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and first of the place where they were Consecrated and of the matter of Chalices and Patins AFTER Jesus Christ had taken the Bread and the Cup the Evangelists observe that he gave thanks that is that he Blessed and Consecrated them the Church that imitated him in the first Action hath also done the like in the second although in process of time she hath added divers Ceremonies which were not therein at first but because the Consecration contains several things as the place where it is done the matter of Chalices and Patins the Language the Ceremonies and the Form of Consecrating that is to say the Consecrating Liturgy these things must be examined in Order to avoid obscurity and confusion In this Chapter I design to treat of the Place of Consecration and of the Matter of Chalices As to the Place it is to be considered either generally or particularly in the former sense it was the place where Christians assembled together for the worship of Almighty God wherein they performed their exercise of Piety and Devotion and wherein for a long time they eat altogether for in the same place wherein they made their Agapae and where they took these Love-feasts they also did celebrate the Sacrament and indeed all
generally agree that the Primitive Christians did frequently eat in common every one contributing as they were able unto these Feasts unto which the Poor had as free access as the Rich although they were not able to joyn their portion unto their Brethren S. Paul explains himself clearly 1 Cor 11. when he saith unto the Believers of Corinth When you meet together this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord for each one hasteth to eat his own Supper and one is hungry and another is drunken What have you not houses to eat and to drink in or do you despise the house of God and shame them which have not It is also granted that the Eucharist was celebrated at the same Times and Places where the Christians made these meals together and therefore it is the Apostle speaks of eating the Supper of the Lord backing the censure which he pronounced against the Corinthians by reason of disorders and excesses which they committed in these Feasts of Charity with the History of the Institution of the Sacrament which he recites at large an undoubted proof that this Sacrament was celebrated in the Time and at the Places where Believers did eat together S. Luke makes it appear evidently when speaking of the first Christians of the Church of Jerusalem Acts 2.42 he saith That they all did persevere in the Doctrine and Communion of the Apostles verse 46. and in breaking Bread and of Prayers and afterwards That they daily went unto the Temple and breaking Bread from house to house they eat their Bread with joy and singleness of heart and in the same Book he farther observes Act. 20.7 That the first day of the week that is the Lords day the Disciples met together to break Bread S. Peter speaks of this Feast when he saith unto the Believers 2 Pet. 2.13 to whom he wrote his Second Epistle That Seducers and Hypocrites were blots and stains which took pleasure in unrighteousness feasting together with you S. Jude whose Epistle is only an abridgment of S. Peters speaks so plainly that he leaves us not the least cause of doubt Jude 12. saying of these same persons That they are spots in the Christian Feasts of Charity it is in S. Judes Language in the Agapae this word Agape which was very famous in this sense in the 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 Tertul. Apolog cap. 39. 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 Persons which consider that they must again return unto the Worship and service of God during the whole night we there discourse with one another but so as knowing that God heareth them which discourse after washing our hands and that lights are brought those that are present are desired to assist in singing some Hymn unto God as every one is able to do either out of the Holy Scriptures or out of his own mind it is observed from thence how he hath drank and in fine the Feast is ended with Prayer as it was begun It is true Tertullian doth not speak of the Celebration of the Sacrament in all this Discourse but it may suffice that he gives it sufficiently to be understood that they attended the Service of God in the same places where Christians made their Agapae for it may easily be gathered that they did there celebrate the Eucharist as often as they held these Feasts To know precisely how often the Feasts of Charity were 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 celebrated the Eucharist For I find that this was practised towards the end of the IV. Century but because there were great abuses crept into these Feasts the Council of Laodicea assembled about the year of our Lord 360. was constrained to forbid the use of them in the Temples and Churches You must forbear saith he making the Agapae in the Temples Concil Laodic cap. 28. or of setting up Tables and eating in the house of God It appears by what hath been said that for the most part the place where the Eucharist was celebrated and consecrated was the place where Believers met together to serve God and where for a long time they made their Feasts of Charity even at the same time that they celebrated the Sacrament It is true those places were very different according to the diversity of states and conditions wherein the Church of Christ was at the first beginning of Christianity they assembled in private houses sometimes in one place sometimes in another in private and obscure places to be sheltered as well from the rage of the Jews as the fury of the Gentiles therefore it was that they assembled before day and in the night time and they continued so to do for a long time whilest the Church was harrassed with Persecutions and because that sometimes they assembled together at the Tombs of Martyrs they also there celebrated the Eucharist at least the Pontifical Book observes in the life of Felix the first towards the end of the III. Century that this Pope decreed That Masses should be celebrated upon the 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 Sacrament thanks were given unto God for the Victories of Martyrs as S. Austin speaketh who makes mention of this same custom in the last Chapter of the VIII Book De Civit. Dei Yet it must not be imagined but that during these sad and troublesome times they had some fixed places destinated for their Exercises for there were sufficient intermissions during the which they built certain little Houses joyning to their Church-yards which were places distant from the sight of Men where by consequence 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 before But God would humble his Church which went about to lose amongst Lilies the beauty which she had acquired amongst Thorns he
stirred up this cruel 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 Constantine 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 Monuments 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 amongst the Latins and that it was about the same time prohibitions were made of celebrating the Sacrament only in consecrated places This general consideration of the place where Christians assembled and where they celebrated their Sacrament may give us some light to design the particular place where the Consecration was made 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 otherwise 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 altogether these Feasts upon Tables or at least on things that served to that purpose methinks it cannot be at all questioned but that they did celebrate and also consecrate their Eucharist upon the same Table seeing they did celebrate it in the same place and at the same time where they did eat together S. Justin Martyr in the Account of this Sacrament which he hath left us hath not mentioned the place where this Consecration was made but to consider the innocency of those times and the manner of consecrating the Symbols which he represents unto us one cannot but conclude but that it was upon a Table that they consecrated them after that the people had presented them unto the Passover as he saith the word Supper used by S. Paul directed them unto this use and practice as well as the example of Jesus Christ Origen l. 20. c. 2. For as S. Isidore of Sevill saith It is called a Supper from the Communion of those which eat Chrysost t. 5. homil 21. whereunto also doth amount what S. Chrysostom observed before him That the Apostle calleth the Supper of the Lord that of which all that are invited do participate in common and with love For those expressions do import a Holy and Divine repast common unto all the faithful and which requires a Table to take it and to eat of it altogether when therefore Christians had places destinated for the exercise of their holy Religion it is evident there was a certain place where this Eucharistical Table was placed there to consecrate this august Sacrament and there to distribute it unto all the faithful Communicants And when under Constantine the Great the Temples of Christians began to be Stately and Magnificent there was a particular place called the Sanctuary where the mystical Table was set whereupon Consecration was made In Minutius Felix the Infidel demands Min. Fel. in Octav. Wherefore 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 Orig. contr Cels l. 8. p 389. ult Edit The Philosopher Celsus gives them the same reproach in Origen saying that they would not erect Altars Which Origen doth not gainsay but saith only That every one of them hath his Soul and thought for an Altar from whence do ascend truely and intelligibly the perfumes of a sweet smell that is prayers from a pure conscience Christians nevertheless did not omit to celebrate and participate of the Sacrament it must needs follow then that it was upon a Table Nevertheless it is certain there is nothing more frequent in the writings of the Fathers than the name of Altar to design the place of Consecration and of celebrating the Eucharist yet I judge that the first place of Antiquity where the Altar is mentioned is if my memory fail me not in the Book of Prayer made by Tertullian Tertul. de Orat. c. ult Your Station saith he will be more solemn if you stand-upright at the Altar of God Since which time the Antient Doctors have frequently used that manner of Speech and as they frequently spake of the Altar so they commonly spake of the Table and I verily believe whosoever would collect the expressions of Table and Altar which are to be found in the writings of the 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 Antiquity 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 Altar 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 mention of the Eucharistical Table the Divine Table the Holy Table and the Mystical Table neither can they without a manifest contradiction against an infinite number of passages of Antiquity that are scarcely to be numbred in the writings of S. Chrysostom and S. Austin and if any desire to satisfie their curiosity thereupon they may consult of the former Oration 19. and 20. to the
4. c. 20. for describing the Outrages which the Pagans committed in the Church of Theonas at Alexandria he speaks of the Altar of this Church as being but one In like manner the Priests Libel prec p. 64. 79. Marcellini and Faustin representing in their request unto the Emperors the 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 Ignat. Ep. ad Philad That there is but one Altar in each Church as there is but one Bishop and he speaks of it as of a thing known to every body and which admits of no difficulty Agobard Archbishop of Lyons writing against Amalarius in the Ninth Century speaks of one sole Altar in each Church If then the Fathers sometimes speak of Altars in the Plural number of necessity they must then intend or mean several Churches or that it must be an indefinite proposition and not to be applied unto any particular place This custom of one Table or one Altar in each Church hath been retained even until our days amongst the greatest Christian Communions excepting the Latins as amongst the Greeks which admit but of one Altar in a Church Goar in Eucholog p. 16. Sigism Baro de rebus Moscov Lib. itin Aeth c. 11. as Goar observes in his Notes upon the Euchologie or Ritual of that Nation nor amongst the Moscovites by the relation of Sigismond in his Memoirs of Muscovia and amongst the Abassins which are in Prester John's Country as appears by the relation of Francis Alvarez an Eye-witness The Pontifical Book which is improperly attributed unto Pope Damasus never speaks but of one Altar in the Singular in all the Lives of Popes until Adrian the First who lived towards the end of the Eighth Age for in his life there is mention made of the great Altar to distinguish it from other Altars which might be in the same Church which is also observed in the Lives of several Popes who held the Chair after Adrian whereas before there was mention made but of one Altar which 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 understood Altars or Sacramental Tables properly so called but Tombs of Martyrs which by corruption of Speech were called Altars or Tables as appears by Optatus Bishop of Milevis in Numidia as is confessed by Monsieur de Laubespine late Bishop of Orleans in his Notes upon this Author For if Optatus made no scruple so to call the Tombs of the false Martyrs of the Donatists whereof he treats in that place much less would he have feared if occasion had presented to attribute this name unto those of 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 Capit. Dom. Car. M. c. 6. 1.2 Coneil Gal. Capit. Car. M. c. append 1. ad l. 4. c. 7. they began in such a manner to multiply Altars 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 notice if he please That movable Altars were not introduced amongst Christians but since the eleventh Century and also it would be very difficult precisely to determine in what Age since the eleventh Century they began to be used That which some alledge of Ives of Chartres who died in the twelfth Century not regarding as I suppose the use of these kinds of Altars whatever may be Hist Relig c. 20. it sufficiently appears that they were unknown in the fifth Century because Theodoret made use of the hands of his Deacons Philost l. 2. c. 14. instead of an Altar to celebrate the Sacrament in the Cell of Maris and before him the Martyr Lucian made use of his Breast Niceph. Caldist l. 8. c. 31. It may be 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 Sacrament much less a consecrated Altar In fine the three first Ages did not practise the consecrating of Altars which the Latins at this time believe so necessary that without it the Celebration there performed is unlawful but it was otherwise at the beginning Add. 9. Noveâ—b lect 4. Therefore there is to be read in the Roman Breviary That it is said that Silvester who was Pope in the Year 314 was the first that instituted the Ceremonies observed by the Roman Church in the consecrating of Churches and Altars And I do not find that there is any mention of this Consecration made in the Writers of the fourth and fifth Ages Orat. in Chr. bapt t. 3. for that whereof mention is made by Gregory of Nyssen doth not import any Ceremony nor any form of Consecration but only a bare application unto a Religious use which draws a Blessing of God by the Celebration of the Sacrament whereunto amounts also what is said by St. Chrysostom in some of his Homilies Hom 20. in 2 Cor. That the Altar is by nature a Stone but it becomes holy when it receives the Body of Jesus Christ The first unsuspected place of Antiquity wherein there is mention made of the consecration of Altars is the Council of Agde in the year 506. for it prescribes this Rule â—â—ath Conc. â— 14. It hath seemed good unto the Council that the Altars should be consecrated not only by the Vnction of Chrisme but also by the Priestly Benediction â— 26. The Council of Epaumâ— 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 Rabaâ—us de instit Cler. l. 2. c. 45. de reb Eccl. c. 9. and in Walafridus Strabo who refer unto the Council of Agde the first Institution of the Consecration and Benediction of Altars But men rested not there they augmented by degrees the ceremonies of this Consecration until at length they had reduced them unto the form they are now in amongst the Latins and which may be seen represented at large in the second part of the Roman Pontifical in the Title of consecrating of Churches Unto this mysterious Consecration the Latins add the consecrating of three Table-cloths of several fashions wherewith they cover their Altars and of a kind of a 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 antient Christians
in the Sclavonian Tongue unto those of that Nation whom he had Baptised that is to say Converted That as the matter was debated in the Sacred 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 Emperor of the East and of Pope Nicolas the First he with Methodius Converted unto the Faith of Jesus Christ the Mingrelians the Circassians and the Gazarites and afterwards several of the Sclavonians therefore in the Roman Martyrology is celebrated the day of his Birth as was 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 Archbishop with power to celebrate Mass and Divine Service in the Sclavonian Tongue We have just cause to commend saith this Pope Tom. 7. Concil part 1. Ep. 247. p. 91. writing unto Sphentopulcher the Sclavonian Characters invented by a certain Philosopher called Constantine whereby the Praises of God are published abroad and we command That in that same Language be recited the Sermons and Works of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for we are warned by Divine Authority to praise the Lord not only in three Languages but also in all which Authority enjoyns us this Commandment when it saith All Nations praise the Lord and all People bless his name and the Apostles being filled with the Holy Ghost 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 Hebrew 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 't is translated into Sclavonian that it be read to the People who understand not Latin as it is practised in some Churches It were to be wished say the Protestants that the Christians of the Roman Communion would make serious reflection upon these words of Pope John the Eighth and that then they would consult the Decree of Innocent the Third at the Council of Lateran assembled in the year of our Lord 1215. T. 7. Concil Paâ—r part 2. Can. 9. p. 8â—9 Because that in most places in the same City and in the same Diocese there be people of divers Languages mingled together having under one Faith different Ceremonies and Customs we 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 Opuscul t. 3. tract 15. art 8. That it were better for the edification of the Church thaâ— 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 Corinthians De offic pii viri p 865. 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 understand what is said if it be not said in a known Tongue and that he that by his ignorance understands not what is said cannot say Amen unto the Prayers of another Ibid. p. 866. And having alledged the words of Aeneas Sylvius and those of Cajetan he adds Vnto those who have the conduct and Government of the Church at this time it were no hard matter to establish and settle these and the like things according to the pure and 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 committed shall escape rendering an account of the Rents and Divisions in the Church which they have neglected and whereof they have not been careful according to their duty to prevent the growing Schisms and Heresies He repeats almost the same things in the consultation addressed unto the Emperors Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. where he saith Pag. 995. amongst other things That 't was 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 Dâ— modo orandi It were saith he much to be desired that the whole Divine Service were said in a Language understood by all the People as it was wont to be practised in antient times and that all things were so plainly and so distinctly spoken that those which hearkened might understand them Queen Katherine
differ in words yet tend to the same sense and contain one and the same Doctrine some instead of saying that there is offered Bread and Wine unto God have said that there were offered unto him the first-fruits of his Creatures that is to say things which he gives us for our nourishment Iren. l. 4. c. 32. so it is that St. Irenaeus expressed himself when he said That the new Oblation of the New Testament which the Church offers unto God throughout all the World is an Oblation of the first-fruit of his gifts that is of the Food which he hath given us Ibid. or as he saith afterwards of the first-fruits of his Creatures which he explains afterwards by Bread and by Wine which are Creatures of this World Others have spoken positively of Bread and Wine Just Martyr dial cum Tryph. p. 260. Macar Hom. 27. as St. Justin Martyr who makes the Sacrifices of Christians offered in all places in the Sacrament to consist of Bread and Wine St. Macarius an 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. l. 1. ep 401. Thence it is that St. Isidore of Damietta confesseth unto Rabbi Benjamin That the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread Fulgent ad Pet. de side c. 19. That St. Fulgentius saith That the 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 Bed in Psal 133. t. 8. Id. de tabern l. 2. c. 2. t. 4. Century taught That our Lord had changed the Sacrifices of the Law into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine and that whereas the Antients celebrated the Sacrament of the passion of our Lord in the flesh and blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine That the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews attributed unto Primasius but which is of Haimon of Halberstad or of Remy of Auxerre and by consequence at least of the IX Century declares In c. 5. ad Hebr. That the Lord left unto his Church these two gifts Bread and Wine to offer them in remembrance of him Amalar. praesat 2. l. de offic l. 3. cap. 25. And that Amalarius Fortunatus seeks a Sacrament of Jesus Christ in the person of the Priest offering Bread Wine and Water and that he saith that the Sacrificer recommends unto God the Father that which was offered in stead of Jesus Christ That others not contented to speak of an Oblation of Bread and Wine have added the quality of this Bread and Wine saying that they were Sacraments of the Body and blood of Jesus Christ The Author of the Commentary upon Genesis attributed unto Eucherius Bishop of Lyons thus expresses his thoughts Eucher in Genes l. 2. c. 18. It hath been commanded saith he that Christians should offer in Sacrifice not the bodies of Beasts as Aaron did but the Oblation of Bread and Wine that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood Words which are yet seen in St. Isidore Archbishop of Sevill Isidor Hisp in Gen. c. 12. and which shew that where any of the Fathers instead of these words that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood have said that is to say his Body and Blood as St. Cyprian and the Commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Primasius it must of necessity be taken in the 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 appear if the passages of the one are compared with the others and if the terms and expressions of the latter are carefully heeded with what went before and follows after It is also by the same Principle that the same St. Isidore saith elsewhere Idem de Allegor Idem de voc c. 26. That the Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ that is to say the Oblation of Bread and Wine is offered all the world over and that Christians do not now offer Jewish Sacrifices such as the Sacrificer Aaron offered but such as were offered by Melchizedeck King of Salem that is to say Bread and Wine which is the most venerable Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ Theodor. in Psal 109 Heb. 10. As for the famous Theodoret it is true that he speaks not of the Oblation of Bread and Wine but yet he sufficiently explains himself when he saith That the Church offers the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ sanctifying the whole lump by the first-fruits Others in fine have shewed their belief on this point in saying that Jesus Christ offered and that we offer in the Eucharist the same things Melchisedeck offered It is what Clement of Alexandria meant by these words That Melchisedeck presented Bread and Wine Clem. Alex. Stromat l. 4 p. 539. Cyprian Ep. 63. a Food sanctified in Type of the Sacrament And S. Cyprian when he said That our Lord offered unto God the Father the same Sacrifice which Melchisedeck had done that is Bread and Wine to wit his Body and Blood For as he saith again not to leave the least doubt in the mind of the Reader Ibid. We see prefigured in the High Priest Melchisedeck the Sacrament of the Sacrifice of our Lord as the Divine Scripture testifies when it saith and Melchisedeck King of Salem brought Bread and Wine Thence it is that he observes in the same little Treatise some lines after the words before mentioned Ibid. That the Lord accomplishing and perfecting the Image of his Sacrifice offered Bread and the Cup mixed with Water And Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea doth not he say Euseb demonst l. 5. c. 3. That Jesus Christ doth at present accomplish by his Servants as Melchisedeck did all the Sacrifice that there is to be performed amongst men that Jesus Christ first of all and then all his Ministers do by Bread and Wine declare and 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 witnessing that he brought out Bread and Wine It was also if I mistake not the meaning of S. Ambrose when going to prove that the Sacraments of the Church were ancienter than those of the Synagogue Ambros l. de init c. 8. t. 4. p. 349. Chrysost in Psal 109. he saith That Abraham which was before Moses received the Sacraments of Melchisedeck Wherefore saith S. Chrysostom said he After the Order of Melchisedeck because of the Sacraments for he offered
unto Abraham Bread and Wine And therefore it is that the Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew Hom. 19. amongst his works defines the Christian man by him which offers the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine Hieron Ep. 126. S. Jerome in one of his Letters touching Melchisedeck follows the Opinion of several ancient Doctors who preceded him and who had said That Melchisedeck did not offer Sacrifices of flesh and blood but that he consecrated the Sacrament of Jesus Christ with Bread and Wine Id. advers Jovin l. 2. which is a pure and spotless Sacrifice And elsewhere he saith That our Saviour offered in type of his Blood not Water but Wine S. Austin was of no other mind when he taught in divers parts of his Writings August Ep. 95. Id. l. de 83. q. q. 61. t. 4. Id de Civit. Dei l. 16. c 22. for example when he said That Melchisedeck foreshewed the Sacrament of our Lord to represent his eternal Priesthood that we now see offered throughout the whole World in the Church of Jesus Christ that which Mechisedeck offered unto God That when Abraham was blessed by Melchisedeck the Sacrifice now offered unto God by Christians throughout the whole World was first of all 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 Ib. l. 17 c. 5. Ib. c. 17. Id contr advers leg l. 1. c. 20. Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 431. Arnob. in Psal 109. know what Melchisedeck brought when he blessed Abraham and that if they be already partakers of it they may see that such a Sacrifice is now offered unto God throughout the World It is in substance what is said by S. Isidore of Damietta That Melchisedeck executing the Priesthood with Bread and Wine by them signified the type of Divine Mysteries And Arnobius the younger That our Saviour by the Mystery of Bread and Wine was made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck who alone amongst the Priests offered Bread and Wine Hesyc in Levit l. 6. c. 23. Cassiod in Psal 109. And Hesychius Priest of Jerusalem That the oblation of the Mystical Melchisedeck is accomplished in Bread and Wine And Cassiodorus That the Institution of Melchisedeck who offered Bread and Wine is celebrated throughout the World in the distribution of the Sacraments And the supposed Eusebius of Emissa in one of his Easter Sermons That Melchisedeck did foreshew by the oblation of Bread and Wine the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ It is also the opinion of the Author of the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Works of S. Ambrose In cap. 5. ad Hebr. and which some have imagined to be of Remy of Auxerr but which indeed are of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury who lived at the end of the Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Century of Theophylact in the Eleventh Century of Oecumenius about the same time both of them upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews and in fine of Nicetas who said in the Twelfth Century in the Confession of Faith made for those which were converted from Mahometism unto the Religion of Jesus Christ T. 12. Bibl. Patr. p. 532. That it is Bread and Wine which is spiritually sacrified by Christians and which they do receive in the Divine Sacraments See then three several Oblations practised by several of the ancient Christians in the Celebration of their Sacrament and which have all three given unto this Sacrament the name of Sacrifice and which the Holy Fathers have called a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine considering particularly that Oblation which is made unto God of the Symbols after their Consecration and after the change which may thereunto happen after the sanctification and this Tradition hath been so constant so uniform and so universal that it may be said That it hath been believed by all at all times and in all places which be the three signs that Vincentius Lerinensis desired may be admitted in receiving all 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 necessary to examine that it might evidently appear what was the nature and form of this Sacrifice amongst them And first I find that they considered the Eucharist as a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross and because for the most part memorials do take their name from the thing whereof they be 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 Sacrifice but even of a true Propitiatory Sacrifice because it is the memorial of one that is truly such It is in this prospect they have called it the Passion Cyprian Ep. 63. the Sacrifice which we offer saith S. Cyprian is the passion of our Lord But this is to be observed that we make mention of the Passion of our Lord in all the Sacrifices Thereby in a manner confounding the death of our Lord with the commemoration which we make of it in the Sacrament by reason of the near relation which there is betwixt the Memorial and the thing whereof the remembrance is renewed Accordingly Eusebius said speaking of the Institution of the Sacrament Euseb l. 1. Dem. c. 10. That Jesus Christ commanded us to offer unto God instead of the Sacrifice the memorial of his Sacrifice And S. Chrysostome having said in speaking of the Oblation of the Sacrament Chrys Hom. 17. ad Heb. We alwayes make the same Sacrifice adds presently by way of correction But rather we make the commemoration of the Sacrifice August l. 83. quaest q. 61. which S. Austin saith is to celebrate the type of his Sacrifice in remembrance of his passion * Id. contr Faust l. 20. c. 21. To celebrate the Sacrifice of our Lord by a Sacrament of commemoration †L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. And to receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist in remembrance of the death which he suffered for us Therefore he observes elsewhere that although Jesus Christ was but once offered up yet nevertheless it may be said that he is every day offered when in the Sacrament there is made a commemoration of this Sacrifice Id. Ep. 23. Jesus Christ saith he was once offered in his body and yet he is offered unto the people in the Sacrament not only in the solemnities of Easter but also on other daies and he lied not who being asked answers that he is sacrificed Theodoret was of the same mind as the others Theodor. in Ep ad Heb. c. 8.4 for making himself this Objection Wherefore was it that the Priests of the New Testament make the Mystical Liturgy that is to say the Eucharist
unto the blessing communication 1 Peter 2. and praises of God St. Peter considers good works as spiritual sacrifices agreeable unto God through Jesus Christ Rom. 12. Rom. 15. Philip. 2. and St. Paul the sanctification of a faithful Christian as a sacrifice of his Body The preaching of the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ as the sacrifice of the Gospel to offer the Gentiles And elsewhere he fears not to say that our Faith is a Sacrifice 2 Timoth. 4. And the blood which he was to shed for his blessed Master a sprinkling which was to be made upon this Sacrifice Therefore 't is that St. Peter and S. 1 Peter 2. Rev. 1. 5. John call all Believers in general Sacrificers according to what had been prophesied under the Old Testament The Holy Fathers being accustomed unto the stile of the Scriptures have also termed Sacrifices all the works of Piety Devotion Charity Alms-deeds Prayer giving Thanks and in a word all things which any way related unto the Worship and Service of Religion so far as St. Cyprian saith to sacrifice a Child Cypr. Ep. 59. in making it to communicate after Baptism And in another place He gives the name of Sacrifice unto a Present that was sent unto him in his banishment because it proceeded from a motive of Charity and that it was a kind of contributing towards his maintenance so Justin Martyr saith Just Mart. contr Tryph. p. 345. Strom. l. 7. p. 717. That Prayers and Thanksgivings are the only perfect and agreeable sacrifices 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 Ad Scap. c. 2. That the Christians sacrifice unto God for the safety of the Emperor by pure prayer only and that prayer-made by 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 Apol. c. 30. of Glorification of Benediction Praise Hymns Contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 22. 4. c. 1. De pat c. 13. de jejun c. 26. de usur c. 8. Minut. in Oct. and of Prayer proceeding from a pure heart and in fine doth he not reckon amongst the propitiatory Sacrifices and Oblations Mortifications Humiliations Contritions 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 conscience and in faith unfeigned It is whereof Origen gives us several instances in one of his Homilies upon Levitious and I do not see what other interpretation can be given unto what is said by the Divine of the antient Church Greg. Naz. orat 20. I mean Gregory of Naziunzen when he saith That S. Basil is in Heaven offering Sacrifices and Praying explaining the Sacrifices to be Prayers which the Saints offer unto God in Heaven and that he saith of himself Id. orat 42. That he sacrificeth his discourse of Easter and that when he is in Heaven he will there sacrifice unto God upon his Altar Chrysost in Gen. hom 9. Sacrifices well pleasing in his sight It was also the Language of Chrysostom who looks upon Prayer as a very great Sacrifice and a perfect Oblation Id. in Mart. hom 16. And in one of his Homilies upon St. Matthew he saith that those who are not yet initiated do offer an Oblation and Sacrifice which is prayer and Alms-deeds And St. Ambrose Ambros de fug saec c. 8. t. 1. That wisdom is a very good Sacrifice and Faith and Vertue a good Oblation that Prayer it self is a Sacrifice 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. 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 't is commanded That if a dead Person is to be recommended in the afternoon it is to be by Prayers only if it be found that those who do it have dined According to which St. Austin speaks of Sacrificing unto God a Sacrifice of Praise and Humility and saith That we offer unto him Bloody Sacrifices when we suffer unto Blood for his Truth And in one of his Letters he opposeth the Sacrifice of Prayer offered by Christians unto the Sacrifices of the Law which were offered for the sins of Men. And elsewhere he requires That every one as he is able do not cease to offer for the Sins which he commits every day the Sacrifice of Alms-deeds Fasting Prayers and Supplications wherefore he gives us this definition of the true Sacrifice having regard not to its Essence but to its end and effect which is to direct us unto the enjoyment of Blessedness and Felicity The true Sacrifice saith he is every work which we do Id. de Civit. l. 10. c. 6. to be nearer united unto God by a holy Fellowship viz. by referring him unto the end of that good which may render us truly happy It cannot then be thought strange that the antient Doctors of the Church having given the name of Sacrifice unto all the Acts of Piety unto all the Works of Sanctification and unto all that we do for the Glory of God and for his Service should also qualifie the holy Eucharist with the same Title seeing that it makes one of the essential parts of the Worship of Christian Religion and that it even comprehends in substance the greatest part of the things relating thereunto and whereof it is composed as Prayers giving of Thanks the offering up of our Goods and our Persons Repentance Compunction Faith Hope and Charity and to speak in a word all the Holy and Divine Dispositions which we should bring unto the holy Table and without which one cannot worthily partake of this adorable Mystery of our Salvation But because these things which we have touched and which the Holy Fathers frequently call Sacrifices are not nevertheless Sacrifices properly so called to take Sacrifice in its proper and true signification I observe that these same Fathers in answering the Jews and Pagans who found fault that there were not in the Christian Religion any true external Sacrifices as there were in theirs agreed with them That in very truth they had none but that instead of those outward and external Sacrifices which were as it were the Soul and Essence of the Jews Religion and of all the Pagans they had a worship wholly spiritual a service Heavenly and wholly Divine without touching in this place the silence of all those who in the first Ages of Christianity undertook the defence of
this holy Religion of the Son of God for in all their Apologies they spake not one word of the external Sacrifices of Christians though they were not ignorant that it had been the fittest and most effectual way to have invited the Pagans and Jews unto the Profession of the Gospel on the contrary they explain themselves so clearly on this matter that it is not to be wondered at that their Enemies should shun a Religion wherein by the confession and owning of those very persons who defended it by the purity and innocency of their writings there were no such Sacrifices as those whom they desired to convert did look for and expect for instance St Justin Martry retorting the calumny of Atheism and Impiety wherewith the Jews and Pagans endeavoured to slander our holy Religion by reason thereof is content to say Just Marr. Apol. 2. vel 1. p. 58 60. That there are no other Sacrifices to be made but Prayers and giving Thanks which sweeten all the other Oblations which we make unto God to honour him as we are bound and according to his Merit Id. Ep. ad Diogn p. 495 496. And in another part of his Works he rejects the Sacrifices of Jews and Pagans but without assigning unto Christians any which to speak properly may be so called He also doth almost the very same in disputing against Tryphon the Jew Id. contr Tryph. p. 238 239 240. wherein he 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 others different from theirs he indeed confesseth in the same Dialogue That the Christians offer unto God an Oblation well pleasing in his sight according to the Prophecy of Malachy when they do celebrate their Eucharist of Bread and Wine And when his Adversary explains these Oblations and Sacrifices of Malachy of Prayers and Invocations which those of the Jewish Nation who were in Captivity addressed unto our Lord for removing their Calamity and Misery St. Justin makes this Answer Ibid. p. 344 345. I fay also That the Prayers and Thanksgivings of Saints and Believers are the only Sacrifices perfect and well pleasing unto God and that they be the only Sacrifices which Christians have learned to make even then 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 Creator of all things Prayers and Thanksgivings in the Name of Christ Jesus whence it is that he saith of Christians in general Ibid. p. 314. C. That they are a Royal Priesthood offering unto God holy and agreeable Sacrifices God not accepting any but of his own Priests Athenagoras in his Apology for the Christians making himself the same objection that Justin Martyr did on the behalf of the Enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ answereth 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 Athenag pro Christ p. 13. Minut. in Octav. Whereunto he adds But what need have I to be troubled for Offerings and Sacrifices seeing God careth not for them he requires an unbloody Sacrifice a reasonable Service and when the Pagan asks this Question of the Christian in Minutius Felix Wherefore the Christians have no Temples nor Altars the Christian answers Do you think that we do conceal what we worship under a shew that we have no Temples nor Altars and thereupon he makes this excellent reflection worthy of the School of Jesus Christ That the Sacrifice which ought to be offered unto God is a good Soul a pure Conscience and Faith unfeigned That to live uprightly do Justice abstain from Evil and hinder his Neighbour from hurt is to offer a fat Sacrifice These are our Sacrifices Orig. contr Cels l. 8. p. 389. ult Edit saith he this is our Service The Philosopher Celsus in Origen reproaching Christians that they have no Altars this learned Man agrees with the Pagan and confesseth that by consequence they also had no Sacrifice because there is a strict relation betwixt a a true Altar and a Sacrifice properly so called And in the same Book Ibid. p. 487. he opposeth unto the Sacrifices offered by the Pagans for the 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 Tertul. Apol. C. 30. That the fairest and fattest Sacrifice which God requires is prayer from a pure heart an innocent soul and a holy mind and that 't is that also which they offer for the preservation of the Emperours It is of prayer also that he explains in the same work Ibid. c. 39. this excellent Oblation and that he saith elsewhere That that is done by prayer only which God hath commanded Ibid. ad Scap. c. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 707. because the Creator of the Vniverse 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 Ibid. p. 717. that we do justly offer unto him this most excellent and most holy Sacrifice Ibid. that the Altar which we have upon Earth is the Assembly of those which are dedicated unto prayer as if they had but one heart and one mind Ibid. p. 719. That the Sacrifice of the Church is the Word which like sweet Incense proceeds from devout souls That the truly sound Altar is the just upright soul That not sumptuous Sacrifices should be offered unto God but such as may be acceptable unto him That the Sacrifices of Christians are prayers praises Ibid. p. 728. the reading the holy Scriptures Hymns and Psalms the instructing the ignorant and liberality to the Poor But nothing can be seen clearer and more positive than what is
Church this custom of breaking the Bread into little pieces to be distributed unto each of the Communicants was practised therein until the Twelfth Century as we have seen at large And this manner of speech was so frequent that although they have abolished the action which had introduced it Serm. de Azymo c. 4. extr yet they do not forbear at this day to give the name of Particules that is to say little pieces unto the Hosts which they distribute unto Communicants although they give them unto each of them whole and not broken But you must take notice that before the Latin Church had laid aside the use and custom of breaking the Bread of the Sacrament to distribute it unto Believers there was a very considerable Separation made from her by Berengarius and his followers and the Albigenses and Waldenses and their adherents whereby this practice and custom hath been still observed even in the West 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 Communicant IN the Celebration of the Sacrament the breaking of Bread should be followed by the Distribution but because the Distribution contains several things under its compass as the Time the Place the Posture of the Communicant the Persons which distribute it those which receive with the words both of the one and the other and in fine the Things distributed and received it is absolutely necessary to examine them severally to give the more light unto this part of the outward form of the Celebration of the Sacrament Therefore we will rest satisfied to consider in this Chapter the Time the Place with the Posture and Gesture of the Communicant As for the Time there 's no body can make any doubt but that Jesus Christ did institute and celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the Supper of the Passeover and at the end of the Supper the Evangelists do witness it and express themselves so fully as that they give us not the least cause to doubt of it which makes me believe that the Apostles and the Churches founded by their Preaching practised the same during life And to say the truth it seems to be plainly found in the Eleventh Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians that the Belivers of that Church did celebrate this Divine Mysterie and participate thereof after having eaten altogether so that the Celebration of the Sacrament was as it were the Seal the Crown and accomplishment of those Agapes and Feasts of Charity I know that all be not of this Opinion and I do not 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 Learned men which they ground upon the following Reasons which I am obliged to recite that the Reader might judge of their solidity In the first place it appears that the design of these first Christians was exactly to imitate the Order that was observed by Jesus Christ who as we said celebrated his Eucharist after Supper Secondly 1 Cor. 11.21 They pretend that the Apostle gives an evident proof of it when he saith That some advanceth and taketh his own supper before without staying for the rest for that could not be if they had begun with the Celebration of the Sacrament and ended with the Feast of Charity it being unlikely that the Sacrament would be 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 Celebration of the Sacrament and not before So that the Apostle should only have had cause to blame the disorder of their Feast without mingling therewith any discourse of the Sacrament yet nevertheless he doth the quite contrary for he insists much more upon the Sacrament than upon all the rest which doth evidently 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 Sacrament of the Eucharist whereof they did communicate after they had ended Supper after which the company was dismissed Unto all these proofs they add the marks of that ancient Custom which remained in the V. Century Tertullian saith in some of his Works That the Eucharist was celebrated at supper time Tertul. de corona c. 3. as Rigaut and Rhenanus confess upon the place But although that the practice of celebrating it also in the Morning was already very frequent in the Church I cannot see how it can be concluded from the words of this Learned African that the Celebration was made after the Meal rather than before no more than by what is observed by S. Cyprian about forty years after for disputing against those who celebrated the Sacrament in the Morning with Water and urging them with the Example of our Lord who did his with Wine he said Cypr. Ep. 63. that they happily imagined to be quit under colour That at Supper Wine was offered in the Cup. All that can be inferr'd from these two passages of Antiquity is That in those times the Eucharist was celebrated conjointly with the Agapes or Feasts of Charity but in such a manner that it was also very frequently celebrated and most commonly in the Morning and by consequence fasting Also is it not therein the marks of the ancient custom before mentioned are sought as also in what is said by S. Austin in the beginning of the V. Century Aug. Ep. 118. c. 7. That some were wont to receive the Sacrament after Meal time but upon one day of the year only to wit Thursday before Easter Concil Carth. 3. c 29. as is expresly observed by the Third Council of Carthage 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 Commemoration is made every year of the Supper of our Lord which is as every body knows upon Holy Thursday But as this Rule would serve as a Law only in Africa there were other Churches which used thus not on that day precisely but every week on Saturday And indeed two ancient Church Historians Socrates and Sozomen Socr. l. 5. c. 21. Grac. 22. Sozom. l. 7. c. 19. who wrote some years after the death of S. Austir inform us That the Christians of Egypt those of Thebais and about Alexandria in several Cities and Villages did
understood the sub-Deacons which shews that the Deacons were not comprised in the prohibition which was made unto these Ministers Also the IV. Council of Carthage suffers the Deacons to administer unto the people in case of necessity Concil Carthag 4. c. 38. Ambros de offic l. 1. c. 41. the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord even in the presence of the Priest but by his order St. Ambrose speaking of the Deacon and Martyr St. Lawrence saith that he distributed the Cup and St. Leo in a Sermon where he treats of his Martyrdom Serm. infestiv Laurent and of his Triumph advanceth his Dignity by administring of the Sacraments and elsewhere making the Panegyrick of St. Vincent who was also a Deacon and Levite In nativit Vincent c. 2. 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 Apud Cassandr in liturg c. 31. The Deacons are those unto whom it belongs to set in order upon the Holy Table the offerings of the people which are to be consecrated and after the Consecration to distribute the Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord unto the people And in the Dialogues of Gregory the First there is mention made of a certain Deacon who being affrighted at the cruelty of the Pagans Gregor l. in dial l. 1. c. 7. as he was administring 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 Deacons which administer the Sacrament unto the people and amongst the Abassins the Deacon gives the Bread in little bits and the sub-Deacon the other Symbol in a spoon of Gold Silver or of Wood. But it is needless to insist any longer on a matter so clear and besides which is not of the greatest moment therefore 't is sufficient to know that at the beginning of Christianity the Deacons gave both Symbols unto the Communicants that afterwards 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 possession of their Rights yet nevertheless they have commonly injoyed the priviledge of administring the Cup of our Lord unto Christians after he that consecrated had distributed the holy Bread and it is they who amongst the Greeks distribute the Communion unto the people In the Kingdom of Prester John the Deacon giveth the Bread and the sub-Deacon the Wine as well unto the Clergy as unto the People But this is worth the considering that in divers parts of the West Women were permitted to administer the Sacrament unto the people and forasmuch as this abuse as far as I remember began in Italy Gelas Ep. â— ad Episc â—ucan t. 3. Concil p. 636. Pope Gelasius was also the first if I am not mistaken who indeavoured to prevent it grievously censuring the Bishops of Lucania for giving this liberty to Women and suffering them to serve at the Altar Men being only called unto this Office But it seems that this censure of Gelasius had not all the success as could have been wished seeing that about 500. Years afterwards to wit about the end of the X. Century Ratherius Bishop of Verona in Italy T. 6. Concil p. 431. T. 2. Spicil p. 261. in his Synodal Letters unto the Priests of his Diocese which have passed until our 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. Concil Paris 6. l. 1. c. 15. forbids it in one of its Canons which is yet to be seen in the seventh Book Cap. 134. of the Capitularies of Charles the Great and of Lewis the Debonair his Son a Prohibition which Isaac Bishop of Langres Isaac Ling. can tit 5. c. 7. 11. c. 23. was constrained to renew some time after As for the persons admitted unto the Communion they were Believers therefore the Deacons made the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and generally all such as were not initiated in the Mysteries of Christian Religion to go out and those people were not only not suffered to participate of the Sacrament but they were not suffered to stay in the Assembly when it was celebrated Indeed that they were not suffered to assist at the Celebration of the Sacrament was not alwaies practis'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 Liturgies and I shall not stand to prove this matter being indisputable and owned by all the World the truth whereof is easily to be seen by such as please to read the Liturgies which we have remaining and which by the care taken therein by the Deacons to shut out the Catechumeni the Energoumeni the penitents and the uninitiated do manifestly 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 Belivers were obliged to Communicate this obligation regarded them all in general for the Penitents were not thought to be Believers during the time of their penance the sins they had committed and for which they had been censured to undergo the burden of this penance having made them fall from this 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 ingaged to make two Considerations of the persons of Communicants the first shall treat of the Communion of Adults the second that of Children As for the Communion of persons of Age and years of discretion there is no question to be made but they were all obliged to Communicate when
Constance and from that time until the Council of Trent Justin Martyr affirms Apolog. 1. that in his time there was distributed Consecrated Bread and Wine unto all the Communicants Ep. ad Philadelph The pretended Ignatius tells us of one only Cup distributed unto all And S. Irenaeus disputing against certain Hereticks who denied the Resurrection of the Body Advers haer l. 5. c. 2. How saith he do they deny that the Body is capable of the gift of God which is life eternal which is nourished with the Blood and Body of Christ L. 4. c. 34. And again How do they again say that the Body corrupteth that is to say with a final corruption and that it receiveth not life to wit in rising again being nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ Hom. 16. Origen on the Book of Numbers What is this people which are wont to drink Blood the Christian people the faithful people follow him who said If you eat not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you have no life in you because my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed And to shew that he speaks of the Sacramental Communion Hom. 14. in Matth. he adds It is said that we drink the Blood of Jesus Christ not only in the Celebration of the Sacraments but also when we receive his words And elsewhere he speaks of unadvisedly taking the Bread of our Lord and his Cup. The blessed Martyr S. Cyprian Ep. 63. hath written a Treatise expresly of the Sacrament of the Cup as S. Austin calls it where he amply proves this Communion which we examin and in another place writing with his Brethren unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome touching the resolution they had taken to admit into the unity of the Church those who had flinched in times of persecution and speaking of the excellent Motive which they found in communicating of the Cup to incourage Christians unto Martyrdom see here what they said Ep. 54. 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 Treatise of those that had fallen during the persecution of the Church he saith P. 175. ult edit That the Deacon presented the Cup unto them who were present as Justin Martyr also hath taught us The Councils of Ancyra Anno 314. Apud Athanas Apolog. p. 732. in the second Canon and that of Neocaesarea the same Year in the XIII Canon inform us also the same thing as also a Synod of Alexandria Assembled during the Persecutions stirred up by the Arrians against S. Athanasius Thence it is that Leo the First In natal ejus c. 2. L. 1. contr Parmen speaking in the V. Century of S. Vincent Levite that is to say Deacon and glorious Martyr saith That he administred 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 â—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. Mystag 5. p. 245. vide p. 244. L. de Baptism c. 3. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogicks Aster having communicated of the Body of Christ draw near unto the Cup of his Blood c. S. Basil said the benefit of the words of the Institution of the Eucharist is That eating and drinking we should alwaies have him in remembrance who Died and is Risen again for us And elsewhere Ep. 289. It is a thing good and profitable to communicate daily and to participate of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ The Liturgies also which go in his name may be here 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 Hom. 32. Graec. p. 319. E. The same Table is offered unto all the same Drink is given unto all but not only the same Liquor but it is also given unto us all to drink of one and the same Cup for our Father injoining us to love one another he so ordered it that we should drink of the same Cup And upon S. John speaking of the Water and Blood which came out of Christs side Hom. 85. Graec. The Mysteries do from thence take their Original to the end as oft as ye approach unto the terrible Cup ye should draw near as if it were to drink out of his side it self And upon the Second to the Corinthians Hom. 18. There are certain times when there is no difference betwixt the Priest and those over whom he doth preside as when they are to participate of the terrible Mysteries for we are all equally admitted there it is not as under the old Law the Priest 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 L. 3. c. 57. t. 4. If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no life in you What was the reason of so strictly prohibiting the people from the Blood of the Sacrifices offered for sins if those Sacrifices did represent the only Sacrifice wherein the true and full remission of sins is made nevertheless no person is hindred from taking this Sacrifice for his nourishment but rather all those who would be saved are exhorted to drink it Leo the First in his Lent Sermon speaking of the Manicheans who not to appear what they were frequented the Assemblies of Believers and did also participate with them of their Sacraments Serm. â— c. 5. To hide saith he their Infidelity they have the impudence to assist at our Mysteries they so dispose themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments to shelter themselves the better they receive with an unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they absolutely refuse drinking the Blood of our Redemption Therefore we give your Holiness notice of it to the end this kind of men may be known by these marks and that such other Sacrilegious Dissimulation hath been discovered may be marked and that being forbidden to be present in the Society
tells us without falling into a great sin whereof he must be obliged to make great repentance From all which he concludes in favour of the steeped Sacrament and praiseth the wisdom of those who first established this manner of Communicating with the Bread steept in Wine saying That pious men had prudently directed that the little portion of the Body should not be given dry as our Lord had done but that it should be distributed unto Believers steeped in the Blood of our Lord and that by this means it should happen that according to the precept of our Saviour we should eat his Flesh and drink his Blood and that he that feared to sin in so great a matter might avoid the danger And he gives for a reason of this conduct That we eat dry and drink liquid what goes down the throat after having received it in the mouth either together or separately And because some considering that Jesus Christ had given the steept morsel unto Judas did not approve this manner of distributing the Sacrament he saith there 's a great deal of difference betwixt the Eucharist steeped and the Morsel which our Lord gave the Disciple that betray'd him because the actions which have a different occasion cannot agree well together Afterwards taking with many others the Decree of the Council of Braga of the year 675. against the steeped Sacrament for a Decree of Pope Julius he saith this Decree is no longer of force with modern persons and that the customs of the Church which surpasse all others as well in reason as in authority hath overcome this ancient Constitution that it should not be thought strange because the Decrees of other Popes are changed for the like and sometimes upon smaller occasions But although this Author of the XII Century of whom Cardinal Cusa cites something in Cassander in his Liturgies gives us this form of administring the Sacrament with steept Bread as establish'd in his time in the West it cannot be said that it was universally received in all Churches without exception In fine besides what we alledged out of the Micrologue and of Pope Paschal who made his Decree in the XII Century Arnold of Bonneval contemporary with S. Bernard in his Sermon of the Supper of the Lord in S. Cyprian's Works sheweth us sufficiently that in the same XII Century wherein he lived the use of the Cup was not forbidden the people when he saith Apud Cypr. p. 329. ult edit vid. p. 330. It was under the Doctor Christ Jesus that this Discipline first of all appeared in the World that Christians should drink Blood whereof the use was so strictly prohibited by the Authority of the ancient Law for the Law forbids eating of Blood and the Gospel commands to drink it And again We drink Blood Jesus Christ himself commanding it being partakers by and with him of everlasting life And at the conclusion of the Treatise he with several other Doctors of the Church who lived before him in that Believers are partakers of one Bread and of one Cup doth search a type of their union Ibid. p. 33â— or rather of their Spiritual unity in Christ Jesus who is the head of this Divine Body We also saith he being made his Body are tied and bound unto our head both by the Sacrament and by the matter of the Sacrament and being members one of another we mutually render each other the duties of love we communicate by charity we participate with eating one and the same meat and drink one and the same drink which flows and springs from the Spiritual Rock which meat and drink is our Lord Jesus Christ I believe we may join unto Arnold of Bonneval Peter de Celles Abbot of S. Remy of Rheims who lived at the end of the XII Century for in his Treatise of Cloister Discipline which is come to light but within these seven or eight years he speaks in this manner The communication of the Body of Christ T. 3. Spicil p. 99. and of the Blood of Christ poured forth to wit of the Lamb without spot purifieth us from all guilt and from all sin Let us say something more formal Peter of Tarantes Apud Cassand de Commun sub utraque specie p. 1043. afterwards Pope under the name of Innocent IV. writes That the most considerable as the Priests and Ministers of the Altar do receive the Sacrament under both kinds William of Montelaudana in sundry places saith he They communicate with the Bread and Wine that is to say with the whole Sacrament And Peter de Palude testifies that in his time It was the practice in several Churches to communicate under the one and the other species Richard de Mediavilla was of the same Judgement with Innocent IV. the one and the other giving for a reason that those unto whom they administer the Communion under both kinds Know very well how to yield thereunto the greater reverence and caution All these saith Cassander lived about the 1300. year of our Lord. Wherefore the same Cassander observes in the same place that Thomas Aquinas who defends the use of communicating under one kind doth not say that this custom was universally received but in some Churches only And to say the truth Christians found so much consolation and benefit in participating of the Cup of their Lord that when in latter times they began to tell them of the danger of effusion to dispose them to the use of communicating under one kind there were several Churches that rather than they would be deprived of the participation of the sacred Cup invented certain little Quills which were fastened unto the Chalices by means whereof they drank the Mystical Blood of our Lord as Beatus Rhenanus p. 438. testifies in his Notes upon Tertullian's Book De Corona Militis and Cassander in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds p. 1036. both of them in their time having seen of these Quills or little Pipes which were used for communicating the Laity Let us descend yet lower and we shall find about 35. years before the Council of Constance an example of the Communion under both kinds in Rome it self not indeed of the People but of all the Cardinal Deacons for Vrban VI. who began the great Schism which lasted from the year 1378. until 1428. being Elected Pope at Rome Anno 1378. in the place of Gregory XI He solemnly celebrated Mass upon S. Peter 's Altar in his Pontifical Habit wherein all things were performed according to the order of the Rubrick and in fine he with his own hands gave the Communion unto all the Cardinal Deacons with the pretious Body and Blood of Christ as it was alwaies the manner of Popes to do T. 4. p. 306. Thus it was written unto Lewis Earl of Flanders Anno 1378. by Pileiâ—de Prata Archbishop of Ravenna and Cardinal in one of the Tomes of the collection of Dom Luke de Achery But as from the
the true Sacrament is received under one species and that so as to what concerns the benefit such are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation who receive but under one kind After all which the Council makes these three Canons If any one shall say Can. 1. that by the command of Christ or for necessity of Salvation all Believers in general and each one in particular is obliged to receive both kinds of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be Anathema If any one shall say Can. 2. that the holy 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 Can. 3. the Fountain and Author of all Graces is received under the sole species of Bread because as some falsely suggest he is not received according to Christ's own Institution under both kinds let him be accursed See here exactly whereunto things amounted in the West Whereupon some have made these Reflections In the first place that about 300. years before the use of the Cup was taken away from the people by 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 Decree there was in Bohemia besides the Calixtins who only desired the use of the Cup agreeing in all other points with the Church of Rome the Taborites so called from the Mountain Tabor where they had their Assemblies unto whom some joining many of the Waldenses who according to the testimony of Dubravius had sheltered themselves in those parts ever since the XII Century and that there were not only of these Waldenses at that time in Bohemia only but also that there were great numbers of them in England in Provence the Valleys of Piedmont and elsewhere In the third place that when the Council of Trent in our 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 upon the liberty our Kings have of Communicating under both kinds In the fourth place that since the Decree of the Council of Trent an infinite number of persons of that same Communion earnestly wished that the use of the Cup which had been taken away might be restored unto the people Those which be any thing curious may read what Cassander hath written a man of the Communion of the Roman Church and very intelligent in Ecclesiastical Antiquity I say in his Consultation Art 22. In his Defence of the Book touching the Duty of a Devout Man page 864. and in his Treatise of the Communion under both kinds and the demand which Catherine de Medicis Queen of France caused to be made unto the Pope in the behalf of France Anno 1561. as is related at large by Monsieur de Thou Hist Thuan. l. 27. in his History In fine that the practice of all Christians is contrary to that of the Latins because they all administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under both kinds to wit the Grecians the Melchites or Assyrians the Georgians Circassians and Mingrelians the Muscovites and Russians the Nestorians the Christians of S. Thomas in the Indies before they turned to the Latins which was but in the last Century heither did they renounce their belief or worship to imbrace the worship of the Latin Church till the year 1599. the Jacobites which are exceeding numerous the Cophtites or Christians in Egypt the Abassins under Prester John who is one of the greatest Princes in the World the Armenians and in fine the Maronites until that they submitted themselves unto the Latin Church in Clement VIII his time It is certain there is some difference in the manner of distributing the Sacrament under both kinds amongst these Christian Nations for some of them put the Bread and Wine both together in a Spoon as the Muscovites others administer the Sacrament steeped as the Armenians if we may credit some persons It is said that the Greeks at this time do so heretofore they distributed both kinds separately In effect I see that all agree that the Greeks give the Bread steept Therefore Humbert Cardinal of Blanoh-Selva writing against the Calumnies of the Greeks in the XI Century said That they put the Bread and Wine together as we said the Muscovites do who are of the Religion of the Greeks taking them in a Spoon which the Laity do at this time by relation of Goar in his Notes upon the Eâ—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 Christian Communion in the whole World excepting only the Latin but believe that the use of both Symbols is necessary unto a lawful Communion whatever difference there may be amongst them in the manner of 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 Laity by the Ancients because that means nothing else as the learned on both sides agree but to communicate with the people and not with the Clergy for instance when a 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 communicate and not with the Clergy which is at this time practised amongst the Abyssins and amongst the Protestants but that makes nothing to the communicating under one kind because the people participated of both kinds Nor the peregrine Communion whereof mention is made but very seldom in the Monuments which remain unto us of Antiquity for all the certain knowledge we have of it by reason of the few places that speak of it is that it regarded strangers who came from some other parts unto some Church where they were admitted to receive the Sacrament but after the manner that 't was 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 admitting 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. Chrysostome 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 Eucharist steeped because it was a thing extraordinary and that beside it was shewn by this practice that both Symbols were believed to be necessary nor that the XI Council of Toledo permits the Cup only to be given unto those who are so weak that they are not able to swallow down the consecrated Bread unto whom Pope Paschal II. joins young Children because this sufferance is grounded upon invincible necessity as well as that which is practised by some Protestant Churches towards those who have naturally such an aversion for Wine that 't is not in their power to surmount in which cases she dispenseth with the participation of the Cup and is content to administer the Bread only After what hath been hitherto spoken of the Communion under both kinds I think it will be needless to add any more unto this History which if I mistake not I have written large enough to satisfie the curiosity of those who desire to be informed of what passed in the ancient Church in the practice of so important a matter as is that of the Communion of the holy Cup not but that a great number of other testimonies may be alledged for the establishment of this Tradition but when I consider that if the great number of passages doth not prejudice the matter which is examined yet it proves tedious unto the Reader when too large I shall forbear alledging any more to avoid tiring those who shall give themselves the trouble of reading this Treatise and I forbear the rather that if they are persons who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity they will know of themselves without my help that there be many others in the Works of Tertullian of S. Ambrose Gaudentius S. Jerome S. Austin besides those related by Gratian in his Decree of Gregory the First in the Roman Order in the Books of Images under the name of 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 elsewhere as for such as have not applied themselves to the reading the Holy Fathers they may sufficiently inform themselves of what I have written how Christians have from time to time governed themselves in the matter of communicating under both kinds Therefore I shall content my self in touching a circumstance which I had almost forgotten and which in all likelihood will not be displeasing unto any it concerns a Chalice of Saint Remy Archbishop of Rheims this Prelate who was so famous in our France especially after he had 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 unto the people upon which he caused three Latin Verses to be ingraved which are preserved unto our daies although the Chalice is not in being the Church of Rheims having been constrained to melt it and to pay it for their Ransom unto the Normans above 700. years ago and these Verses plainly 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 History of the Church of Rheims and I 'll make no difficulty of representing them in this History in the same stile in which they were written Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Flodoard Histor Remens l. 1. c. 10. Injecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Remigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos Now I say to conclude this Chapter it appears plainly by all that hath been said that the Christian Church universally practised the Communion under both kinds separately the space of 1000. years that since that time they began in some places in the Latin Church to administer the Sacrament 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 contrary practice But in fine the Council of Trent made its last Essay in the manner as hath been above declared as for all the other Christian Churches which hold no commerce with the Latin they administer the Sacrament under both Symbols although it be with some little difference CHAP. XIII The Eucharist received with the hand BUT because it is not sufficient to know the things which were distributed unto Communicants if we do not at the same time know the manner they were received by Believers I think fit to imploy this Chapter in the inquiry of this Custom and Practice When Jesus Christ celebrated and instituted his first Sacrament he said unto his Disciples Take the Greek word used by him in this place imports to take with the hand or receive with the hand what is given accordingly the ancient Christians which succeeded the Age of Jesus Christ and his Apostles did in the very same manner and it is certain that all the Communicants generally received with the hand in the Church the Sacrament of the Eucharist so Tertullian teacheth us in his Treatise of Idolatry where 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 Tertul. de Idol c. 7. Who come saith he from making Idols to Church who lifteth up unto God the Father the hands which are the makers of Idols Id. de Coron c. 3. And in fine which stretcheth forth those hands to receive the Body of the Lord who gave Bodies unto Devils And elsewhere We receive the Eucharist from no other hand but from his who doth preside Id. de Orat. c. 14. And in his Book of Prayer Having saith he received the Body of the Lord and kept it Clement of Alexandria at the end of the Second Century wherein he lived teacheth us that there were certain Priests who did not distribute the Sacrament unto Communicants but permitted each one that approached unto the holy Table to take it Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 271. Apud Cassand in Liturg
seriously thought on these things they would at least have avoided receiving holy things from the hand of him whom they hated fearing lest they should so openly have imitated Judas And in the third Sermon he alledgeth these words of the seventy seventh Ibid. p. 316. and according to the Hebrews the seventy eighth Psalm The meat was still in their mouth and the anger of God waxed hot against them And he continues It is because Sathan who of a long time possessed 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 Ibid. p. 317. And in the same Sermon When I gave unto them who were such the sacred Morsel with the hand which they wished cut off And in the first Sermon of the Ascension If before we come to speak of his Judgment Ibid. p. 325. we truly accuse our selves with what neglect and carelesness do we Consecrate the Bread which we are to distribute or present Methinks from all this it may be concluded that in the Tenth Century they began in some places to introduce the custom of putting the Sacrament in the mouth of Communicants yet without blaming the ancient practice which required that it should be received with the hand notwithstanding what is alledged by Regino of a Council of Rouan in Cassander Apud Cassand in Liturg p. 80. 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 Martyrology peculiar for the Saints of Flanders that is of the Countreys formerly inhabited by the people of Belgia and upon the 6th of June speaking of Norbert Founder of the Order of the Premonstre he relates this out of Robert du Mont Continuator of Sigebert's Chronicle of the Year 1124. which is still to be seen Supplem Chron. Sigeb ad an 1184. Natal Belg. p. 110. Norbert preaching the Men and Women being pricked at the heart brought the Body of our Lord which for ten Years and upwards they had hid in Chests and corners from which things saith Molanus Pontac in his Chronology doth conclude That Christians at that time did receive the Body of Christ with their hand And in truth Pontac who was one of the most Learned men of his time had reason so to judge being necessarily 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 't is in the Edition I have Tandem who had perswaded the Inhabitants of Antwerp which was a very populous City That the participation of the Body of Jesus Christ was not necessary unto Salvation therefore they had hid in certain places the Body of our Lord until such time as they were disabused by Norbert unto whom both Men and Women after ten years time and more brought what each had hid but in the main it appears that in the Twelfth Century Communicants received the Sacrament in their hand for otherwise those we speak of could not have done what hath been mentioned and I know not whether unto this purpose may not be referred the fifth Canon of the Council of Tholouse Assembled in the Year of our Lord 1228. which ordains T. 2. Spicil p. 624. That when any sick person hath received from the hand of the Priest the holy Communion it should be carefully kept until the day of his death or of his recovery 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 received the Sacrament with their hand until the Tenth Century excepting it may be some particular occasion which cannot prejudice the established Law and generally received custom that in the Tenth Century they began to introduce in some places the custom of receiving with the mouth without condemning the other practice which required it to be received with the hand whereof we have seen examples in the Twelfth Century and even in the Thirteenth which justifies that the manner of receiving the Eucharist with the hand was ever practised in the West ever since Christianity had been first established because that before the Latin Church had abolished this custom the Albigenses and Waldenses had separated themselves from its Communion and carefully practised it amongst them until the time the Protestants separated themselves who continue to practise it at this time As for the Greeks James Goar a Frier of the Order of preaching Friers observes upon the Euchologie or Ritual of that Nation In Euchol p. 149. n. 170. That the Priest or Bishop gives the holy Eucharist into the hand according to the ancient practice And he represents the gesture wherein the Clergy set their hands to communicate which is almost the same required by S. Cyrill of Jerusalem and 300. years after him the Council in Trullo which was common also unto the people a long time as well as to the Clergy but at present saith the same 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 De Orat. c. 14. Tertullian intimates it sufficiently when he speaks of receiving the Body of our Lord and keeping it for although he speaks of keeping it to the end of the station only nevertheless it was at every 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 Infidel Lib. 2. ad Ux. c. 5. he saith unto her The Husband will not know what you eat in private before any other Meat and if he know 't is Bread will he not believe that 't is that which is so call'd Cypr. de laps p. 176. S. Cyprian also teacheth the same when he saith A certain Woman having endeavoured with her unworthy hands to open her Chest where the holy thing of the Lord was she was affrighted at the Fire which came out so that she durst not touch it and elsewhere speaking of him that run to the Theatre and Shews of Pagans Id. de Spect. p. 292. Who saith he runs unto a Show after having been dismissed that is to say after the Celebration of Divine Service and also carryeth
c. 7. p. 94. and keep it would be an Act punishable saith the learned Petau and held for a Profanation of this Sacrament and I do not see that any one can justly blame this Severity of the Latin Church seeing they believe Transubstantiation and that what is received at the Lords Table is the adorable Body of the Son of God unto which a Sovereign respect is due the Protestants themselves who have not the same belief would not suffer this abuse and to say the truth it were to expose this august Sacrament unto many indecencies which must needs happen if Communicants should be suffered to carry it home along with them and keep it CHAP. XV. The Sacrament sent unto such as were absent unto the Sick and that sometimes by the Laity THE Sacrament of the Eucharist being a Sacrament of Communion not only with Jesus Christ but also with Believers who find in this Divine Mystery a pretious Earnest of the strict and intimate Union which they ought to have together the primitive Christians which were of one Heart and one Soul never celebrated the Sacrament but that they sent it unto such of their Brethren as could not be present in the Assembly at the time of Consecration to the end that by the participation of the same Bread it might appear they were but one Body with the rest St. Justin Martyr teacheth so much when he saith That the Deacon distributes unto every one of those who are present the consecrated Bread and Wine mingled with Water and that they should carry of it unto those that were absent and accordingly we read in the Acts of the Martyr St. Just Mart. Apol. 1. Lucian one of the Priests of the Church of Antioch who glorified God by suffering Death in the 311th year of our Lord and the last of the Persecution of Dioclesian That he celebrated the holy Sacrament in Prison with many other Christians who were detained for the Gospel sake making his Breast serve for the mystical Table the posture he was put in by the cruelty of his Persecutors not admitting him to do otherwise and that after he had participated himself of the Sacrament he sent of it unto those who were absent I have mentioned this passage as it is related by Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Apud Baron ad ann 311.9 S. although neither Philostorgius nor Nicephorus of Caliste which mention this business to the best of my remembrance say any thing of this circumstance but only that these Believers did visit him in Prison Saint Irenaeus in Eusebius tells us of a custom whereby the Bishops used to send the Eucharist unto each other in token of peace and Communion not considering the distance of place and the Seas over which it was sometimes to pass This holy man writing a Letter unto Pope Victor who had Excommunicated the Churches of Asia for celebrating Easter the fourteenth day of March in this Letter he speaks thus to the Pope 〈…〉 The Priests saith he which have been before you do send the Sacrament unto Priests of the Churches that used that custom And it appears that was commonly done at the Feast of Easter which the Council of Laodicea prohibited by one of its Canons Concil Laod. c. 14. The holy Sacrament must not be sent unto other Churches at the Feast of Easter under the name of Eulogies But so 't is that I find great difference betwixt what is said by Justin Martyr and what is said by Irenaeus the former speaketh of what was done towards the Members of the same Church which could not be present in the Assembly with their Brethren and unto whom was sent their share of the Sacrament at the time when it was celebrated in the Church and the latter touched what was practised by the 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 also sent unto sick Folks It is true great care must be taken in distinguishing betwixt sick Believers and Penitents by sick Believers is understood Christians 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. In. c. 24. l. 5. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History as for the latter I mean the Penitents as they were excluded out of the Communion of the Church this good and tender Mother feeling 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 Sacrament 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 Aâ—ud Euseb hinor l. 6. c. 44. That he had commanded to absolve those which were in danger of Death if they desired it and especially if they had already desired it before their sickness There are to be seen in S. Cyprian's Epistles who lived at the same time several the like directions touching those which had fallen during the time of persecution but because many were not mindful of desiring reconciliation with the Church from whose Communion they had fallen by their Apostasy untill they were taken with some sickness which endangered their life the first Council of Arles assembled Anno 314. Concil Arclar 1. c. 22. forbids giving the Sacrament unto such as did so unless they recovered their health and did fruits worthy of repentance But this it self shews that it was not refused unto any of those which being fallen endeavoured to rise again by passing through the degrees of Penance and that without deferring to the end of their life ardently desired to be admitted into the peace of the Church The Councils are full of Canons which direct the time and manner of absolving Penitents which was inseparable from receiving of the Sacrament which was given them as the last Viaticum to assure them that they were reconciled unto God in their being so with the Church which was accustomed to seal
this reconciliation and peace in permitting them to participate of this Divine Mystery But if I am demanded Whether this practice of administring the Sacrament unto bed-rid Penitents and after the third Century unto other sick Folks at the time of death doth not presuppose that the Eucharist was kept to the end it might be apply'd in these hasty necessities to speak sincerely I do not see there was any necessary consequence of one of these things unto the other but that also I find no directions thereupon in the first Ages of Christianity which makes me believe they contented themselves then in preparing I mean in Blessing and Consecrating the Bread and Wine to make them the Body and Blood of the Lord at such time as there was occasion to communicate any Bed-rid dying persons To alledge for refutation of the keeping the Sacrament what is written in the XI Century by Cardinal Humbert of Blanch-Selva against the Greeks who reserved the gifts presanctified in Lent were not in my Opinion to argue but trifle because it is certain that a long time before Humbert wrote against Nicetas the Sacrament was kept in the Latin Church it might with more reason be urged against keeping the acrament that the remainder of the Sacrament was in some Churches burnt and in others it was eaten by little Children but although this last custom continued a long time in our France as shall appear in the following Chapter nevertheless I find from the time of Charelemain that is to say in the VIII Century formal directions for keeping the Sacrament Capitul l. 1. c. 161. That the Priests saith this Prince in his Capitularies have always the Sacrament ready to communicate the Sick whether Old or Young to the end they should not dye without the Sacrament Since which time several Ordinances are seen upon the same Subject but before that time I do not remember to have met with any which nevertheless I do not say to assure positively that there were none before the time which I assign but only to declare that I have not observed nor found any on the contrary in the Second decretal Epistle which is attributed unto St. Clement Disciple of the Apostles about the same time it is expresly forbidden Ep. 2. Pseudo-Clem To keep till the next day any part of the Sacrament But in fine seeing it ought to be confessed that in the three first Centuries the Sacrament was sent unto Bed-rid dying Penitents and afterwards unto Believers in the same condition It is requisite to inquire by whom it was sent there is no doubt but for the most part they were Clergymen that carried it unto these sorts of Persons yet nevertheless in such a manner that they made no difficulty to ease themselves sometimes of this care and to imploy Lay Persons young Boys Men and Women to carry it in fine Denys Bishop of Alexandria relates in Eusebius the History of a certain Old Man called Serapion who having 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 sickness 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 Apud Euseb hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. 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 presently gave up the Ghost So the Martyrology of Ado Bishop of Vienna that of Bede and the Roman Ad. d. 15 Aug. Apud Baron ad an 260. §. 5. as also the Acts of the life of Pope Stephen the First 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 Combef auct Bibl Pat t. 2. Grac. l. p 986. cum 1014. who lived in the X. Century and which Father Combefis a Dominican hath published at least some Copies part of it we find this Hermit having demanded of the Bishop of Corinth how such Persons as he was that lived solitarily in the 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 prescribed after what manner they should do it And Father Combefis in his Notes observes Ib. p. 1014. that the Bishop of Corinth was then in the Bishop of Rome's Diocese is it to be thought any difficulty would have been made of intrusting the Sacrament unto Women in those places where they were permitted to distribute the Sacraments in the Churches unto the people as hath been before recited There is in the VI. Tome of the Councils a Homily in the name of Pope Leo the Fourth T. 6. Concil p. 431. who lived in the middle of the IX Century where Priests are forbidden to give the Sacrament unto Lay Persons Men or Women to be carried unto the sick It cannot then be questioned but the thing was practised to that time and afterwards also for 't is certain this Sermon is neither Leo the Fourth's nor St. Vlrick's as Gretser imagined it is nothing else but a Synodical Letter of Ratherius Bishop of Verona unto his Priests now this Ratherius died towards the end of the X. Century Mr. de Valois in his Notes upon Eusebius P. 138. saith That he hath lately been so informed and we cannot doubt of it because we have the Book 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 T. 2. Spicileg p. 261. Man or Woman to carry it unto the Sick It must then be necessarily concluded that it was so practised in sundry places even in Italy and near Rome until the end of the X. Century The same Mr. de Valois observes upon the words of Denys Bishop of Alexandria above mentioned P. 138. That it was so practised a long time after And he proves it by the Prohibition which Ratherius was obliged to give unto his Priests who without scruple committed the Eucharist into Lay Persons hands to be carried unto sick Folks but because Ratherius was but a private Bishop and that his power reached not beyond his Diocese nothing hinders but it may be believed it was also
potest t. 5. p. 125 6. We must not saith he look only upon the Terms but the Scope of him that speaks the cause and occasion of his Discourse and comparing all together find out the sense and meaning of what is therein contained Nevertheless it must be noted this Rule hath its particular use when the Expressions are doubtful and difficult and when by staying at the Terms and following the rigour of the Letter a convenient Sense cannot be given unto what is said or heard except in such a case nothing hinders but looking unto the scope of him that speaks stress may be laid on his Words and much light taken from his Expressions Thus have the Holy Fathers proceeded in examining the Words used by our Saviour in instituting the Sacrament because all they have told us hitherto are only so many Reflections which they have made upon the Words and Expressions of this Merciful Saviour but because they were verily persuaded that Jesus Christ which is Wisdom it self had an end in instituting this Divine Mystery they would know the end and design which he proposed in leaving this precious earnest of his Love unto his Church Do this saith our Lord in remembrance of me for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink of this Cup saith St. Paul you shew the Lord's Death till he come From whence they concluded that the Intention of Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament and that of the Church in celebrating it by his Command was by this means to preserve amongst Christians the remembrance of his Death and Sufferings but because his Death doth suppose his Incarnation and Birth and that moreover his blessed Resurrection and Exaltation into Glory ensued thereupon I find they have included in this Commemoration commanded us by Christ the consideration of his Incarnation bitter Death of his Resurrection and of his Ascension into Heaven According to which some of them join unto the consideration of his Death that of his Incarnation as St. Justin Martyr which saith Just Martyr contra Tryph. p. 296. That the Lord commanded us to make the Bread of the Eucharist in remembrance that he made himself Man for those which believe in him and for whom he made himself Mortal and the Cup in remembrance of his Blood But sometimes also considering the Death of Christ as the end of his Conception and of his Birth because he took not our Nature and was born of a Virgin but to die they are content to consider the Sacrament as a Memorial of his Death only Id. ibid. p. 259. In this regard the same St. Justin said That Jesus Christ commanded us to make the Bread of the Sacrament in remembrance of the Death which he suffered for the Souls of those which have been cleansed from all Malice This was also the meaning of Tatian his Disciple Tat. Diates t. 7. Bibl. Pat. when he said The Lord commanded his Disciples to eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Sacrament because it was the memorial of his approaching Affliction and of his Death There were others who making this Reflection in themselves that the Death of Christ would be of no benefit unto us without his Resurrection which assures us of his Victory over the Enemies of our Salvation and of the Eternal Father's accepting of the Satisfaction he made unto his Justice in our stead and in consideration whereof he delivers us from the Slavery of Sin and the Devil have considered the celebration of the Sacrament as the commemoration of his Death and Resurrection Such was the Reflection of St. Basil Basil de Bapt. c. 2. p. 581. when he observed that What we eat and drink to wit of the Bread and Wine it is to the end we should always remember him who died and is risen again for us Others in fine considering that Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven and that he had left us the Sacrament as a pledg of his Presence to comfort us in expectation of his glorious Return they thought the consideration of his Death ought not to be separated from that of his Ascension and that as they should think of his Humiliation and Sufferings they should also think of his Exaltation and Glory This was in all likelihood the meaning of St. Gaudent tr 2. l. 2. Bibl. Patr. Gaudentius when he taught That the Sacrament is our Viaticum or Provision for our Journey whereby we are strengthned in the Way until by departing out of this Life we go to him that it is an earnest of his Presence and the portract of his Passion until he come again from Heaven but an earnest and a resemblance which he will have us take in our Hands and receive with the Mouth and Heart to the end we may have engraven in our Memories the great Benefit of our Redemption To thus much also amounts what is said by the Author of the Commentaries In Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. attributed unto St. Jerome That Jesus Christ hath left us the last Commemoration or the last Remembrance as if one taking a Voyage into a far Country would leave a Token with his Friend to the end that when-ever he look'd on it he should be mindful of his Love and Kindness which he cannot do without shedding Tears if he perfectly loved him and that he gave us this Sacrament to the end that by this means we should always remember the Death which he suffered for us Sedulius hath only transcribed this Testimony in his Commentaries upon the same Epistle and upon the same Chapter Primatius an African Bishop declares in the VIth Century that it was his Judgment and he explained himself almost as the other two had done and Christian Druthmer will say the same in the IXth Century as for the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 8. c. 12. he hath joined all these considerations together For he will have us to remember his Passion his Death Resurrection Ascension into Heaven and his second Coming which will be when he comes with Power and Glory to judge the quick and the dead and to reward every one according to his Works The same thing is to be read in the Liturgy of St. Mark and what is found in that which the Latins use at present comes very near it But the Fathers rest not there for I have observ'd that when they speak of the Eucharist as of a Pledge and Memorial they set it in opposition not only of the Truth but even also of the Truth absent so it hath been understood by Gaudentius Sedulius Primasius the Author of the Commentaries attributed unto St. Jerome in the Passages we have alledged whereunto may be joined these Words of the latter In 1 ad Cor. Cap. 11. That we have need of this Memorial all the time which shall continue until he be pleased to come again It is in the same sense Theodoret said Theodoret in 1 ad Cor. c.
of the Canons of the Church of Africa and it is there inserted something different but yet in such a manner as doth not alter the Sense Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 5. St. Austin is no less positive when he declares That to eat the Bread is under the New Testament the Sacrifice of Christians Cyril in Joan. l. 4. c. 14 l. 12. Hesych in Levit. l. 6. c. 2â— And St. Cyril of Alexandria saith That in the Eucharist Jesus Christ distributed and gave Bread unto his Disciples For the same Reason Hesychius assures us that The Oblation of Jesus Christ is performed in Bread and Wine Eudox. Bibl. Patr. t. 14. p. 130. The Princess Eudoxia Wife unto the Emperour Theodosius the younger may take place amongst all these Witnesses which we have alledged her Deposition being of no less moment than the rest seeing she speaks according to the Instructions given her in the Church when she saith That our Lord having broke Bread gave it unto his Friends Apud Phot. Bibl. Cod. 115. that is to say unto his Disciples An Anonymous Author in Photius his Library assures That Jesus Christ in his Mystical Supper gave unto his Disciples Bread and Wine The sixteenth Council of Toledo Concil Tolet. 16. c. 6. held in the Year 693 saith twice That the Lord breaking a whole Loaf gave it to be taken in parcels by his Disciples And the Council in Trullo Anno 691 Council in Trul. c. 32. take and apply unto themselves the 24th Canon of the Council of Carthage where it is forbidden to offer any thing but what Jesus Christ gave to wit Bread and Wine mingled with Water Secondly The same Fathers testify that the Bread of the Sacrament is Bread which is broken I will not here make use of the Testimonies of those which positively affirm that our Lord did break Bread in his Sacrament as Clement of Alexandria Origen Juvencus St. Hilary St. Austin St. Cyril of Alexandria the Empress Eudoxia the XVI Council of Toledo c. I will restrain my self at present unto those which say that we therein break Bread as the Author of the Epistles under the Name of St. Ignatius for he speaks of breaking one Bread and saith Ignat. ep ad Ephes ad Philad Recognit l. 6. ad sin Pasch 1. there is one Bread broken unto all And the Author of Recognitions observes of St. Peter that he broke the Eucharist Theophilus of Alexandria saith that we break the Bread for our own Sanctification St. Chrysostome that was the object of his Persecution and Harred was of the same Mind when he said Wherefore did the Apostle when he spake of Bread Chrysost hom 24. in 1 ad Cor. say which we break for that is seen to be done in the Sacrament This is also what St. Austin testifies when he saith Aust ep 86. ep 59. Id. Serm. 140. de Temp. c. 2. Fulg. de Bapt. Aeâ—hiop Isid Hispal de Off. Eccl. l. 1. cap. 18. Act. 2. 20. That the Bread is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ and that what is upon the Lord's Table is divided into little Bits to be distributed And elsewhere that the breaking of the Bread should comfort us St. Fulgentius thus reads the Words of St. Paul The Loaves which we break And St. Isidore of Sevil The Bread saith he which we break is the Body of Jesus Christ. We see also that St. Luke means the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the breaking of Bread which the Syriac Interpreter hath expressed by the breaking of the Sacrament and where St. Luke saith that the Disciples were met together to break Bread he hath render'd it We were met together to break the Eucharist Therefore 't is that the holy Fathers which speak of breaking Bread speak also of dividing it in pieces As when Clement of Alexandria observes Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. pag. 271. Aug. cont Don post Col. c. 6. Cypr. de laps Cyril Aleâ— in Joan. l. 4. c. 14. that the Eucharist being divided each of the People took part of it And St. Austin that Judas and Peter received each of them a Piece And St. Cyprian speaks of a Woman which had lockt in her Chest a Portion of the Eucharist There 's nothing more common in their Writings whence came the Terms of Parts Morsels Portions which were common so long time in the Church and which made them say that Jesus Christ gave Morsels of Bread unto his Disciples And that but a little is taken witness what Eusebius saith of a Priest of Alexandria that he sent by a young Boy unto Serapion a little Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 441 Aug. Serm. 35. de verb. Dom. cap. 5. or part of the Eucharist And St. Austin that we receive but a little and are fatned by it inwardly in the Heart Unto this Consideration may be added the constant Tradition of the Church whereon we have largely insisted in the VIII Chapter of the first Part where we have shewn that the holy Fathers have unanimously deposed that the Sacrifice of Christians is a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine In the third place speaking of the Eucharist they say That it is a Aug. serm 34 de divers c. 28. Corn b Eudox. in § 36. Arnob in p. 4. Wheat c Theod. dial 1 Fruit of the Vine d Sedul in op Pasch c. 14. l. 4 the Fruit of the Harvest and the Joy of the Vine e Isid Hisp l. 6. orig c. 19. the Fruits of the Earth f Tertul. cont Marc. l. 1. c. 14. the Blessings of the Creator g Iren. l. 4. c. 34 l. 5. c. 4 8. Creatures of this World h Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. z c. 2. the Blood of the Vine the Liquor of Joy i Cypr. ep 76. 63. Bread made of several Grains Wine pressed out of several Grapes k Orig. contra Cels l. 8. Breads or Loaves in the plural number l Just Mart. contra Tryph. wet ard dry Food They say moreover That it is the Bread of the Eucharist as St. Basil m Basil de Sp. S. c. 27. the Mystery of Bread and Wine as St. Gaudentius Bishop of Bresscia n Gaud. tract 2. in Exod. 14. the Sacrament of Bread and Wine St. Austin o Aug. contra Faust l. 20. c. 13 the Sacrament of Bread and of the Cup as St. Fulgentius p Fulg. ad Monum c. 11. the Sacrament of Bread as Bede q Bed Hom. 2. Fer. de pasch that it is not common Bread as Justin Martyr in his second Apology Ireneus l. 4. c. 34. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 3. and Gregory of Nysse in Baptism Christ pag. 802. tom 2. The Fathers rest not there they positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine Clement of Alexandria r Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 2. What our Saviour blessed saith he was Wine
besides what they have already told us of the local presence of Christ in Heaven and his absence from Earth in regard of his Body and his Human Nature the presence whereof they have constantly opposed unto the Presence of his Divine Nature they have formally declared themselves against the Polutopie of his Divine Body I mean against his presence in divers places at one and the same time Fulgent ad Trasim l. 2. c. 17. for they positively say That the Human Nature of Jesus Christ is local absent from Heaven when he is upon Earth leaving Earth when it goes up to Heaven that he is every where as God but that he is in Heaven as Man and that he is in a certain place in Heaven Aug. Fp. 57. sub finem Ep. Id de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 29. Id. tract 31. in Joan. Vigil contr Eutyck l. 4. c. 14. after the manner of being of a true Body That there is no corporal Nature that can be wholly and intirely in Heaven and wholly upon Earth at once That Jesus Christ as Man according to the Body is in one place and that he so departs from a place that he is no longer in the place from whence he parted when he is gone to another place That when the Body of the Lord was upon Earth it was not in Heaven and in like manner being now in Heaven doubtless it is not upon Earth and that 't is so certain it is not there that in regard of it we look that Christ shall come from Heaven Bertram de Nativ Christ c. 3. t. 1. Spicileg Dacher p. 323. That altho Jesus Christ is every where present according to the property of his Divinity he is but in one place according to the dimensions of his Body because that which is local is not in all places but it goes unto some other place when it hath left the place where it was before Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 82. Therefore St. Justin Martyr proved it as an Article of the Faith of Christians in his time That the Father Creator of the World having raised the Christ from the Dead was to raise him up to Heaven and there to keep or retain him until he had slain the Devils his Enemies and that the number of the good and vertuous which he foreknew should be accomplished that is to say until the day of the general Resurrection this is what the Protestants say Secondly according to the Doctrine of the Latins the Body of Jesus Christ must exist in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without occupying any space if the Fathers were of this Opinion they would not have failed to have left us proofs in their Writings or if they were obliged to say the contrary of Bodies in general and when they considered them in the Order of Nature they would doubtless have brought some exception touching the glorious Body of our Lord Jesus they were too prudent and too wise to forget so considerable a Circumstance the silence whereof might have been of very dangerous consequence and have done notable prejudice unto their Doctrine so that having exactly considered what they have said of Bodies in general and in regarding what they be naturally it appears they have made no Exception for the Body of Christ it follows then of necessity as the Protestants say that they believed not that it could exist after the manner of a Spirit that is to say invisibly and without filling a space according to the measure of its dimensions this is what I could discover in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which we have remaining touching this Question which is that the Holy Fathers testify That 't is impossible that that which hath neither Bounds Cyril Alexan. de Trinit c. 3. t. 6. Aug. l. 83. quaest q. 51. t. 4. alibi Fulgent deâ— de ad Pet. c. 3. nor Limits nor Figure and which cannot be handled nor seen can be a Body That all Bodies be they what they will take up space and place by its compass And that every thing continues in the state wherein God put it when he made it it not being the property of a Body to exist after the manner of Spirits The Protestants think it was in these kinds of Occasions that the ancient Doctors of the Church ought to have 〈◊〉 if they had any other Opinion of the Body of Christ and that altho they so determined the manner of existing of Bodies yet that they acknowledged another wholly peculiar unto the Body of Christ after the Resurrection after the which he may be in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit invisibly and without taking up of any space and without that each part of this Divine Body should answer unto each part of the place which should be proportioned unto its greatness and compass Nevertheless the Truth is say they that no such thing hath ever been found in their Writings and that no exception can be found for the Body of our glorious Redeemer Shall we say that they have therein wanted Wisdom and Conduct but they think this would be to stop the course of their Glory and to slander the great Reputation they have acquired in the Church of God that it would render them useless in the Controversies which divide Christians in the West because upon each point in dispute some of either side may tax them with the like thing and make them Parties It were much better say they to confess sincerely that they believed not that the Body of Jesus Christ could exist after the manner of a Spirit nor any other manner than as Bodies are wont to exist because that after his Resurrection he would have his Apostles know by seeing and feeling that he had a true Body In the third place it is another Consequence of the Belief of the Latin Church that the Body of Jesus Christ which was formed so long agoe in the Womb of the Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost is made every day by pronouncing these Words unto which the Latins attribute the Consecration of the Sacrament I will not here examine the divers Means by which it is pretended to be done my design not permitting it because I compose an Historical Treatise as far as the Subject will permit me and do endeavour as much as possible may be to avoid any thing that savours of Dispute and Controversy I will then only say that if the Holy Fathers were of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist they could not avoid allowing as true this third Consequence which necessarily depends of it Yet nevertheless having read their Works I find they held for an undoubted Maxim Athenag legat pro Christ Tertul. contr Hermog c. 19. Just Martyr sect 17.23.43.59 p. 44. Orig. in Exod. Hom 6. Hilar. l. 12. de Trin. in Psal 138. Athanas contr Aâ—riau orat 3. That what is made was not
Doctors that spake after this manner it may be said that they did not remember to except the Sacrament of the Eucharist wherein the Accidents of Bread and Wine exist miraculously without their Subjects for tho this Reason was not very strong there being question of a Maxim equally received both by Jews and Gentiles at Athens and Jerusalem as well as by all Christians universally excepting those of the Latin Church which admit not of it in the point of the Sacrament Nevertheless with more appearance this neglect might be charged upon one or two Doctors rather than unto a Cloud of Witnesses which have testified without touching a great many others whose Testimonies we have omitted not to burden the Reader with too long a chain of Passages What likelihood saith the Protestant that so many learned illuminated prudent Persons should so universally positively and constantly teach That Accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects and that not one of them have excepted the Sacrament if they believed with the Latin Church that they did subsist in effect without their Subject I freely confess saith he that this proceeding surpriseth me and that I see no other reason of this obstinate silence but this it is that they owned the truth of this Maxim That Accidents cannot exist without their Subject in its full extent and without any Restriction which being so saith he it must be ingeniously confessed that they take not the course to favour with their Suffrages the Doctrine of a substantial Conversion seeing they have so absolutely and unanimously rejected one of its most important and necessary Consequences But besides all these Consequences which we have examined there is yet a sixth against which it is said the Holy Fathers have no less absolutely declared themselves It regards the deposition of our Senses against which the Latin Church doth oppose it self commanding not to believe them when they tell us that what we see upon the Holy Table and that what we receive there for the Comfort and Salvation of our Souls is Bread and Wine because it is not in effect neither the one or the other but appearances destitute of the Truth and that the Senses are deceived when they make us this false Report If the Holy Fathers were of this Opinion doubtless they would have had the same foresight I say they would have undervalued their Testimony as suspicious and deceitful at least in the subject of the Sacrament Let us then set about discovering what they have said the matter is well worth the pains and it well deserves the care of this Inquiry I have done it and very far from finding in their Writings any opposition against the report of the Senses I have observed that they have established their Testimony as certain and infallible and that they assure us by the Mouth of Tertullian That otherwise it would be to overthrow the whole state of Nature Te â—â—de anim s. 17. and disturb the course of our Life and even darken the Providence of God it self which by this reckoning should have given the oversight the knowledg the dispensation and enjoyment of all his Works unto lying and deceitful Masters that is unto our Senses And having chastised the Impudence of the new Academy which condemned the belief of the Senses he passeth from Philosophers unto Christians saying As for us we are not permitted no we are not suffered to question the truth of our Senses fearing least that in the things of Jesus Christ we should not take the liberty to question our Faith which he treateth at large and he proves the Faith and truth of their Testimony especially what regards this Subject he saith That the sight and hearing of the Apostles were faithful in what they reported of the Glory of our Lord when he was transfigured upon the Mount that the taste of Wine at the Marriage of Cana altho it was Water before was no less faithful as also the touching which Thomas made He alledges the Testimony of St. John saying That they declared of the Word of Life what they had heard and seen with their Eyes and their Hands had handled their Testimony saith he should then be false if the sentiment of the Eyes the Ears the Hands is of a Nature capable of Lying that is to say if these three Senses can be deceived in the Report which they make Tertul. contr Marc. l. 3. c. 8 10 11. l. 4. c. 18. alibi â— Iren. l. 3. c. 20. l. 5. c 1. Epiphan haeâ—â—l 42. Thence also it is that the same Tertullian St. Irenaeus St. Epiphanius disputing either against Marcion in particular or in general against the Hereticks Docetes and Putatives of which number Marcion was and all denied the truth of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and of his Death and Sufferings attributing unto him only a Shadow and Resemblance of a Body Thence it is I say that they often call to their aid the Testimony and deposition of the Senses to prove against these Hereticks the truth of our Saviour's Human Nature and the certainty of his Sacrifice and Death which makes Protestants say Is it possible that Men which do so powerfully establish the inviolable Fidelity of the deposition of the Sences and that clear their Testimony from any suspicion of Fraud or Deceit not to trouble the order of Nature nor to ruine the commerce and society amongst Men but above all not to shake the solid Foundation of the Religion of Jesus Christ Is it possible that those People could have been of the belief of the Latin Church touching the Sacrament for every one knows this Church declares it self against the simplicity of their Testimony that they accuse of Infidelity these faithful Witnesses and endeavour to deprive them of being believed amongst Christians because that being persuaded of their Verity and the Truth of their Deposition it will have much adoe to support and defend it self and yet more difficulty of insinuating into the Minds of those which do not question the belief of them But it may be some will say probably the Fathers have excepted in this Dispute of the Testimony of the Senses the Sacrament of the Eucharist as a particular thing and which ought not to be reckoned along with the rest if it be so it is not fit to keep it secret nor to argue against the Faith of the Latins of what they have said in behalf of the Senses this difficulty which may easily be fancied in the minds of many hath obliged me exactly to enquire into their Writings if they have not said any thing which may inform us of their Intentions and having made a strict search into all parts I find they have established the Fidelity of this same Testimony of the Senses in what relates to the Sacrament August Serm. ad Insent What you see saith St. Austin is Bread as also your Eyes do report and testify And Tertullian in the same place which gives us the
Testimony but now alledged amongst the things whereof he fears that Truth may be endangered if the Faith of the Senses are mistrusted he mentions expresly the Wine of the Sacrament Tert. de anim Christians saith he are not permitted to call the Testimony of their Senses in question fearing least they should say that Jesus Christ tasted some other savour than that of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood He alledges to defend the Fidelity of the Senses the Savour of the Wine of the Sacrament but say they it cannot be imagined that he could have reasoned after that manner if he had believed what the Latins now believe because according to their Hypothesis our Senses are grosly deceived in taking that to be Wine which is nothing less than Wine but another substance infinitely different Shall we then conclude say they that he indiscreetly betray'd his Cause and that he ignorantly chose for a convincing Proof that which was an unsurmountable Difficulty but should we say so we should undoubtedly draw upon us all the Learned who look'd upon him as one of the greatest Wits of his Time whose Mind being so enlightned and his Judgment so solid could not be charged with such a Mistake and not to call his great Reputation in question they had rather conclude according to all appearance that he was not of the belief of the present Latin Church which I refer unto the Reader 's Discretion but that nothing may be wanting to the clearing the question we now treat of and not to make the Holy Fathers contradict one another it must be observed that they considered two things as some say in the Sacrament of Christians I mean the sign and the thing signified As for the thing signified all the World agree that it falls not under the Senses and that so we should not expect that they should render us any Testimony It is Faith that must instruct and give us a Testimony it is of Faith to direct and apply to us the Efficacy and Vertue As to the Signs and Symbols they also say that they have therein also distinguished two things the Substance and their Nature and their Use and Employment that is to say the quality of the Sacraments wherewith they are qualified by favour of the Benediction For example in Baptism they pretend that Water which is the Symbol hath two Relations one of the bare Element of the Nature which keeps its Substance and the other of the Sacrament of Religion which Consecration gives it It is the same in the Eucharist for besides the Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Signs and Symbols they bear the quality of Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and it is Grace which God adds unto Nature Now to apply this unto our Subject they say that the Senses being Organs purely Natural they cannot lift themselves above Nature nor make us a true report of what doth not depend upon their Laws but whilst they keep within the bounds of their Nature and that they undertake nothing beyond their Strength and the Priviledges granted unto them their Testimony is infallible and their Deposition true and certain therefore when they shew us that the Water in Baptism is truly Water according to its Substance and the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist but Bread and Wine also in regard of their Substance they judge that we ought to believe them after what the Fathers have told us because then they do not pass the limits that God hath set them but when they will pass further and tell us that the Water of Baptism is but bare Water and the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but bare Bread and Wine we should command their silence because they pass beyond their Bounds and passing beyond the Limits of Nature they take upon them to penetrate into the Mysteries of Grace which have been only given unto Faith to dispose of they also observe that 't is in these occasions that the same Fathers forbid us to hearken unto them or receive their Testimony and that 't is so must be understood the Author of the Book of them which are initiated in St. Ambrose What have you seen Ambros l. 3. de init c. 3. l. 4. saith he I have seen Water indeed but not Water only I also see the Deacons saying Service and the Bishop examining and consecrating for the Apostle hath taught you that before all things you should look not to the things seen which are temporary Ibid. but unto those which are invisible which be eternal and again believe not the Eyes of the Body only what is not seen is most seen because the one is Temporal and the other Eternal and that which is Eternal is not perceived by the Eyes but is seen by the Spirit and by the Understanding And the Author of the Book of Sacraments Apud Ambros l. 1. de Sacram. c. 3. You have seen what may be seen with the Eyes of the Body and human Perception but you have not seen the things which operate because they are invisible those which are not seen are much more considerable than those which are seen because the things which are visible are Temporal and the things invisible are Eternal And because there is this difference betwixt the Believer and the Unbeliever that the Unbeliever hath only the Eyes of the Body and of Nature whereas the Believer hath besides the Eyes of the Body and of Nature those of the Spirit and of Faith St. Chrysostom saith that the Infidel seeth only the substance of the Symbols staying at the exterior of the Sacraments but as for the Believer he understands the Excellency the Vertue and the Meaning that is to say with the Eyes of Faith when he seeth as well as the Unbeliever the matter and substance of the Symbols with the Eyes of Nature and of the Body Câ—rysost Hom. 7. in 1 ad Cor. p. 378. The Unbeliever saith he hearing mention made of Baptism thinks that it is but Water but as for me I do not only look upon what is seen I consider also the cleansing of the Soul which is done by the Holy Ghost he thinks that my Body only is washed and I do believe my Soul is also purified and sanctified for I do not judge by the bodily Eyes of what is seen but by those of the Understanding I hear the Body of Christ named I conceive it after one manner and the Unbeliever understands it after another Which he illustrates by this excellent Comparison An illiterate Person saith he receiving a Letter takes it only for Paper and Ink but a Person that understands Letters finds quite another thing he hears a Voice and speaks with a Person absent and will in his time say what he lists and will make himself to be understood by means of Letters It is the same with the Mysteries for Unbelievers understand nothing of what they hear spoken
as the Science of Physick it self doth testifie Let the Reader be pleased to consider the Demand of Consentius and the modest Answer of St. Austin to infer what he shall judge convenient For methinks saith the Protestant that there is but two Sides to hold the one is to say That the Question of Consentius was extravagant and the Answer wholly unworthy the great St. Austin which cannot be said without want of Charity towards the one and abusing the Memory of the other The other is to own That neither St. Austin nor Consentius could have spoken as they did and believe what is now believed by the Latin Church There is scatter'd here and there in the Writings of the Ancients several Things of this Nature from whence may be drawn Evidences for the Knowledge of what they believed In this Rank may be placed the Reproach made against the Orthodox in St. Austin August contra Faust l. 20. c. 13. which we touched in Chap. III. Part 1. That they served Ceres and Bacchus under a Pretext of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament but because the Accusations of Enemies are not always certain Proofs of the Truth of what they charge Ignorance and Malice having for the most part a great Share in these Sorts of Reproaches and Accusations I would lay no great Stress upon this Reproach but now mentioned if St. Austin's Answer did not thereunto ingage me For instead of returning back this Accusation as a bitter Slander and Calumny and to say unto these Enemies of Catholicks that they were deceived in thinking that their Eucharist was Bread and Wine and in building this erroneous Opinion on this wrong Foundation that they served these false Gods of the Heathens He contents himself with telling them that it is true that the Catholicks did celebrate their Eucharist with Bread and Wine Id. ibid. but that this Bread and Wine did not regard nor relate unto Ceres and Bacchus Although saith he it is Bread and Wine yet they have no Relation unto those Heathen Idols I add unto this Reproach the Accusation of Rabbi Benjamin in St. Isidor of Damieta mentioned by us in the same Place Isid Pelus l. 1. Ep. 401. for he accuseth the Christians to have invented a new and strange Oblation in consecrating Bread unto God whereas the Law commanded bloody Sacrifices Some think St. Isidore ought to have answered this Accusation with the Lye in plainly denying the Thing If the Oblation of the Church had been not an Oblation of Bread but an Oblation of the real Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ that it was the only Way this ancient Doctor could take to stop the Mouth of this insolent Jew if the Belief of Christians of his Time had been truly so there needs only common Sense to conclude thus But St. Isidore very far from so doing he agrees with Rabbi Benjamin Id. ibid. that the Oblation of Christians is an Oblation of Bread He only tells him That he doth ill to call it New because it was practised even under the Dispensation of the Law during which they offered the Shew-bread and he reproaches him of not knowing That the Law it self did consecrate the Shew-bread Hieron Ep. 22. ad Eustoch cap. 5. St. Jerom relates of several religious Persons of his Time in that they excused themselves for drinking Wine and with the more plausible Pretext to cloke this Liberty of drinking many Times unto excess they were wont to say in adding Sacriledge to their Drunkenness Ah! God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Jesus Christ This Excuse is as they think as weak and ridiculous as could be if these religious Persons and the Christians of that Time had not believed that what was contained in the Holy Cup and which they called the Blood of Jesus Christ was truly Wine For to what purpose say they was it to insist upon what the Communicants drank at the Holy Table to authorise the Liberty they took of drinking Wine if it had not been Wine in effect So that they believed no other Explication could be given to these Words which I submit to the Judgment of those which shall read this History Moreover the Protestants say That the same St. Jerom furnisheth them again in his Dispute against Jovinian with a Proof of the Belief of the ancient Church It was about Wine Hi. ron advers Jâ—vin l. 2. c. 4. which St. Jerom would have forbidden especially unto Maids and young People Jovinian on the contrary proves That we should use it and one of the Reasons he alledges is That Jesus Christ offered Wine and not Water in the Type and Figure of his Blood This Reason of Jovinian's is of no Force if it be not supposed that what is in the Chalice is Wine it may be Jovinian was mistaken some may say and not knowing the Belief of the Church in his Time he reasoned on a wrong Ground But what appearance is there that although he was not so Eminent as his Adversary yet he had his Talents and Gifts How could he be ignorant of what was not hidden from the most Simple and Ignorant amongst the People Besides St. Jerom's Answer gives us sufficiently to understand that Jovinian's Reasoning was well and solidly grounded and that he supposed a Principle universally received by all Christians In fine however considerable a Man St. Jerom was and whatever Respect we owe unto his Memory yet we may say without wronging him that he had his Failings seeing there 's no Man without his Faults and happy is he that hath fewest as saith the Poet. The most remarkable Fault in St. Jerom was his Passion against his Adversaries and too great Earnestness in disputing which sometimes transporting him beyond the Bounds of Reason inspired him with very injurious and outragious Expressions Id. ibid c. 11. It is then very likely he would not have spared Jovinian if his Opinion had been contrary unto that of the Church and but that he would presently have cried Ah the Heretick Nevertheless he doth not do so On the contrary he answers after a manner which plainly shews that in this Point he was of the same Opinion with Jovinian Although that Jesus Christ saith he was hungry and thirsty and that he was many times at Feasts yet it is not written that he pleased his Mouth nor his Belly if you except the Mystery which he shewed in Type of his Passion We have spoken in the second Chapter of our first Part of two sorts of Christians which used only Water in the Eucharist besides the Encratites of whom we will say nothing in this Place The former in the Morning Assemblies abstained from the Use of Wine in the Celebration of the Sacrament because they feared least the Smell of it should discover them to be Christians and People which came from participating of the Eucharist and that discovering them to be such Cyprian Ep. 63. it might expose them
you cannot understand then you may now say unto me seeing you have commanded us to believe explain unto us what it is to the end we might understand for this Thought may be in every body's Mind We know of whom Jesus Christ our Lord took Flesh to wit of the Virgin Mary we know he was nursed in his Infancy that he was fed that he grew that he attained the Age of Manhood that he suffered Persecution of the Jews that he was nailed to the Cross that he there died and was buried that he rose the third Day that he ascended into Heaven when he was pleased to go thither that he lifted up his Body from whence he shall come to judg the quick and the dead and that he is now sitting on the right Hand of the Father How then is the Bread his Body and the Cup his Blood Brethren these things are called Sacraments because one thing is what we see and another is that we understand that which is seen is a bodily Species that which we understand hath a spiritual Fruit If then you would know what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to St. Paul the Apostle which said unto Believers You are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members your Sacrament is laid upon the Lord's Table and you there receive your Mystery You say Amen unto what you are and you thereto subscribe by your Answer It is said unto you The Body of Jesus Christ and you answer Amen be Members then of Jesus Christ that your Amen may be true But why all this to the Bread let us not add here nothing of our own but let us farther hear the same Apostle speaking of this Sacrament We which are many are one Bread and one Body understand this and rejoice for here is nothing but Unity Piety Charity one Bread and one Body although we be many Observe that the Bread is not made of one Grain but of many When you were exorcised you passed as it were under the Mill when you were baptised you were as it were kneaded and when you received the fire of the Holy Ghost you were baked like Bread Be then what you see and receive what you are See here what the Apostle hath said of Bread whereby he sufficiently shews without repeating it what we should believe in regard of the Cup for as to make this visible Species of Bread several Grains are reduced into one Body to represent what the Scripture saith of Believers they were but one Heart and one Soul in God It is also the same of Wine consider how it is one several Grapes are in a Bunch but their Liquor is mingled all into one Body so it is Christ hath represented us so it is he hath made us his and that he hath consecrated upon the holy Table the Mystery of Unity and of our Peace So it was they instructed in the ancient Church the new Baptised they were told that what they see upon the Holy Table was Bread and their own Eyes were called to witness this Truth They were taught that this Bread was the natural Body of Jesus Christ as it was his mystical and moral Body that is to say his Church because it is the Sacrament both of the one and the other and that in the Sacrament must carefully be distinguished the Substance of the Symbols which are visible and corporeal from the Benefit which accrues unto the believing Soul and which is a Thing invisible and spiritual that faithful Believers are although for mystical Reasons the very same thing which they see upon the mystical Table that is to say Bread according to what the Apostle saith we are one Bread and that they do receive truly that which they see mystically Now let the Reader judg if these Catechisms and these Instructions are for the Use of Roman Catholicks or for the Use of Protestants as for my particular I 'le pass unto a new Consideration CHAP. VIII Proofs of the Doctrines of the Holy Fathers drawn by Protestants from some Customs of the Ancient Church THere are two sorts of Language used in the Society and Commerce of Men to communicate unto each other their Thoughts and Intentions I mean Words and Actions The Language of Actions is silent indeed yet nevertheless very intelligible because Actions I speak of those authorized by publick Use are for the most part as significant as Words It is not then to be thought strange if we do relate what Inferences the Protestants draw from certain Customs which were practised by the ancient Church and which we have at large established in the first Part Therefore we will look upon them in this as established and will content our selves in barely mentioning them one after another to infer from each of them what may lawfully be deduced In Africa in St. Austin's time they communicated after Meat Thursday before Easter and in several Churches in Egypt every Saturday in the Year at Evening after having made a good Meal Without speaking of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time where some think the same was practis'd what Belief could those People have of the Sacrament of the Eucharist It is no very easie matter to think that they believed it to be the Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ and his Flesh it self else it must be confessed that they were guilty of an horrible Profanation to lodg in a Stomach full of Meats and it may be sometimes even to excess the precious Body of the Saviour of Mankind the only Object of their Worship and Adoration Nevertheless none of the ancient Writers have condemned this Practice those which have treated of it have spoken as of an innocent Custom which had no hurt in it and which moreover was authorized by the Example of Jesus Christ himself Therefore when the third Council of Carthage commanded to celebrate the Sacrament fasting it excepted the Thursday before Easter whereon it permitted to participate every Year after the Meal An evident Proof say some that there was no Crime in this Custom whereas it would have been intolerable if they had believed then the same of the Sacrament as the Latin Church now doth belive of it Therefore no Body can justly blame the Severity of its Laws when it is so strictly prohibited to communicate otherwise than Fasting The ancient Church for a long time used Patens and Chalices of Glass and we do not find that these first Christians ever made any difficulty of putting the Sacrament in Glass-Chalices nor that they were ever blamed that did it On the contrary some of those which used this Practice were commended for it nevertheless we cannot say that these ancient Believers were less circumspect than we are in the Celebration of the Sacrament Wherefore then was it that they feared not so much spilling of it in that Occasion as the Latin Church hath done some Ages past Let this Difference be well considered for saith the Protestant I am much deceived if
upon a serious and impartial Debate it will not be attributed unto the Difference of Judgment it not being to be imagin'd that Christians so good and zealous and fervent for the Religion of Jesus Christ as those were of whom we speak and have had the same Belief of the Sacrament that the Latin Church at this time hath which for some time past doth not suffer the Use of Glass-Chalices that they had not at least used so much Precaution as she doth to consecrate and distribute the Sacrament I mean they would have made it a Scruple of Conscience of putting the Body of their God and Saviour in so brittle a Thing as Glass those which were so careful that none of the sacred Symbols of their Bread and Wine should fall to the Ground The ancient Christians gave the Eucharist to young sucking Children at the Breast a Custom which continued in the West until the XIIth Century and which is still practised in most Christian Communions excepting the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants How came it to pass this Abuse was so long tolerated in the Church if it had been always believed therein what the Latins do believe at present who cannot justly be blamed by little and little to have abolished this Custom One could not without Horror see exposed what was believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ unto the undecent and sad Accidents which oftentimes of necessity happen in communicating of young Children those little Creatures being uncapable by reason of their tender Age of receiving the Sacrament with Respect which is due unto the Body it self of Jesus Christ our Redeemer But wherefore did the ancient Church for so many Ages suffer such an Abuse or at least having tolerated it some time wherefore had she not bethought her self of abolishing it instead of letting it take root in the midst of it Was it not so wise as the Church at this time is Had she less Zeal less Piety and less Prudence had she less love for Jesus Christ or less Veneration for his sacred Person certainly I suppose not This Difference then of Conduct cannot be grounded upon any other Reason but upon the Difference of Faith whilst Christians believed that what they received in the Eucharist was Bread and Wine in Substance but that at the same time they were also the Divine Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ the Reasons which moved them to give the Eucharist unto young Children made them pass by the Indecencies which might be feared on the Behalf of these little Creatures But when the Doctrine changed in the West and that in the Latin Church they began to say that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ this ancient Custom was abolished it not agreeing well with their Belief And indeed we see this Abolition was made about the time when this notable Change happened in their Doctrine And because that in other Christian Communions there is no Alteration happened by any publick Decree in the Tradition of their Fathers upon the Subject of the Sacrament they have innocently retained the ancient Custom of giving the Sacrament unto little Children I confess this Practise is contrary to what St. Paul desires of Communicants which is to examine themselves before they draw near unto the holy Table of which Proof little Children are uncapable But as we do not here treat but only of what was done by the ancient Christians and of what is still practised by several Christian Churches and not of what ought to be done I 'le say no more of it referring the Induction which the Protestants draw from this Practise unto the Judgment of all reasonable Persons which will take the Pains to read this History The Communion under both Kinds was practis'd in the Church until these last Ages wherein the Latins deprived the People of the Use of the sacred Cup for as for all other Christian Societies which hold not Correspondence with her they retain the Custom of administring the Sacrament under both Symbols altho with some little Difference The great Ground of the Latin Church for so doing being through Fear of shedding it But how comes it to pass that this Fear is so lately crept into their Thoughts Whence is it that she her self practis'd the Communion under both Kinds for above a thousand Years without any body scrupling it On the contrary when she began to forbid the Use of the Cup unto the People by a Decree at the beginning of the XVth Century a great many Persons complained of it and whole Countries earnestly desired it might be restored unto them Wherefore did she so long time grant unto her People the Communion under both Symbols distinctly Was there then less cause of Fear of shedding than when they deprived them of this Advantage particularly at the time when in Rome it self they used Chalices of Glass For it must be owned that Glass being a weak thing there was never greater ground to fear spilling than during the time those Chalices were used yet nevertheless when there was most cause of this Fear they suffered the People to participate of the Cup of our Lord as well as of his Bread and when there is less Danger Glass-Chalices being no longer in Use they are refused it Whence say they proceeds such a notable Change which could have no shew of Reason if the Doctrine had not been altered but because wise and prudent Persons do not incline unto these Sorts of Changes without some powerful Motives it must be freely confessed that no other can be found whatever Scrutiny could be made but the Change of Belief And in truth say they again if this Change be not presupposed it will be a very hard matter to forbear censuring those of Lightness which made it a Change I say of the Nature that is of and in a thing which was grounded upon the Authority of Christ himself and the constant Practice of so many Ages Whereas if the prohibiting the Cup be considered as a Consequence of this Change it will not be hard to conceive that the Fear of shedding the real Blood of the Son of God obliged them to forbid unto the People the Use of the holy Cup rather chusing to deprive them of this Comfort and Consolation than to fall into the Inconvenience of some negligent spilling of the Substance it self of the Blood of their Divine Saviour A Fear which hath not seised the other Christian Communions because they have not practis'd any Innovation in this particular or that at least there hath not any been made by any publick Determination In the ancient Church the Eucharist was delivered into the Communicants Hand who with the Hand put it into their Mouth as hath been proved and we may produce Examples of this Practice in the XIIth Century in Flanders At this time in the Latin Church it is put directly into the Communicants Mouth unto whom it is not permitted to receive it
as they have contrived against them amongst so many Calumnies wherewith they have endeavoured to slander them they have never attacqued them about the Mystery of the Sacrament The Emperor Julian scoffed at the Mystery of Baptism but as for the Sacrament of the Eucharist we do not find that either him or any other hath ever given it the least Onset Their Admiration is the greater when they consider that the Doctrine of the real Presence hath been exposed unto very sharp Reproaches of the wise Men of the World for Cardinal du Perron relates Du Perr de l' Eucharast l. 3 c. 29. p. 973. La Boulay le Goux in his Travels part 1. c. 10 p. 21. upon the Credit of Sarga a Jesuit that the Philosopher Averroes a Mahometan by Religion said That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than that of Christians who eat and tear the God which they adore And Mr. Boulay le Goux doth testifie in his Travels That Mahometan Soldiers in a Contest they had with his Servants amongst other Reproaches which they used they called them Wicked Unbelievers Eaters of their God I will not here insist upon the Treatise of Joseph Albon a Spanish Jew called Ikkarim wherein he represents all the Inconveniencies which arise from the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and which as he conceiveth doth contradict the Lights of Reason and the Testimony of the Senses but I will only say that the Protestants draw this Consequence That if the ancient Christians had been of that Belief the Jews and the Gentiles would not have failed in all likelihood to have reproached them of it and to have made it the Subject of their Scorn for they cannot think that Celsus had less Wit than Averroes nor that the ancient Enemies of Christianity were less inquisitive nor less concerned than the Turks are now who commonly live in Ignorance The Roman Empire was never more refined by Arts and Sciences than when the Christian Religion began to be established so that Christians had for their Enemies and Persecutors Men full of Wit Knowledg and of Understanding and which had spent a great part of their time in Search of Learning nevertheless we do not find that they have contested with them upon the Subject of the Eucharist nor that ever they made them the Reproaches that Averroes and the Turks have made and do still make unto those of the Latin Church It is the Observation which the late Mr. Rigaut made Rigalt not ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Uxor c. 5. when he said That amongst so many Villanies and Injuries wherewith they charged the Christians even in accusing them of Impiety under pretext they had no Altars and that they sacrificed not And amongst so many Apostates which fell away from their Religion there was not one found that accused them of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of their God And to say the Truth say the Protestants there is great Reason to wonder at this Silence if it be supposed that the ancient Christians believed and did what is done and believed by the Latin Church in the point of the Sacrament We know that the Romans and Greeks despised the Religion of the Egyptians which was indeed full of Idolatry Javenal Satyr 15. and which one of their best Poets made a Mock of in one of his Satyrs Neither are we ignorant of these Words of the best of their Orators Cicero l. 3. de Nat. Deor. Do you think there is any Man such a Fool as to believe that what he eats is God They cannot then conceive that those People were of such Thoughts and that they should have been silent towards Christians if they had indeed believed that they did eat the Flesh it self of their God and Saviour What likelihood is there they would have spared them upon it after having flouted them with most of their Mysteries and after having made them the Subject of their Raileries and Pastimes Certainly when they compare this constant and continued Silence with the Reproach made against the Latins they can see no other Cause of this different Proceeding but the Difference of Belief For if the primitive Christians had believed with the Latin Church that what they receive at the Lord's Table was truly and really their God the Gentiles would not have failed to have made them the same Reproaches which the Infidels make against the Latins Seeing then they have not been exposed unto the like Reproaches one cannot chuse as they think but conclude in all likelihood that they had not the same Belief yet it must be granted there iâ— to be seen in the Writings of the Ancients one Testimony from whence it may seem to be collected that the Gentiles believed that Christians did really eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ It is Oecumenius that hath preserv'd it under the Name of St. Irenaeus and of the first Martrys of Lyons Oecumen Comment in 1 Pet. c. 2. he thus represents it unto us The Greeks having taken the Servants of Christian Catechumenies and torturing them to discover some Secrets touching the Christians These Servants having nothing to say to the liking of those which tormented them except what they had heard their Masters say That the Divine Communion is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ they also thinking it was really Flesh and Blood said so unto those which examined them which they took as if the thing had been indeed done by Christians and they signified so much unto the other Greeks and constrained Sanctus and Blandina the Martyrs by violence of Torments to confess it but Blandina answered them boldly and to the Purpose with these Words How can it be that those who abstain from Meats which are allowed them should endure such things It is said that whoever will but take the pains to compare this Relation of Oecumenius with the ample and exact Relation of what passed in the Tryals of the Martyrs of Lyons and Vienna which is conserved till our Time in Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History and with what the Fathers 7 or 800 hundred Years elder than him have taught us to wit That the Gentiles have not at all made these Reproaches against Christians upon the Subject of the Sacrament would therein finde so many and great Differences that he would verily conclude that Oecumenius in all likelihood relying too much upon his Memory hath reported an Occasion of this Reproach quite otherwise than it is to be seen in the Acts inserted by Eusebius in his History and particular Circumstances which are not there to be found some whereof are also contrary unto those which are therein at this present but that none should have Cause to complain as if it were intended to discredit a Testimony which may give light unto the History which we write it must be received as it is without inquiring any farther if it agrees or not agrees with the Acts before spoken of To this Effect it
Adversary without at the same time giving mortal blows to the Eucharist of Orthodox Christians of his time if it had been the same with that of the Latins But because those which know the rare Genius of Tertullian will never accuse him of so great Imprudence it must of necessity be concluded that the belief of the Church of his time upon the point of the Sacrament was quite contrary unto that of the Latin Church they think one cannot chuse but make this conclusion which I leave unto the Reader 's Liberty And from this Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion I proceed unto that which the ancient Church had against the Encratites which detesting Wine as a Diabolical thing and sinful to be used did celebrate the Mysteries with bare Water What have the Holy Fathers said unto them how have they refuted this Heresy have they said unto them that our Saviour having employed Wine to the matter of this Sacrament bare Water cannot be converted into the Blood of Jesus Christ have they further said to them that the aversion they had against Wine should not hinder them from using it in the celebration of the Eucharist because though it were Wine before Consecration yet it was not after the substance of it being changed by the vertue of Consecration into the substance of the real Blood of Jesus Christ and that so 't is no longer Wine which we drink but the real Blood of the Saviour of the World they have said nothing of all this unto them but then what have they said unto them they have constantly represented that Jesus Christ Offered Wine which be gave and drank thereof Which they prove by these Words I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until the day I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom It is in this manner that Clemens of Alexandria St. Epiphanius and St. Chrysostom argued against these Hereticks as hath been shewn in the second Chapter of the first part But it is enough spoken to this matter it is time to conclude this Chapter and by the same means I will conclude the Proofs drawn from the Disputes of the. Holy Fathers against Hereticks by the consideration of what passed betwixt them and the Eutychians The Heresy of the Eutychians following the same Track of the most part of others sought out Artifices and Invention the easier to insinuate it self into the Minds of Men thereby to make the greater Progress For although for the most part they declared there was two Natures in Jesus Christ but that at the instant of his being received up into the Heavenly Glory the Human Nature was changed into the Nature or Substance of the Divine Nature yet nevertheless I conceive to speak truly their Heresy was not much different in this point from the Heresy of Marcion and his Companions which formerly denied the Truth of Christ's Human Nature and only attributed unto him a Shew and Appearance And what makes me think so is that the ancient Doctors of the Church do testify that Eutyches did teach that Jesus Christ took nothing of the substance of the Holy Virgin but having brought I know not what Body of his own from his Heavenly Father he only passed through the Womb of the Blessed Virgin as through a Channel I will not insist upon alledging all the Passages of the Fathers which mention this it shall suffice to instance in some few Feriand Diacon ad Anato He would not confess saith the Deacon Ferrand that the Son was consubstantial with his Mother for he denied that the Holy Virgin had communicated unto the only Son of God which was to be born of her by the vertue of the Holy Ghost the substance of his Flesh And Vigilius an African saith Diac. Vigil adv Eutych l. 3. c. 3. alibi that he assured the Word was so made Flesh that it only passed through the Womb of the Virgin as Water passeth through a Conduit but that he did not believe that he took any thing of her which was of the Nature of our Flesh And Theodoret treating historically of this Heresy which he so learnedly hath refuted in his Writings Theod. haeret Fabul l. 4. 13. p. 246. t. 4. Eutyches saith he taught that God the Word took nothing of the Human Nature of the Virgin Mary but that he was steadily changed and made Flesh I use his ridiculous Expressions that he only passed through the Body of the Virgin and that it was the incomprehensible Divinity of the only Son of God which had been crucified buried and raised from the Dead Therefore the Count Marcellin said in his History Ma cell Cem. in Chronol Theodoret Bishop of Cyr wrote of the Incarnation of Christ against the Priest Eutyches and against Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria which asserted that Jesus Christ had not Human Flesh St. Prosper also observes in his Prosp in Chronol ad Consul Astur Protog that this Arch Heretick said That Jesus Christ our Lord Son of the Blessed Virgin partaked not of the substance of his Mother but that in the likeness of Man he had only the Nature of the Son of God This as I conceive is the exact Opinion of the Eutychians conformable in this point with Marcion therefore I find that the Holy Fathers which disputed against them have employed the Sacrament against them in the same sence and the same manner as those which preceded them had done against the Marcionites I mean that they proved by this Sacrament the truth of the Body of Jesus Christ as commonly the truth of a thing is proved by its Image Theod. dial 2. p. 84. t. 4. and by its Picture An Image say they must of necessity have its Original for Painters do imitate Nature and delineate things which they do see if then the Divine Mysteries are the Figures or Anti-types of a true Body it follows that our Saviour hath now a Body not changed into the Nature of the Divinity but filled with the Divine Glory It is the reasoning of Theodoret in his second Dialogue which he repeats again in two other places I cannot comprehend saith the Protestant the meaning of this ancient Doctor if the Doctrine of the real Conversion at that time was an Article of Faith in the Church wherefore to alledg the Sacrament as an Image and a Figure to prove the verity of the Body of Christ if it were really and truly the very Body it self I cannot understand this Difficulty but in freely confessing that Christians at that time did not know nor believe this real Conversion whence it was that Theodoret did argue against the Eutychians just as Tertullian had done before against the Marcionites The Evidence of this Truth will yet better appear if it be considered that there was an universal Peace amongst the Orthodox and the Eutychians touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist which Peace had been incompatible with the belief of the substantial Conversion which the
our Saviour gave unto his Disciples in his Sacrament the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable sanctification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour hath changed the Legal Sacrifices into Sacrifices of Bread and Wine And that whereas the Ancients celebrated the Passion of our Lord in the Flesh and Blood of Sacrifices we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine According to which he testifies in a great many places Homil. de Sanct. in Epiph as hath been seen in the 4th Chapter That Jesus Christ is absent from us as to his Body but is present by his Divinity It is true he saith That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is received by the Mouth of believers for their Salvation But after what he hath spoken it is very evident say the Protestants that he speaks not of receiving them in their matter and Substance but in their Sacrament accompanied with a quickning and saving virtue and that if he be not so understood he will be made to contradict himself and to destroy with one hand what he built with the other therefore it is that he distinguisheth the Sacrament and that he declares that the wicked participate only of the Sign and not of the thing signified saying with St. Prosper in the Sentences drawn from St. Austin Id. in 1. ad Cor. 11. He that is not reconciled unto Jesus Christ neither eats his Flesh nor drinketh his Blood although he receiveth every day the Sacrament of so great a thing unto his condemnation It is also true that he often calls the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but he declareth with St. Austin whom he exactly follows Id. in cap. 6. ad Rom. Id. in Marc. cap. 14. That it is by reason of the resemblance they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments And with St. Isidor of Sevil That it is because Bread strengthens the body and Wine increaseth Blood in the Flesh and that for this reason the Bread relates mystically unto the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine to his Blood And because say they in the matter of Sacraments it is not so much to be consider'd what they be August contra Maxim l. 3. c. 22. saith St. Austin as what it is they signifie because that as Signs they are one thing and yet they do signifie another Venerable Bede makes no difficulty to say That the Bread and Wine being visibly offered another thing must be understood which is Invisible to wit The true Body and Blood of Christ because in effect he will have the Believer raise up his Soul and his Faith unto Jesus Christ sitting at the right Hand of his Father for as he told us before He carried by his Ascension into the Invisible Heavens Beda domui vocem Ju. Id. Hom. de Astil de temp in vigil Pasch the Humane Nature which he had taken In fine he is not afraid to speak of Sacrificing again Jesus Christ for the advancement of our Salvation but all Christians agreeing That Jesus Christ cannot any more be truly Sacrificed he doubtless speaks of offering him by the Sacrament whence it is that he acknowledgeth with St. Austin That Jesus Christ was once offered in himself Let the Reader judge then what advantage the Latins can draw from these latter words of Bedes which they mightily esteem Unto Bede may be joyned Sedulius a Scotchman or more truly an Irishman not him that composed the Easter work who was much later than the other I mean the Author of the Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. Paul which many attribute unto one Sedulius a Bishop in England but originally of Ireland who assisted with Fergust a Bishop of Scotland at a Council held at Rome under Gregory the 2d Anno Dom. 721. I find that the Author of these Commentaries expounding the 4th Verse of the 6th Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians cites a long passage of the 14th Chapter and 19th Book of the Morals of Gregory the First without naming him Now this Sedulius whom we place in the VIII Century until we receive better information furnisheth us with these words which he seemeth to have taken out of Pelagius and Primasius when explaining these words of St. Sedul Comment in 1. ad Cor. C. 11. Paul Do this in remembrance of me he saith He lest us his remembrance as if one going a long Loyage left a Present with his Friend to the end that every time he saw it he should think of his Love and Friendship which he could not look upon without grief and tears if he dearly loved him Whereby he shews that Jesus Christ left us his Sacrament to be in his stead until he comes again from Heaven We read in the Life of the Abbot Leufred Vita Leufred C. 17. in Chron Insulae term about the beginning of the VIII Century that Charles Martell having desired him to obtain of God by his prayers the recovery of his young Son Gryphon he gave him the Sacrament of the Body of Christ In notis Menard in Sacram Greg. And we have seen in the second Chapter by the testimony of a Pontifical Manuscript kept in the Church of Roan that Christians then believed that what was drank in the Eucharist was a thing which might be consumed as that was indeed consumed If we pass from the West into the East German Germ. Constantinop Theor. rerum Eccles t. 12. Bibl. Patr. pa. 402. 403. Patriarch of Constantinople and a great stickler for Image Worship will present himself unto us in the beginning of this same Century and tells us that the Priest prays a second time to the end the Mystery of the Son of God may be accomplished and that the Bread and Wine should be made and changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ which the Latins stand upon very much but the Protestants pretend he declares very favourably for them and moreover they observe that it is not certain this piece is that German's which lived in the VIII Century others attributing it to another German that lived in the XII They indeed observe that to shew of what kind the change whereof he speaks is he saith In celebrating the Eucharist Ibid. p. 410. the Oblation is broken indeed like bread but it is distributed as the Communication of an ineffable benediction unto them which participate thereof with Faith He testifies that what is distributed at the holy Table is Bread but Bread accompanied with the Blessing of God and with a Heavenly and Divine Virtue for the Salvation and Consolation of Believers Ibid. p. 408. And in another place he saith That presently after Elevation the Division of the holy body is made but though it is divided into parts it remains indivisible and inseparable and that it is known and found whole and
may happen in going about to adjust some ancient expressions with his new Opinion to make his disguise succeed the better He proceeded by way of Explication it shall suffice to say that it seems it may be so gathered from the words of his Letter unto Frudegard Although saith he I have writ nothing in this Book Pasch ep ad Frude p. 1â—25 which I have dedicated unto a certain young Man which might be worthy the Reader nevertheless as I am informed I have excited several persons to the understanding of this Mystery Thence it is that in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Lord he speaks of his Explication as of an admirable thing and whereof sufficient heed had not yet been taken Id de corp sang Dom. c. 1. To the end saith he I might yet say something more admirable But the chief is to know wherein his opinion did consist Those that will a little consider his Writings may observe he taught That what is received in the Sacrament is the same Flesh of that which was born of the Virgin Mary Id ibid. and which suffered Death for us Although saith he the Figure of Bread and Wine doth remain yet you must absolutely believe that after Consecration it is nothing but the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ for which reason the Truth it self said unto his Disciples It is my Flesh for the Life of the World and to say something more admirable It is no other Flesh but that which was born of the Virgin Mary that suffered upon the Cross and which is raised out of the Sepulchre So it is that he explains himself also again in the 4th Chapter of the same Book and several times in his Letter unto Frudegard It is the testimony that an Anonymus Author gives us which Father Cellot hath published Aut Anonym l. de Euchar. apud Cellot in append histor Gostech op 7. and which was one of his Adherents Paschas saith he establisheth under the name of St. Ambrose That what is received at the Altar is no other Flesh than that born of the Virgin Mary which suffered on the Cross which was raised out of the Grave and is at present offered for the Life of the World Against which Rabanus in his Letter to the Abbot Egilon sufficiently doth argue In fine we shall be informed by Rabanus and by Ratramn that it was the Opinion of Paschas and that nothing should be wanting to the establishing of his Opinion he wrote two Books of the Virgins being delivered of Child which Books had always gone in the name of Ildefons Archbishop of Tolledo T. 1. Spicileg praes ad Ratiam and are at this time under that name in the last Edition of the Library of the holy Fathers But Dom Luke d'Achery a Benedictine Friar hath informed us by the help of Manuscripts that Paschas was the true Author of them In these two Books he teacheth that the blessed Virgin was Delivered after an extraordinary and miraculous manner and that Jesus Christ was not born after the common course of Nature but that he came out of the Womb of this blessed Maid without any opening and not as Tertullian saith in some of his Writings Lege patefacti Corporis But as Bertram or Ratramn refuted the ground of the Doctrine of Paschas so he also refuted this progress of it by a little Treatise he wrote on purpose on the Birth of Jesus Christ wherein several times he qualifies with the name of Heresie the Opinion which he refutes whereas I do not find that he ever gave this name unto what his Adversary had taught of the Sacrament which gives me occasion to make this conjecture which I freely submit unto the Reader 's Judgment to wit That Paschas having proceeded in what he wrote of the Sacrament by way of Explication and as one that did seek for the true knowledge of this Mystery His Adversaries did not call this Doctrine Heresie how erroneous soever they knew him to be in other ther things because in the Church it was not the custom to call any single error Heresie unless it was attended with Obstinacy But Ratramn having seen the Books of the Virgins Delivery which were written after what he had taught of the Sacrament and as he drew near his Death Ratram de nativit Christ c. 4.5.9 t. 1. Specileg or as he saith himself in the Preface of Dom Luke d'Achery Multo jam senio confectus And having thereby judged That he was not now a man that desired to be instructed but was strongly confirmed in the Opinion he had taught and which he endeavoured to support by establishing the consequences which might best suit with his Principles he made no scruple to render this of which we speak odious in calling it Heresie but after all whatever my conjecture may be Paschas de corp sang Dom. c. 14. it is certain that Paschas omitted nothing that might set off his Opinion not Visions it self and Apparitions of Jesus Christ during the Celebration of the Sacrament not fearing to be jeered that he was the first that bethought himself of speaking of these kinds of Apparitions unknown unto Christians for above 800. years seeing that in effect there is no certain Author found that hath made any mention of them yet that hindred not but Cardinal Bellarmine and Father Sirmond consider'd him as the first that cleared and explained the Mystery of the Sacrament Bellarm. de script Eccles This Author saith Bellarmine was the first that wrote seriously and amply of the truth of the body and blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist And Sirmond Sirmond in vita Paschas operibus ciupraeâ—ixa He first of all so explained the true sense of the Catholick Church that he open'd the way unto all others that have since written of the same matter But so it is that if the belief of Paschas was the Ancient Belief of the Church he deserv'd to be loaden with blessings and thanks for having so happily laboured for the Instruction and Edification of Christians and in all likelihood no body would have dared to contradict or oppose the Doctrine which he published or if any one undertook so to do he should make himself the Object of hatred and aversion unto all the World It is then requisite to know how men carryed it towards him after that he had published his Opinion If we enquire of himself he will inform us that he was accused of departing from the common Belief and of having rashly spread abroad the thoughts of a young head for see here how he writes unto his intimate Friend Frudegard Pasch Ep. ad Frudegard pag. 1632. You have saith he at the end of this little Book the Sentences of Catholick Fathers succinctly noted by which you may see that it was not out of a hasty fit that I formerly meditated these things in my younger days but that I
Brain tell us better than Pasehas himself what their Opinion was Paschas told us in the foregoing Chapter that those People did not judge as he did teach That the Eucharist was the Flesh which was born of the holy Virgin but the Figure and the Sacrament of that Flesh a Figure and Sacrament filled with the Vertue and Efficacy of this Divine Flesh so that believing that the Bread remaining Bread after Consecration they also believed that as to its substance and matter part of it turned into our proper substance for the nourishment of our Bodies and the other part passed the way of our common Food which is directly to speak plainly the Opinion of those at this present called Calvinists Now if this Belief was Erronious if this Opinion was Heretical contrary unto that of the Church and different from the Ancient belief of Christians is it probable that King Charles the Bald would have chosen for his Principal Chaplain by consent of the Pope and the Synods of his Kingdom and that the Clergy of France would have suffered to preside over it a man infected with such an Opinion Or that Hinemar after his Death should call him a Bishop of venerable memory And that there should be engraven on his Tomb Here lyeth the Body of St. Heribold I cannot think so but rather that the Opinion of Heribold and the other Adversaries of Paschas which is the same of the Calvinists was the most general Opinion in the IX Century and that that of Paschas which is followed by Roman Catholicks at this time was not approved at that time but was opposed by all the great and learned Men of that Age. This is what the Protestant saith and the inference he makes from the Dignity and Belief of Heribold CHAP. XV. A Continuation of the History of the IX Century wherein is examined the silence of the two Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second with two Observations touching the Greek Church IT is a thing very worthy to be observed and which deserves serious consideration that the Popes Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second having been Spectators of so obstinate a combate without engaging on either side and having been silent in a time when they ought to speak and seen Mens minds divided although unequally upon the subject of the Sacrament yet after all declared not themselves in favour of the one side or the other and it doth not appear that they open'd their mouths either to condemn or approve either of the two Opinions So that if the Roman Catholicks do say that they condemned not their Doctrine in the person of Paschas the Protestants can also affirm That they pronounced no sentence against their Belief in the persons of his Adversaries which were incomparably more famous both in number and quality than the followers of Paschas because that instead of one or two at the most at least that is come to our knowledge which followed him we have heard the testimonies of Sixteen the Principal Chaplain Bishops Archbishops Abbots and others which in that Age opposed themselves directly or indirectly unto his Opinion as being contrary unto the Belief which untill that time had been generally received in the Church But if after what hath been said the Latin Church shall continue to teach that the Belief of Protestants which we have proved to be that of the Adversaries of Paschas was at that time esteemed erroneous then it must necessarily follow say they that she confess that Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second may justly be suspected to be guilty thereof Decret Grat. dist 82. c. Error Leo. I. Ep. 93. c. 15. according to this Maxim of the Law inserted by Gratian in his Decree That one approves the Error whereunto he makes no opposition And according unto what is said by Leo the First That he which recalls not a Man from his Error sheweth that he erreth himself And if on the other hand she affirms that the Doctrine of Paschas which is hers was at that time acknowledged to be Catholick and Orthodox and the publick Doctrine of the Church she would tacitly accuse these two Popes for having suppressed it as Adversaries and Enemies according unto what is contained in the same Maxim of the Law before alledged Decret Grat. ubi supra That the Truth is suppressed when it is not defended For to imagine that Nicholas and Adrian had not knowledge of this great Contest cannot reasonably be said The thing had made too great a noise for them to be ignorant of it Had there been indeed only bare verbal Disputes this pretext might have some colour but there having been Books written on either part and some of them having been composed by Order and Command of a King of France it is nothing probable that the Apostolical See should be wholly ignorant of the matter under Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second Wherefore then may it be said Did they not take part Wherefore did they not declare either for Paschas or for his Adversaries Wherefore had they not condemned the one and protected the others If the Doctrine of Paschas had been the ancient Doctrine of the Church why did they not authorize it by their Approbations And wherefore did they not thunder out their Censures against that of his Adversaries Or if the Belief of his Adversaries were the ancient Belief of Christians wherefore did they not encourage it by their Power And why did they not Anathematize the Novelty of Paschas This difficulty deserves to be carefully enquired into there being not many Demonstrations to resolve it but only several Conjectures and Circumstances which I refer unto the Judgment of those that shall take the pains of reading this Treatise It is said then in the first place that although we have not positively said that Paschas proceeded by way of Explication yet we have made appear that in all likelihood it was the way he took not to irritate Mens Minds in proposing his Opinion Secondly that Paschas his Party had no Followers during the IX Century as hath been already proved So that having but a very few it remained very probably inclosed in the Cloisters of some Friars which he might have gained unto his Party wherein it hid it self from the many oppositions which it found until some more favourable time should present to advance and establish it self in the World And in fine that the Belief of his Adversaries had the Victory and Advantage in this Age being generally received and practised in all the West Nicholas then and after him Adrian considering that the Opinion of Paschas was opposed by the most eminent Men of that Age that it had no Followers nor Adherents and that after all the Opposition it found in its first Establishment it would not do any prejudice unto the other they very judiciously believed that it was the wisest course to let it fall of it self and to refer unto
parts it was publickly professed And this easily persuades me that Berengarius did not so much infuse this Opinion into them as he encouraged them by his Example to publish it by rousing them up from the stupidness wherein they had layen for some time For had this people believed no more of the Eucharist than just what Berengarius had taught this Doctrine could scarce have made so great a progress in so little a time but as it was instill'd into them from Father to Son Berengarius had no sooner opened his mouth but that they embraced it not regarding the fear that had till then discouraged them seeing the Contradiction it found in the World whilst that of Paschas therein received favour and encouragement But because the Enemies of this Doctrine have looked upon Berengarius to have been the true Author of it they have taxed him of infecting with the Venom of his Heresie all those which by his example had the courage to make Profession of it It is with this prejudice that Matthew of Westminster saith Ad Ann. 1â— 87. That he had almost infected all France Italy and England Matthew Paris and William of Malmesbury say Matt. Paris in Willielm II. Will. Malms 6. in Willielm l. l. 3. That all France was full of his Doctrine So it is that Durandus of Troarn an ancient Monastery in Normandy also saith in a Treatise which he made of the Body and Blood of Christ wherein he opposeth the Doctrine taught by Berengarius It cannot be doubted but that the Doctrine of Berengarius was the same with that taught by several in the IX Century which opposed the Opinions of Paschas as Novelties which until then had not been heard of in the Church If then the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas was the ancient Belief of Christians as we suppose hath been sufficiently proved it must be granted that Berengarius did not depart from it and that those which followed him had been of old instructed therein Therefore as soon as he began to bublish it they knew it and without any difficulty made Profession of it But if Berengarius had Friends he also had Enemies if he had Followers he had also those which opposed him The first that attempted to write against him seems to be Adelman which from Theologal of the Church of Liege became Bishop of Bress He had studied with Berengarius under Fulbert Bishop of Chartres and having heard what Berengarius taught of the Sacrament of the Eucharist he wrote him a Letter wherein having renewed the memory of their old Friendship he shews that it was reported of him that he taught Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. ult ed. p. 167. That the Eucharist is not the true Body nor the real Blood of Jesus Christ but the Figure and Resemblance Adelman endeavours to refute this Doctrine but by Reasons which appear weak and some also that do not very well agree with his Hypothesis but Berengarius answered him in such a manner as he might see that he did not much value his Reproof and that he was resolved always to defend his Belief calling that which was contrary unto him Apud Lanfran t. 6. bibl Pat. p. 192. The folly of the people of Paschas and of Lanfranc By which words he sheweth that he looked upon Paschas as the Author of this Novelty and Lanfranc as the Promoter of it and that both the one and the other endeavoured to infuse it into the people to the prejudice of their ancient Faith For Berengarius pretended that his Doctrine was the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and that that of his Adversaries was not known but since Paschas his time who having invented it in his Cell brought it forth in the Year of our Lord 818. Berengarius having thus silenced Adelman Tom. 3. Bibl. Pat. p. 319. his ancient Fellow-Student Durandus Bishop of Liege and by consequence Adelman's Bishop sounded an Alarm in a Letter he wrote unto King Henry against Bruno Bishop of Anger 's and against Berengarius his Arch-Deacon as against persons which taught that the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ but the Figure of his Body which this Prelate calls Renewing of ancient Heresies And to shew with what Spirit this Bishop was acted he exhorts the King to deliberate of their punishment rather than to hear them in Councils Moreover I have called this Bishop of Liege Durandus after Baronius and those which have given us the Library of the holy Fathers but according to the truth of the History it cannot be so because Durandus was dead before Bruno was Bishop of Anger 's And indeed Durandus died Anno 1025. according to Segebert and Bruno attained not unto the Episcopacy until 1047. Of necessity then this Bishop of Liege must be some other than Durandus and probably it may be Dietuvin who was made Bishop of Liege in the Year 1048. about which time he and Adelman might have writ the Letters above mentioned Durandus Abbot of Troam in Normandy makes some mention at the end of his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour of a Council assembled at Paris by the Authority of the King against Berengarius and his Followers where the Doctrine of Berengarius absent and unheard was condemned and it was there concluded that he and those of his Judgment should be prosecuted in all parts and that they should be besieged where they should be found assembled to force them to renounce their Belief or be taken and put to death a Remedy very contrary unto the temper of the Gospel and unto the mildness of the Religion of Jesus Christ But after all this Council of Paris is no other than a fiction of the Author's brain For what likelihood is there that Lanfranc who wrote against Berengarius after this pretended Council would have passed it over in silence having so exactly mentioned all the Councils which were assembled against Berengarius in some of which he was present himself Moreover Anonymus de damnatione Berengarii multiplici Father Chifflet hath printed an Anonymous Author which specifies all the Synods wherein the Belief of Berengarius was condemned at the last of which himself was present at Rome Anno 1079. under Gregory the Seventh without making any mention of that of Paris Whereunto may be added that the Date and Character of the time doth not agree with the truth of History Cardinal Baronius in his Annals Ad ann 1035. thinks King Henry had thoughts of assembling a Synod against Berengarius but that he was hindred by the Bishop of Liege his Letters which I cannot believe after all that hath been said on this matter We are informed by Lanfranc that in the Year 1050. Pope Leo the Ninth assembled two Councils one at Rome where Berengarius Lanfranc de Eucharist Sacram t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 193. without being cited or heard was condemned upon Letters which he wrote unto Lanfranc and
exterminated like so many Witches and Sodomites whereby they were necessitated to desire the protection of this Prince who the better to be informed of the truth of matters Carolus Molilinae in Monarch Franc. sent thither one of his Masters of Requests called Fumee and a Doctor of Sorbon a Jacobin called Parvy who was his Confessor They visited the Parishes and Temples of those people where they found neither Images nor Ornaments for the celebrating of Masses nor any marks of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome and having strictly examined and informed themselves of the crimes charged upon these Albigensis they found not as much as the least appearance thereof On the contrary it was clearly made evident unto them that those of Merindol and others which made profession of the same Faith were strict observers of the Lord's Day that Infants were baptized by them according to the practice of the primitive Church and that they were well instructed in the Law of God and in the Apostles Creed The King having received the Report of Fumee and Parvy affirmed with an Oath Ibid. That these Waldensis were the best and honestest people of his Kingdom All this hindred not their Enemies from undertaking again to accuse them of several Crimes in the Reign of Francis the First unto whom they presented a Confession of their Faith in the Year 1544. to justifie their Innocency Therein they explain themselves upon the Article of the Sacrament just as the Protestants do at this present But it is time to pass from Provens into Piedmont Claude de Cecil Advers error sectam Valdens fol. 1 2 7 8 9 10 20 61. Arch-Bishop of Turin hath already informed us that the Waldensis had setled themselves in the passage of the Alps within his Diocess upwards of two hundred years before he wrote against them and he wrote above a hundred years ago that they had continued there until his time preaching publickly and defending their Doctrine in Disputes against their Adversaries This Prelate acknowledgeth that in writing against them he undertakes a difficult task seeing that Popes and Princes have employed all means imaginable against them without ever being able to make them renounce the Profession and Belief which they embraced He grants that the covetousness of the Clergy and their ill conduct was the occasion of those people's separation He reckons up most of the Articles of their Belief which are found to agree with those which are received and professed by Protestants Ibid. fol. 55 56 'T is true he doth not speak positively of the Sacrament it may be because he will not stand to examine what the most knowing amongst them said of this Article seeing they are things so high and mysterious that the greatest Divines are scarce able to understand and much less to teach them blaming moreover those of the Latin Church who writing against these Waldensis troubled themselves in vain about the difficulties which attended the subject of the Sacrament As for their life and manners this same Prelate renders them this testimony Ibid. fol. 9. Excepting only saith he what they teach against our Belief and our Religion they lead a purer and more innocent life than other Christians do Ibid fol. 4. And speaking of the holy Scriptures he saith That they believe only what is contained in the Old and New Testament Ibid. fol. 10. Therefore he declares That he will cite nothing against them but what is contained in the holy Canon which themselves saith he do allow of But besides the testimony of this Bishop Apud Thuan. hist lib. 6. Monsieur de Thoul mentions some others which are no less favourable unto them In the first place That a person of Quality in Provens in Francis the First his time mentions them as people which were very constant in serving God and of paying the King and Lords in whose Territories they lived the Tribute and Sums due not failing in the Obedience due unto them Ibid. Secondly he alledges that of William du Bellay Lord of Laugay who in the relation he made of them unto Francis the First according to the Order which he had to that purpose These Waldensis which saith he had been in Provens about three hundred years he could not charge them with any thing but some points touching Religion and which was common with them and the Protestants as not kneeling unto Images of not offering them Candles nor any thing else not praying for the Dead and of celebrating Divine Service different from the Church of Rome and in the vulgar Tongue and some other points of this nature Which is the reason that Cardinal Sadolet unto whom they sent their Confession of Faith agreeing with that of the Protestants Apud Thuan. hist l. 6. declared freely That the other things laid to their charge beside the Heads contained in that Book were nothing but things forged to render them odious and meer fooleries And Monsieur de Thoul himself Ibid. who mentions some of the things which they believed of the same which Protestants do acknowledgeth That they had been charged with other things concerning Marriage the Resurrection of the Dead the state of Souls departed From these Waldensis are lineally descended from Father to Son those which in the Alps whether in France or in the Territories of the Duke of Savoy at Cabriers and at Merrindoll in Provens make profession of the Protestant Religion of whom we have no thoughts of speaking nor of extending any farther this History because that Luther began to appear in Germany Zuinglius in Switzerland in the Year 1517. Farrel at Geneva Anno 1535. and afterwards several others in other places which have all opposed the Tenet of Transubstantiation although they agreed not all about the Article of the Eucharist So that I should here conclude the History of the Doctrine and of the Alterations which have thereupon ensued were I not obliged to speak somewhat of other Churches besides that of the West There is in the Library of the holy Fathers a Liturgy of the remainder of the ancient Christians in the Mountains of the Kingdom of Mallabar in the East-Indies Missa Christian apud Indos t. 6. Bibl. Pat. p. 142. where they speak after this manner Our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which he was betrayed took the holy Bread into his holy hands listed up his eyes unto Heaven and gave it unto his Disciples saying Take eat ye all of this Bread this my Body The Church of Ethiopia expresseth the Sacramental words in such a manner that they make a metaphorical and figurative proposition as the Roman Catholicks and Protestants do confess for she saith 1 Literae Aetheop Jesuit Alphon. ann 1626. edit Roman an 1628. This Bread is my Body As for the Armenians if we believe Guy of Perpignan and Thomas Waldensis they do deny Transubstantiation 2 Uterque apud Vald. t. 2. c. 30. They teach
hath made who is later then him Therefore I make no question but the answer of the Martyrs Fostin and Jovita made unto the Emperor Adrian as Molanus reports it in his Supplements of Ussuard's Martyrology is forged and false for after the railing Speeches which they make against the Emperor and speaking unto his person he makes them say Die Feb. 15. We will cause no Incense to be burnt to the honour of thy Gods but we offer continually Incense and Sprinkling unto God our maker We find in the Library of the Holy Fathers a prayer of St. Hypollitus touching the end of the World and Antichrist Besides the title of Martyr they also give him that of Bishop and at this time they will needs have him to be in the first place Bishop in Arabia and afterwards Bishop of Port in Italy although St. Jerom doth witness in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers That he could not find of what place he was Bishop If that prayer was really of Hypollitus it may seem to intimate that the Greek Church in his time that is to say in the third Century used Perfume and Incense in its Service and Worship for speaking of the harm which Antichrist shall do at the end of the World he saith amongst other things That the Churches shall mourn and lament Bibl. Paâ—â—â— 2. Graeco Lat. because there shall be no more Oblation nor Incense nor Worship pleasing unto God Not but it may very well be said that the Author designed only to represent the Worship of Christians by terms borrowed from the service of the Law without being necessary to infer That they did really employ Incense and Perfumes in the Worship of God But if we should take what he saith in a literal sense I do not suppose there could any great stress be laid upon it And to speak the truth there are so many things in this small Treatise which are so unworthy of the true St. Hypollitus that I should be very loth to attribute them unto him St. Jerom its true reckons amongst his Works a Treatise of Antichrist but it is evident it cannot be the same which is now extant for it is entituled A Prayer of St. Hypolitus Bishop and Martyr of the End of the World of Antichrist and of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ Moreover the same S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers observes That he had made a Sermon in the praise of Jesus Christ and that the Author saith in this Sermon That he repeated it in the presence of Origen Now it is most certain that in Origen's time the Greeks knew not what Perfumes and Incense meant in their Worship for Expounding these words of Levit. 24. Thou shalt put pure Incense upon each Row that is to say of the Shew-bread he speaks in such a manner as sufficiently sheweth that Christians had not then admitted the use of Incense into their Worship Hom. 13. in Levit. c. 24. tom 1. p. 106. I. Do not imagine saith he that Almighty God hath commanded nor appointed in his Law to bring him Incense from Arabia but this is the Incense which he requires Men should offer unto him and wherein he findeth a sweet smell and savour to wit Prayers proceeding from a pure heart and from a good Conscience the sweet smell whereof ascends up unto him I allow that Origen here departs a little from the literal sense in respect of the Law but his language doth clearly evidence that Incense and Perfumes were not then received into the Worship of the Eastern Christians Let us then own that this use was introduced into the Greek Church after Origen's days who departed this life towards the latter end of the third Century and by consequence the Canons which falsly bear the Apostles names have been made since that time seeing therein it is ordained to offer Perfumes for the Celebration of the Sacrament And because it appears by the prayer of the Emperor Constantine at the Assembly of the Saints or in the Church of God whose words have been already alledged that even the Eastern Christians did not use Perfume in the Celebration of their Eucharist for the greatest part of the IV. Century at least when they celebrated it at the Tombs of Martyrs I cannot tell but it ought to be granted that the fourth pretended Canon of the Apostles was made since Constantine's time who departed this life in the year of our Lord Canon Apost 4. 337. for see here what it enjoyns That nothing else should be offered at the Altar but of the first Ears of Corn Grapes Oyl for the Lights and Incense for the time of the holy Oblation And as it is the first testimony of the Greek Fathers wherein there is mention made of Perfume in the celebration of the Sacrament that of Hypollitus not being to be credited and being moreover capable of being conveniently interpreted of an Allegorical Perfume it must be granted that the Latins received the use of Perfumes later into their Worship than the Greeks seeing St. Austin doth not make any mention of it in the V. Century for I take little heed of the second Decretal of Soter wherein Women are forbidden to bring any Perfume unto the Altar because this Decretal and all them of the other Popes until Siritius are the Works of an Impostor When I say that the Latins have received the practise of Incense and Perfume later than the Greeks I conclude that these latter followed the Ordinance of the pretended Canon of the Apostles which in all appearance was not made but very forward in the IV. Century And nevertheless it is not certain that the Greek Church put this Ordinance in execution presently after it was made In fine the first true and candid passage of Antiquity after the fourth Canon of Apostles wherein there is mention made of offering Incense or as it is in the Greek good Odours Act. 3. Concil Chalced. is a Request of Ischyrion Deacon of the Church of Alexandria presented unto the Council of Chalcedon assembled Anno 451. against Dioscorus his Bishop Act. 5. t. 4. Con. cil p. 102 103. and afterwards at Constantinople under Agapet and under Menna in the Year 536. there is mention of assembling in the Church with Flambeaus and Perfumes but it is not positively affirmed that it was to celebrate the Eucharist no more than the action of the Friar Zozimus Hist Eccl. l. 4. c. 7. reported by Evagrius in his Ecclesiastical History saying That after having deplored the ruin of Antioch which he had foretold he demanded a Senser and having filled the place where he was with Perfume he bowed himself to the ground to appease the wrath of God by his prayers The same Historian speaking of the Presents which Chosroes King of Persia offered unto the Martyr Sergius Ibid. l. 6. c. 20. he forgets not to speak of a Golden Senser for celebrating of the Sacrament which
happened at the end of the IV. Century where he concludes his History I have expresly spoken of legitimate and not forged Writings because I am not ignorant that in the Liturgies attributed unto St. James and St. Mark there is to be seen the custom of Perfume and of Incense at the time of celebrating the Sacrament and there be also Prayers for dedicating it unto God But for as much as the Learned as well Roman Catholicks as Protestants do confess that either they were not the Works of these Servants of God or if they be that they have received many Alterations and that things have been foisted into them unknown unto the first Christians nothing hinders but we may in this number include the use of Incense there being no likelihood that it would have been so late received into the Church if it had been practised by an Apostle and an Evangelist What I say of the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark I say also of that attributed unto St. Peter wherein we observe the same thing Which example the Christians would not have failed to have observed had all the Liturgies appeared from the beginning As for the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom I would not so positively affirm that what is therein mentioned of the Oblation of Perfume hath been therein inserted since the death of the Authors for although that several things have been thereunto annexed and many things altered and that there be several which even believe that which goes under St. Chrysostom's name is not his but of a more recent Author Nevertheless the Canon of the Apostles which prescribes the use of Incense in the celebration of the Sacrament having been composed before either of these two Doctors of the Church I shall refer it unto others to decide this difficulty although St. Basil upon Psal 115. rejects the Oblation of Incense and I shall content my self in saying that if these two Liturgies are truly St. Basil's and St. Chrysostom's and if what is therein said of the Oblation of perfume hath not been thereunto added since their death there is great cause to wonder that there is no mention at all made of it any where else in the Works of Authors of the times before the Council of Chalcedon at least I have not observed any even in St. Cyril of Jerusalem Mystag 5. who describing particularly enough the form of the celebration of the Sacrament and the dispositions thereunto requisite speaketh not a word of the Oblation of Incense He saith indeed that a Deacon giveth Water to wash his hands that officiated and unto the Priests that be with him that the people are exhorted to give each other the Kiss of Charity to lift up their hearts on high to give thanks unto the Lord that there is mention made of Heaven and Earth of the Sea the Sun Moon and Stars and generally of all Creatures as well reasonable Creatures as Brutes of visible and invisible of Angels and Arch-Angels of Vertues Dominions Principalities Powers Thrones and Cherubims which cover their faces especially those which were seen by the Prophet Esay and which cried one to another saying Holy holy holy is the Lord God of Hosts And after being so sanctified they pray unto God that he will be pleased to send his Holy Spirit upon the Gifts proposed that is to say the Bread and Wine the Consecration whereof the Greeks make to depend upon this Prayer but as for the Ceremony of Incense which we enquire after the least sign of it is not to be found in the whole Catechism As for the pretended Denis the Arcopagite which gave occasion unto this whole Enquiry he began not to appear at soonest until the end of the V. Century or the beginning of the VI. at which time the Perfumes and Incenses were practised in the Service of the Greek Church Tom. 6. Bibl. Pat. I know very well that in the Liturgy which goes under the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Library of the Fathers there is Prayers made for those which furnished the Oblations and Sacrifices the Bread Wine Oyl and Incense and the Vessels used at the Altar So that if it were truly his the introduction of this practice amongst the Greeks should be before the Council of Chalcedon because Cyril was deceased before the Council was convocated But it being very uncertain whether it were Cyril's or whether he was the Author of it or that it hath retained its purity we have not ill assigned unto the Council of Chalcedon the first restimony of this custom amongst the Greeks after the Ordinance of the Canon of the Apostles 'T is true the Request of Ischyrion Deacon of the Church of Alexandria wherein it is spoken of and which is contained in the third Action of this Council seeming to presuppose the establishment of this use but of no long time it may without any inconvenience be said that it began to be practised about the time of the assembling of this Council and probably at Alexandria rather than elsewhere Concil Chalced Act 3. t. 3. Concil p. 247. ult edit according to the Testament of a certain Lady called Peristerie who at her death bequeathed great treasures unto the Church unto Monasteries Hospitals and unto the Poor of the whole Province and also provision to supply the Oblation of Perfume as may be gathered from this Request as also from the time of the death of this Lady which was whilst Dioscorus was Bishop and after the death of Cyril But in as much as this custom of offering Incense unto God at the time of celebrating the Eucharist began to be introduced into the Eastern Church in the V. Century as near as I can judge the Reader will not be offended that I here represent the Prayer which was made unto God in presenting him the Perfume for although it be expressed in divers terms according to the diversity of Liturgies nevertheless because all these Prayers amount in substance unto the same thing this here will be sufficient It is in the Liturgy of St. James I mean Liturgia S. Jacobi in that which goes under his name O Lord Jesus Christ Word of God who offeredst thy self upon the Cross as a holy Sacrifice unto thy God thy Father and thy King which art that Coal of two natures which didst touch with Tongs the lips of the Prophet and didst cleanse him from his iniquities touch also our Understanding Ours I say who are sinners and purifie us from all uncleanness and grant we may present our selves pure and holy at thine Altar to offer unto thee a Sacrifice of Praise And receive of us who are unprofitable Servants this present Perfume in an Odour of a sweet savour Change the ill savour of our Souls and Bodies into a sweet Odour and sanctifie us by the sanctifying vertue of thy Holy Spirit for thou art the only Saint which sanctifieth and communicatest thy self unto the faithful And
would have rested satisfied to have shewn that if Christians admitted of this custom amongst the Ceremonies of their Religion it was unto the Honour and Glory of the true God whereas Pagans did it unto unto the honour of their Idols and their false Divinities And writing unto his Wife In c. 6. lib. 2. ad uxor She will saith he be incommoded with the smell of Incense at all the Solemnities of the Emperors at the beginning of every new Year and of each Month. She will depart out of the house whose door shall be set with Lawrels and Candles Upon which words Monsieur Rigaut doth fully prove that the ancient Christians would not suffer that the Pagans should fasten Lawrels at their doors nor that they should light Flambeaus in day time And that they had it in detestation as things consecrated unto the honour of false Gods as things injurious unto nature and reason and as the sign of some place of fresh debauchery The same Tertullian demands again in his Apologetick Apolog. c. 46. If there be any one that forceth a Philosopher to sacrifice or to swear or needlesly to light Flambeaus at Noon-day And Arnobius directing his discourse unto the Gentiles Advers Gent. l 5. p 77. ult ed. Your Gods saith he like men look for things they have lost and run through the World with Flambeaus when the Sun shineth in its lustre In the Council of Eliberius in Spain assembled as is supposed Concil Eliber c. 35. p. 37. in the Year 305. there is found two Canons which concerns the Subject in hand The first contains these words We forbid that Candles should be lighted by day time in the Church-yard for the Souls of Saints should not be disturbed Those which obey not this Ordinance shall be suspended from the Communion of the Church In the other this may be seen We have thought good that those which are troubled with unclean Spirits should be baptized if they are Believers and in danger of death let the Sacrament be given unto them forbidding them to light Candles publickly And if they do it contrary to this Prohibition let them be deprived of the Communion But this Council being assembled in a time when the Persecutions against the Christians were not wholly ceased let us examine if after the Empire was fallen into the hands of Christian Princes in the person of Constantine the Great whether the Church acted otherwise than it had done before Lactantius Firmianus was Tutor unto Crispus Son of this Emperor Instit diviner l. 6. c. 2. if we examine him on this matter he will tell us That God hath created so clear and pure a Light for the use of Man that he stands in no need of Flambeaus He doth deride the Heathens That they made Lights unto God as if he were in Darkness and maketh this formal declaration That it cannot be believed that that man is in his right senses which offers the light of Candles and Flambeaus unto him which is the Author and Dispencer of Light And St. Cyril of Jerusalem which flourished at the end of the 4th Century lays it down as a part of Idolatrous Worship Mystagog 1. To light Candles and to burn Incense near unto Fountains and Rivers without saying a word of justifying Christians in the use of Candles and Flambeaus in the exercise of their Worship which in all probability he would not have failed to have done if this practice had been publickly received into the Church not but that they were made use of either on Easter Eves to dissipate the darkness of the Night as Gregory Nazianzen speaks Orat. 2. de Paschat or when Prayers were made or Psalms sung before day as is observed by St. Epiphanius Lib. 3. in fine compendiar doctâ— There is saith he always prayers at Church in the Morning Psalms also is there sung by Candle-light But it matters not what was done by Christians when they assembled in the Night there being a kind of necessity which permitted them not to do otherwise the question is to know at what time they began to introduce the use of Candles and Flambeaus into the Service and Worship of their Religion and to make it one of the Ceremonies of the Celebration of their Sacrament We have already seen that the 4th of the Canons attributed unto the Holy Apostles ordains To offer Oyle for the Laiminaries But the date of these Canons being very uncertain we can conclude nothing certain nor positive of the beginning of this Ceremony besides that it may be said this Decree seems only to regard Nocturnal Assemblies or at least the Eves of Easter which necessarily required the help of Candles Lights and Flambeaus unto which time may be referred the Miracle of Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem who seeing the Oyl to fail in the Lamps converted Water into Oyl L. 6. c. 9. according to the report of Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History And the Canon of the Apostles joyning the Oyl unto the Incense and mentioning the time of Celebrating the Sacrament it is probable he desires that both of them should be used Histor l. 6. c. 8. Socrates makes mention of certain silver Crosses invented by St. Chrysostom whereupon was set Wax Lights but he declares in the same place that it was for the Hymns which was sung in the Night time unto the honour of Jesus Christ whilst the Arrians dishonoured him by others which were agreeable unto their Heresie and Impiety Sozomen saith Histor l. 8. c. 8 That the Catholick and Orthodox sang their Hymns in causing to be carried before them Crosses of Silver whereon there was Light Flambeaus so this makes nothing to our subject no more then the using of Lights at the Feasts and Funerals of Christians in the days of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom in token of their joy for the belief they had of the blessedness and repose of the Dead what they did in Celebrating the Birth day or the day of the Death of Martyrs which the Ancients termed their Birth day doth approach nearer the matter which we examine for St. Chrysostom witnesseth T. 1. hom 71. de S. Phoca that they lighted Flambeaus upon those occasions Nevertheless because Pagans were wont to use the same Customs in their Feasts and publick rejoycings Orat. 2. in Julianum quae est 4. Gregory Naxianzen doth prohibit Christians to use that practice Let us Celebrate saith he the Feast my Brethren not with spruceness of Body and sumptuousness of Apparel let us not strew the way with Flowers nor make a shew before our Doors and let us not make our Houses shine with visible light for so it is that Pagans do Celebrate the Feast of the New Moon Yet not long after some introduced the Custom of lighting Flambeaus unto the honour of Martyrs I say some few for it was not practised by all the Church but she was content to tolerate it to comply with
Austin that is to say in the V. Century Liber Sacrament in Sabbato Sancto p. 70. 71. And what inclines me to think so is first That in the time of Gregory the first it was practis'd in the Celebration of holy Baptism as it may be seen in his Book of Sacraments whence it may be inferred with great probability that it was also practised in the Celebration of the Sacrament Secondly St. Isidor Archbishop of Sevil who lived in the same time with Gregory although he dyed several years after him speaks formally of it Lib. 7. Etymol c. de Clericis as of a thing already established Those saith he which in Greek are called Acolytes are those which in Latin we call Linkbearers because they carry them when the Gospel is read or when the Sacrifice is offered for then they do light Candles and bear them not to dissipate darkness because the Sun shineth at that time but to express our joy thereby to declare under the Type of a corporal Light that Light spoken of in the Gospel That he is the true Light which enlighteneth every man which cometh into the World Since which time most of those which have treated of Divine Offices have not failed to speak of it and therein to seek as well as in all other things some mystical signification so that it would be but lost labour any farther to follow the traces of this Ceremony which was even at that time generally received amongst the Greeks and the Latins in the East and in the West Therefore may be seen in the Roman Order and elsewhere several prayers for blessing of Torches Candles and Flambeaus which are not necessary here to be inserted One shall suffice for all Ordo Roman t. 10. Bibl. Patr. p. 24. O Lord Jesus Christ bless this Wax we beseech thee and therein pour by the vertue of thy heavenly Cross a heavenly Benediction to the end that by the Sign of the Cross it might receive of thee who hast given it unto men to scatter the darkness of the Night such a force and benediction that in all places where it shall be lighted or set the Devil should avoid tremble and fly for fear with all his Imps from those places and habitations and that he may no more attempt to molest and seduce those that serve thee But having discoursed of the use of Lamps Candles and of Incense the Author of Constitutions called Apostolical obligeth us to speak somewhat of the Sign of the Cross because in his Liturgy of the Eucharist he represents the Bishop making of it when he addresseth himself unto the celebration of the Sacrament It is most certain that the Ancient Christians often made the sign of the Cross at least since the end of the II. Century as Tertullian informs us but before him I do not remember to have observed it a practice those Christians opposed unto the reproach which the Gentiles made them of believing in a Man that had been put to death upon a Cross so that by this sign they would manifest unto their Enemies that they were not ashamed of their crucified Jesus So it is that St. Cyril of Jerusalem explains himself when he said If after being crucified and buried Catech. 4. he had remained in the Grave then we should have cause to be ashamed but he is risen and ascended up into Heaven And elsewhere Id. Catech. 13 Arm your selves against the enemies of this Cross plant for a Trophy against all opposers the Faith of the Cross And when you engage in disputing with Unbelievers touching the Cross of our Saviour first of all make the sign of the Cross and you will put to silence your gainsayers Be not ashamed to confess the Cross of Jesus Christ that is to say of him that was crucified But how frequent soever the Sign of the Cross was amongst Christians I cannot find that during the three first Centuries they commonly used it in the publick Service of Religion and as I only treat at this time of the Sacrament I shall only say that the first places wherein there is any mention of the Sign of the Cross in the celebration of this Divine Sacrament are the Liturgies of the Apostolick Constitutions as hath been declared in this Chapter And this Treatise could not have been written but at the beginning of the IV. Century those attributed unto St. Peter St. James and St. Mark are not as I conceive any Elder having many things in them unknown unto the first Christians As for the Liturgy of Justin Martyr written in the II. Century there is not one word mentioned of it but what I dare not assure of the Sign of the Cross to wit that it doth not appear in the celebration of the Sacrament during the three first Centuries I shall not fear to affirm of the use of material Crosses because there were not yet any used in the Church therefore Tertullian reckons expresly amongst false Opinions Apolog. c. 15. 16. that some Pagans entertained of the object of the Adoration of Christians Minut. in Octav. the fancy of those which thought That they were Worshippers or Admirers of the Cross and in Minutius Felix Cecilius in his Invective against Christians having said That some persons esteemed that the cursed Wood of the Cross was part of their Ceremonies Octavius that excellent defender of Christianity answereth As for Crosses we neither care for them nor Worship them And it is very probable that Christians began not to use Crosses until after it was believed that Hellen Mother of Constantine had found the true Cross of Jesus Christ in the year 326. But if we yet draw nearer unto the Sacrament we shall not find any Cross therein used during all the time which hath been spoken of nor yet later for it doth not appear neither in the Liturgy of St. Justin Martyr nor in those which go under the names of St. James St. Peter and of St. Mark Nor in fine in those of the Apostolick Constitutions of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and of the pretended Dennis the Arcopagite But although the Author of this last lived not at soonest but at the V. Century I know not whether it may be said that the use of Sign of the Cross was not practiced in the publick action of the Sacraments of the Church seeing the contrary appears in the Writings of St. Chrysostom Hom. 55. in Matth. p. 487. Vide t. 5. quod Christ sit Deus pag 840. t. 6. de adorat cruc p. 615. When saith he we be regenerated that is to say Baptized the Cross is there and when we are fed with the mystical food and when we receive Ordination and whatever else we do this Victorious Symbol doth still accompany us But before this excellent Doctor who departed this life Anno 407. I do not find that Crosses were employed in the Service and Worship of Christians and besides the passages of St.
in the XIII that it was not then given in the Latin Church but amongst persons of the same Sex I say that Men kissed each other and also Women the like And because all these dispositions are not the fruits of Nature but Gifts of the Grace and Mercy of God the ancient Christians addressed themselves unto him by devout Prayers to the end he would be pleased to bestow upon them what they wanted that is the preparations necessary to communicate savingly and worthily Cassander hath collected several of these Prayers but they being penned variously according to the motions of the Devotion of the Communicants we forbear inserting them in this place to endeavour to discover in prosecuting our design whether the holy Fathers which have required these dispositions before drawing near unto the holy Table have also required that the Communicants should adore the Sacrament in the Act of communicating CHAP. IV. Wherein the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament is examined WEll to explain a matter and to give it the full demonstration which it requires the nature of the question must first of all be plainly stated because it is thereupon most commonly that the clearing of it doth chiefly depend Being therefore to treat of so weighty a Subject as that which now offers it self the first thing we should do is carefully to put a difference betwixt Jesus Christ himself and his Sacrament for the question is not whether Jesus Christ ought to be worshipped all Christians are agreed upon this point But whether the Sacrament should be adored that is to say that which the Priest holds in his hands and which is commonly called the Hostie and the Sacrament for it appears to me that the Council of Trent hath agreed this to be the true state of the Question Sess 13. c. 5. when it defined That there is no doubt to be made but all the Servants of Jesus Christ should render unto the holy Sacrament in the act of Veneration the worship of Latry which is due unto the true God It must then in the first place be acknowledged as an unquestionable Truth that Jesus Christ is an Object truly adorable and that his Flesh it self deserves that we should render it the highest Religious Worship by reason of the privilege it hath of being united into one person with his eternal Divinity When therefore the holy Fathers speak of adoring Jesus Christ in the participation of the Sacrament they say nothing whereunto the Protestants do not acquiesce as well as the Roman Catholicks for say they in coming unto the holy Table one cannot meditate of the infinite love he had for us send our thoughts unto Mount Calvary to consider the precious blood which he there shed make reflection upon the Throne of Glory where he is sitting with his Father nor ever so little cast an Eye upon that ineffable goodness which inclines him to communicate himself unto us by means of the Sacrament but that the Soul of the faithful Communicant humbles it self in his presence and doth truly adore him An adoration unto which may be referred what is said by Origen or at least the Author of some Homilies that are in his Works What we read saith he in the Gospel Hom. 5. in divers t. 2. p. 285. ought not to be passed over by us as a thing of small importance That the Genturion said unto Jesus Christ I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for at this time Jesus Christ doth yet enter under the Roof of Believers by two Figures or after two manner of ways viz. When holy men beloved of God which govern the Churches enter under your Roof then our Lord doth enter by them and you should believe that you receive our Saviour When also you receive the holy and incorruptible Food the Bread of Life I say and the Cup you do eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour and then our Lord doth enter under your Roof Humble your selves therefore and in imitation of the Centurion say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my Roof for wheresoever he enters unworthily he there enters for the condemnation of him which receiveth him He saith That our Saviour enters under our Roof by his Sacrament after the same manner as he there enters by his Ministers and that we should humble our selves in receiving as well his Servants as his Sacrament to the end this act of humility may be a mark of the adoration which we give unto him which hath instituted the one and which sendeth unto us the others confessing that we are not worthy of this favour St. Ambrose and St. Austin express themselves so fully that the Reader will find no difficulty to penetrate into their meaning for see here what is said by the first Ambros de Spir. S. l. 3. c. 12 We adore the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries He puts a difference betwixt the Mysteries and the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he makes to be the Object of our Worship in the act of communicating I will not now insist upon the manner of Jesus Christs being present in the Sacrament because that hath been treated of at large in the Second Part I only produce the testimonies of Ancient Doctors which speak of adoring our Saviour when we communicate to the end not to divert the Examination we are to make of the Adoration of the Sacrament Therefore we will joyn unto St. Ambrose St. Austin who saith Let no body eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ In Psal 98. until he hath first adored him How say some is it possible St. Austin should teach that the Sacrament should be adored seeing he so formally denies it in one of his Letters for speaking of things sensible and corporeal I mean of Creatures whereof the Scripture makes use to represent things Spiritual and Heavenly he saith That they ought not to be adored although we should draw Images and Resemblances of the Mysteries of our Salvation and he puts in the rank of these signs which we should not adore Ep. 119. ad Januar cap. 6. The Water and Oyle of Baptism the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament without saying any thing more particularly for the one than the other It is unto Jesus Christ that he desires we should address our Adoration without speaking one word of the Sacrament by means whereof he communicates unto us his Flesh I know not whether any other Interpretation can be given unto the words of S. Chrysostom Homil. 24. in 1. ad Corinth You do not only see the same Body which was seen by the Wise man but you also know the vertue and all the dispensation of it and are not ignorant of the things which he did and accomplished Being well informed of all these Mysteries let us then stir up our selves let us be seized with astonishment and let us testifie yet greater respect then was shewed by the Wise men
81. to intimate that she received it with respect and with veneration Whence also it is that St. Jerom in his Preface unto the Easter Epistles of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria speaks only of receiving the holy things with veneration a veneration which he makes to be common and of the same nature with that which is given unto Chalices Vails and other things which are used at the Celebration of the Eucharist or as he speaks At the Passion of our Saviour intimating that these things should be venerated with the same Majesty as the Body and Blood that is to say the Sacrament for he did not mean to include in the same kind of veneration the true Body of Jesus Christ and the holy Vessels but the Sacrament of this divine Body unto which Sacrament he yields no Adoration but a common Veneration the same as unto the Lining and unto the Chalices of the holy Table Thus do these last argue and discourse After these two considerations we may with more ease examine the matter whereof we are to write the History I mean the Question of the Adoration of the Sacrament And because according to the Advertisement of St. Cyprian That heed must be taken unto what Jesus Christ did do and that what he did in celebrating his first Sacrament should serve as a Model and rule unto what Christians should do after him in the Celebration of theirs it is absolutely necessary to look back unto him to begin our Examination and Enquiry I say then in the institution of this Sacrament which is exactly described unto us I find that our Saviour having broke the Bread which he had taken and consecrated gave it unto his Disciples saying unto them Take eat and that he also in like manner commanded them to take the Cup and drink of it but I do not find that he commanded them to adore neither the one nor the other But if we do not find that he commanded them to adore what he gave unto them neither do we read that the Apostles did adore the Eucharist The Evangelists which have so exactly transmitted unto us the History of this Institution in so exactly marking all the Circumstances of it speak not a word of the holy Apostles adoring of it On the contrary they represent them unto us in a posture which doth not well agree with an act of Adoration for they were almost lying along upon their sides on little Beds round the Table according to the manner of that time Moreover if Jesus Christ had commanded his Disciples to adore what he gave them in the distribution of his Sacrament and if the Disciples had indeed adored it it is very likely say some that the Rulers of the Jews would have known it by Judas and knowing it they would not have failed to have urged it as a capital Crime against Jesus Christ for as they searched only some specious pretext to condemn him they would never have failed embracing this which was very plausible and would have accused our Saviour of having adored Bread and Wine and the rather because amongst them worshipping of Creatures was held for an unpardonable crime at least after their return from the Babylonian Captivity But besides what hath been said the disorder of the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's time affords us say they a convincing Argument of the same thing This divine Apostle condemns the Corinthians irreverence in the celebration of this august Sacrament he endeavours to make them ashamed of it and to shew them that their Conduct in this occasion was quite contrary both unto the working of Charity and the rules of holy Discipline such as the Discipline amongst Christians should be yet nevertheless to return them unto their duty and to persuade and inspire them with the respect due unto so great a Sacrament he doth not say a word unto them of its Adoration the consideration whereof had been of very great moment and capable of producing in the Spirits of these disorderly Christians other thoughts than those which they shewed at the time which they were to participate of this divine Mystery St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles which contains the History of the Infant Church doth observe several times that Believers assembled to break Bread that is to say to celebrate the Eucharist but he never said that the Sacrament was to be adored But it may be that the Christians which immediately followed the Age of the Apostles had upon this Subject other discoveries than those which the Scriptures inform us of and that they can inform us of things we know nothing of St. Justin Martyr which flourished about fifty years after the death of St. John doth in his second Apology exactly and amply describe the whole action of the Sacrament and all that was therein practised in his time on the behalf of him which celebrated and also on their parts which did communicate the Oblation of Bread Wine and Water which was presented unto the Pastor when Sermon and Prayers were ended the Consecration which was performed by him by Prayers and Thanksgivings unto God the Amen which was answered by Believers the distribution and communicating of the things which had been blessed and consecrated and in fine the Charities and Alms-deeds made by particular persons and which was as the Crown and Seal of all this holy Action But in all this description we do see no mark of the Worship of Latry nor of any religious Worship either commanded by the Pastors or practised by the People towards the Sacrament although that this glorious Martyr had twice treated of the Sacrament in this Apology as hath been declared in our first part And this Representation which St. Justin gives unto us of the Eucharist in his time I mean of the Celebration of this Sacrament answers not ill unto what himself observed in his Dialogue against Tryphon That Christians in all places made the Eucharist of Bread and Wine and yet never speaks of adoring it and unto the silence of other Authors of his and the following Age because in all their Writings they are silent upon this matter although it be of the greatest moment in Religion I speak of St. Ireneus of Clemens of Alexandria Tertullian St. Cyprian and of Origen who very far from enjoyning this Adoration give not the least appearance to imagine that it was practised neither in the passages where they speak of the Eucharist nor in others where they seem to be indispensably obliged to say something of it As for example Tertullian in his Apologetick where he promiseth to discover Cap. 39. and to demonstrate what doth concern Christian Religion and where he makes so excellent and rich a description of the Agapes and of the Assemblies of those primitive Christians he saith only Ep. 10 11 12 13. That they do there eat as persons which remember that they are obliged to serve God all night And St. Cyprian treating of those which had fallen
Jesus Christ that he take care that not a crumb of it fall to the ground and having in this manner communicated of the Body of Jesus Christ he should approach unto the Cup having the Body bowed in way of Adoration or Veneration But besides say some St. Cyril doth not desire of his Communicant this inclination of body for Reception of the other Symbol which he represents unto us and doth call it the Body of Jesus Christ such as some crumbs whereof may fall to the ground it is that the Cup unto which he desires he should draw near with this inclination of Body contains a Liquor the moisture of which and the humidity remains as he saith upon the lips which cannot be said of the proper Blood of the Son of God The posture then which he prescribes for receiving of the Cup must necessarily be understood not of an act of Adoration which he doth not teach in any part of his Catechisms unto his Neophites but according to our second Consideration of the Veneration and respect which we ought to have for so great a Sacrament the Greek word used by St. Cyril being to be understood by that of veneration and respect because he speaks of an Object which is not adorable with the Adoration of Latery that is to say of the Sacrament and that besides he would not have said barely Approach with a little bowing the body but he would precisely have commanded to have adored it before receiving of it this action being of too great moment to speak so indifferently of and not to have commanded it after a more exact manner I will ad unto all these reasons that St. Cyril requires nothing of his Communicants but what what St. Chrysostom doth require of his also and yet in stronger terms of his Catechumeny when the time of their Catechising was expired that they presented themselves to be baptized In illud simile est regnum coelor patrifamil t. 6. p. 550. When you shall saith he come into the Closet of the holy Spirit when you shall run into the Marriage-Chamber of Grace when you shall be near unto that terrible and also desirable Pool prostrate your selves as Captives before your King cast your selves all together on your knees and lifting up your hands unto Heaven where the King of us all is sitting on his Royal Throne and lifting up your eyes unto that Eye which never slumbers use these words unto that Lover of Mankind c. Is not this approaching unto Baptism in a way of Worship and Adoration as St. Cyril desired one should approach unto the holy Communion And yet Christians never inferred from the words of St. Chrysostom that the Water of this Sacrament of our Regeneration was to be adored But what I say of the water of Baptism the same Chrysostom requires we should also do of the hearing of the Word of God The King himself saith he will not have his Diadem upon his head In illud ne eleemos vestr sac t. 6. p. 528. but lays it aside in reverence unto God speaking in the holy Gospel What saith he I know his Dignity which hath given me mine I adore his Kingdom which hath been pleased to make me reign And to say the truth we owe the same respect and veneration unto the Word of God and to his Sacraments which we do owe unto him which is the Author of them by giving him the Soveraign Adoration which we are obliged to render him at all times especially when we hear his Word read and preached and when we participate of his divine Sacraments If we descend yet lower than St. Austin we may inform our selves of what hath been practised in the Church since his death upon the Subject of the Adoration of the Sacrament for we have in the Works of St. Ambrose two Treatises touching the same matter made in the behalf of those newly initiated of which the latter entituled Of the Sacraments is more ample than the other We have that of Ecclesiastical Offices composed by St. Isidore Arch-Bishop of Sevil the Book of Sacraments of Gregory the First that made by Maximius Abbot of Constantinople expounding very mystically all the Action of the Sacrament German Patriarch of the same place also employed himself upon the same Subject and hath at large all that long History of Ceremonies practised in an Age which had already departed very much from the simplicity of the primitive times The Book called The Roman Order doth also examine all the particulars of the publick Service practiced in the Church of Rome We have in the IX Century the Treatise of Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mayans of the Institution of Clerks that of Ecclesiastical Offices of Amalarius Fortunatus that of Walfridus Strabo almost under the same Title that of Florus under the name of Explication of the Mass In fine we have several other Treatises of the manner and order that ought to be observed in the Celebration of the Mass or of the Eucharist which Hugh Mainard a learned Benedictine hath caused to be printed with the Books of Sacraments of Gregory the Great as that he took from the Manuscript of Ratold Abbot of Corby about the Year 986. Another from the Library of du Tillet and which he saith is the Roman Order of the Year 1032. and a third of the Priory of Saluse in Normandy of the Prebends of the Order of St. Austin about the Year 1079. But in all this we do not find one word of the Adoration of the Sacrament no more than the Interpreters and Commentators of the History of the Institution of it which are not a few Moreover the expressions of the ancient Doctors of the Church will not a little contribute unto the illustrating of this matter for if they had a design to have Christians worship the Sacrament before receiving of it or at the instant of communicating methinks they should have spoke in a manner and way which should have possessed them with thoughts and dispositions suitable and which should have made them to conceive of it the same Opinion which one hath for an Object which is truly adorable Nevertheless instead of so doing I find their Instructions tended rather to divert than to incline them unto this Homage In fine I cannot comprehend that the people could dispose themselves unto the Adoration of the Eucharist when they heard the holy Fathers unanimously call it Bread and Wine even in the very act of Communion Wheat the Fruit of the Vine the Fruit of the Harvest and the like things They testifie it is Bread which is broke positively affirm that it is Bread and Wine Bread which nourisheth our Bodies which is inanimate which is digested the substance whereof remains after Consecration in a word Bread subject unto the same accidents with our common food For these are so many formal Declarations which these holy Doctors have made unto us in the second Chapter of the second Part. Must it not be
confessed that they very ill instructed the people which God had committed unto their charge if the Sacrament is a Subject to be adored because all these plain and formal expressions served only to estrange the Mind from the Idea of this Soveraign Worship of Religion in making them conclude it was nothing but Bread and Wine in regard of their nature but otherwise the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ And what confirmed them the more in this thought is that the Fathers never warned them to take their words figuratively when they say that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine but when they call it the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they use many precautions as hath been shewed in the third Chapter saying that almost all do call the Sacrament his Body that our Saviour hath honoured the Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood that they be his Body and Blood not simply and absolutely but after some sort being so called by reason of the resemblance because they be the Sacraments the Signs the Figures the Memorials of his Person and Death and that they are in the stead of his Body and Blood What need all these Limitations and Illustrations if their design had been that the people should have adored the Eucharist for you would say that they seem to be afraid that they should take it for an Object worthy of this Worship and Homage so much care is taken by them to make them comprehend what sense they should give unto their words when they say that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ a precaution absolutely inconsistent with the intention and thought of inspiring unto them the Doctrine of Adoration This is the reasoning of those which admit not of the Adoration of the Sacrament But if from the consideration of the words of the holy Fathers we pass unto that of several things which were practised by the ancient Church in regard of the holy Sacrament and which hath been examined by us in the first Part we may draw Inferences by the help whereof we shall the easier discover the truth of what we do examine For example the Christians for several Ages made use of Glass Chalices in the Celebration of the Sacrament They gave the Sacrament for a long time unto young Children although very uncapable of the act of Adoration They obliged Communicants to receive it in their hands they permitted them to carry it home along with them unto their houses and to keep it as long as they pleased even to carry it along with them in their Travels without ever finding that they gave it any particular Worship whilst they kept it locked in their Chests or Closets They sent it unto the Absent and unto the Sick without any Ceremony not only by Priests and Deacons but even by Lay-persons by Men Women and young Boys Bishops for above three Centuries sent it unto each other in token of Love and Communion without any noise or giving it any homage or honour by the way and without the peoples assembling in the ways by which it passed to receive it as an Object of their Service and Adoration They also sometimes communicated without any scruple of Conscience after Dinner or Supper and so mingled the Eucharist with their other food Were not this to answer very ill unto the soveraign respect which one should have for a Divinity one adores to mingle it in the same Stomach with ordinary food and to communicate standing as they did But besides all these Customs observed in the Ancient Church see here others also observed by them and which have been considered by us in treating of the exteriour form of Celebration In some places what was left of the Eucharist after Consecration was burnt in the Fire in other places it was eaten by little Children which were sent for from School The Sacrament was employed to make Plaisters it was buried with the Dead and sometimes Ink was mingled with the Consecrated Wine and then they dipt their Pens in these two mixed Liquors Can it be imagined say the Protestants that Christians so zealous as they were should Adore the Sacrament seeing it was employed by them unto uses so far distant from this Adoration and so contrary unto the Worship which is due unto God All these Customs could they consist with a Worship of this Nature and with this Soveraign respect which is due only unto the sole object of our Devotion and of our Religion let the Reader judge And the better to judge hereof let him compare the conduct of the Ancient Church in this particular with that of the Latin Church since the XI Century for these kinds of oppositions do not a little contribute unto the Illustrating the matters now in question practices so different upon the same subject not proceeding but from divers principles nor such various effects but from as different causes I ought not to pass in silence the custom of this same Church in turning out of the Assembly all those that could not or would not Communicate I speak of the Catechumeny the Energumeny and the Penitents which could not be admitted unto the participation of this Divine Sacrament and of those amongst Believers which voluntarily deprived themselves of it for it is most certain that all those which remained in the Assembly did communicate both great and small as hath been shewed in the first Part of this Book And nevertheless if besides the use of the Communion for which they confessed the Eucharist had been instituted they believed that the Sacrament was an object of Adoration What did they mean in forbidding those People which were not in a state of communicating the acts of Piety and Christian Humility A thing so much the more strange that the Holy Fathers believed for certain that prayers made unto God at the time of celebrating the Sacrament were more efficacious then those made unto him at other times by reason of the Commemoration which is there made of the Death of Jesus Christ in whose Name and for whose Merits we pray unto him By what principle and motive were they deprived of the fruit and comfort which they might receive from the homage which they would have given unto God at that blessed moment The sinner addressing himself unto the object of this Worship and Adoration I mean unto the Sacrament would have prayed unto it with a flood of tears and with sincere marks of his Repentance and Contrition to grant him pardon of his sins and to seal the Absolution of them unto his Soul The Energumeny would have implored the assistance of his holy Spirit for his deliverance from the slavery of the Devil The Catechumeny would have presented unto him his prayers for the augmentation of his knowledge and to be e're long honoured by being Baptized into his Church and then afterwards to be admitted unto the holy Sacrament And in fine the Believer in the sense of his unworthiness would
have prostrated himself in its presence and would have ardently prayed unto it to bestow upon him better dispositions in approaching another time unto the mystical Table there to receive the pledges of his consolation and salvation Is it probable say some if these Christians had held the Eucharist for an Object deserving the highest Adoration that they would have used so severe and rigorous a Discipline which no way savoured of the meekness and love of Jesus Christ against these several sorts of People Is it not more likely that they would have endeavoured to have comforted them in representing that if they were debarr'd for some time from the participation of this great Sacrament that yet they had the comfort of adoring it and of rendring it their homage and the acts of their Piety and Devotion in an occasion wherein God shewed himself more propitious unto men and wherein he answers more favourably unto their prayers and desires But they were fo far from doing so that they turn'd them out without any pity at the time they were to celebrate this Divine Sacrament from whence the Protestants infer That they did not look upon it as an object of Adoration But as they argued against the Adoration of the Sacrament upon what was done by the Primitive Christians so do they also argue against it by what they did not do and yet that which is very religiously practised by the Latins for the Latins do not fail to expose and shew the holy Sacrament in publick rejoycings or calamities they adore and invoke it when they undertake any thing which is considerable and the execution whereof seems difficult They cause it to be adored by their new Converts and by their Penitents by the former that they should give it thanks for their spiritual regeneration and by the others to make atonement for their sins in its presence They make little Images of it and do consecrate them they address unto it their Vows their Prayers and their Thanksgivings but in the Ancient Christian Church nothing of all this was seen neither any Miracle of the Host being Worshipped by Beasts as is related in some Writers of the Latin Church to have frequently happened which confirms them the more in the belief they have that for more then ten Ages the Church did not Worship the Eucharist Whereunto they also add that the Primitive Christians neither caused Incense nor Candles in day time to be burnt unto it as we have shewed in the Chapter wherein we endeavoured to discover the beginning of these two Customs which is attended with a third amongst the Latins I mean that of Flowers which are used either in a way of Garlands or otherways unto the honour of the Sacrament particularly the day called the Holy or the Feast of God and nevertheless Athenagoras doth include under the same condemnation the use of Incense Leg. pro Christian of Odours and Flowers in the Service of God The Creator saith he and the Father of all things hath no want of Blood of Fat of Flowers nor of odoriferous Perfumes because he needeth nothing and is himself a very sweet Odour and desireth nothing out of himself and that the greatest Sacrifice which he requireth is That we should know him In the Dialogue of Minutius Foelix Pag. 10. ult ed. the Pagan Cecilius reproacheth ours That they do not Crown their Heads with Flowers and that they perfume not their Bodies with Odours Which Octavius the Advocate for the Christians doth not deny and he only replies That Christians do not disallow the use of Flowers Ibid. p. 30. yet it is in such a way as that they do not wear them upon their Heads Pardon us saith he pleasantly if we Crown not our Heads with Flowers we are wont to smell the Odour of them with the nose and not with the hinder part of the head nor with the hair Pedag. l. 2. c. 8. p. 179. It is whereunto amounts also what is said by Clement of Alexandria when he condemns the use of Flowers as fit only for Banquets and for Debauchery alledging even presently after these two or three words Adorn not my head with a Crown He is content we should enjoy the sweet smell of Flowers Ibid. p. 180. which are so plentiful in the Fields But to make a Crown of them to put them on the head Ibid. and to wear them as an Ornament about or in the house Ibid. p. 181. he cannot suffer it saying That doth not become a wise and sober person He adds That those which be crowned with Flowers do neither enjoy the beauty of them by the eyes nor the scent of them by the nose although that is their true and natural use He observes that it was but of late that the Luxury of the Greeks had invented this use of Crowns of Flowers Ibid. p. 182. from whence he concludes That the Disciples of Jesus Christ should abstain from them because they are consecrated unto Idols that they ought not to be used for Conscience sake and that the lively Image of God should not be crowned as dead Idols are crowned He saith moreover That it is not at all reasonable that those who have been taught that our Saviour was crowned with Thorns should have their heads crowned with Flowers Ibid. p. 183. by derision to insult over his venerable Passion In fine he observes That if in matter of Flowers something should be granted unto pleasure and civil Recreation Christians should satisfie themselves with the smell of Flowers but that they are not permitted to be crowned with them Tertullian is no less express than the rest nor no less severe in condemning these sorts of Crowns for answering the reproach made against Christians of not bringing any profit unto the Trade of the World and of the fault which was imputed unto them for not using Flowers Apolog c. 42. see here what he saith I buy no Flowers to make a Crown to go round my head What need you care what use it is that I make of the Flowers that I shall buy in the Market I fancy they are better when they are loose unbound and several without any order than to have them made up like a Crown when they are in that condition we are wont to put them unto the nose and to smell them Let them which wear them on their heads consider which is properest to smell them by the hair or by the Organ of smelling Id. de Cor. c. 2. And elsewhere he proposeth the practice of all Christians Not one of which saith he wears a Crown on their heads at least if they are not in danger of being thereby to be known that is to say when there is no danger of being known to be a Christian by refusing to wear a Crown and of being led unto punishment by Persecutors which might know them by this mark for then the Flesh being weak and frail many
I may become happy by the sight of thy Glory And this other I salute thee Light of the World Gloss ad decret Greg. l. 3. tit 41. de Miss celebr c. 10. sane Word of the Father true Hosty living Flesh perfect God true Man It must not be forgot that just at the beginning of the XIII Century a few years before Honorius the Third had made his Constitution for the Adoration of the Sacrament Odo Bishop of Paris ordained Statut Synod c. 5. t. 6. Bibl. Pat. That the people should often be exhorted to bow the knee before the Body as before their Maker and Lord as often as they should see it pass before them This Prelate caused several precautions to be added unto this Decree in case it should happen that any part of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ should fall to the ground or that any Fly or Spider should chance to fall into the Blood 'T is true Odo was not the first that prescribed these kinds of precautions for from the VIII Century somewhat of this nature is to be seen in a Penitential attributed unto Pope Gregory the XIII which held the Chair according unto Bellarmine's computation from the Year 731. unto the Year 741. I say this Penitential is attributed unto him for it is not very certain that it is his but in fine it is in this Book which is inserted in one of the Tomes of the Councils Tom. 5. p. 471. that Precautions like unto those established by Odo Bishop of Paris are to be seen And it is as I conceive of this Penitential Book De Consecr distinct 2. c. si per negligentiam attributed unto Gregory the Thirteenth that the Canonist Gratian hath taken the words he cites in his Decrete under the name of Pope Pius the first who lived about the middle of the II. Century In fine besides that they agree much better with the time of Gregory than with that of Pius who as yet was ignorant of these kinds of Precautions The words related by Gratian as spoken by Pius are at this day to be found verbatim in the Penitential given us under the name of Gregory the XIII The first Christians were careful that no part of the sacred Symbols of the Eucharist should fall to the ground but we do not find that they made any Ordinance touching what might through neglect fall to the ground of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament that was an effect of after Ages which being in process of time become infinitely more scrupulous than former Christians became also more liberal of their Decrees and Constitutions especially in what concerned the Sacrament of the Eucharist insomuch that Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Legat of Pope Celestine made this Decree at the end of the XII Century never regarding the simplicity with which the Sacrament was sent unto sick people in the first Ages of Christianity Apud Roger. de Hoveden in Richard I. That Priests as often as there is need to communicate the Sick should themselves carry the Host in their Priestly Habits suitable unto so great a Sacrament and that Lights should be carried before it if stormy Weather the badness of the Ways or some other reason doth not hinder Odo Bishop of Paris did moreover ordain That all persons should kneel down unto it when it passed by which if my Memory fail not is the first Decree made for adoring the Host yet it must not be imagined that the Adoration of the Sacrament was not at all practised in the Latin Church before this Ordinance of Odo which was made in the beginning of the XIII Century There be some which think that it was established by Durandus Abbot of Troarn in the XI Century a little after Berengarius had declared himself against the Dostrine of the Real Presence But if Durandus made no mention of the Adoration of the Sacrament as in effect there be those which refer his words unto the blessed Humanity of our Redeemer whereof he maketh mention in the same place and unto which they pretend that the act of Adoration should be addressed according to the design of this Abbot it cannot be denied but Alger formally taught it in the XII Century De Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. for as to what we read in the ancient Customs of the Monastery of Cluny That all those which meet the Priest Lib. 3. c. 18. t. 4. Spicil p. 217. bearing the Body of the Lord unto a sick person should demand Forgiveness I do not see that all do explain this action after one manner Dom Luke d'Achery which caused them to be printed understands it of Adoration having caused this little Annotation to be put in the Margin That is to say that they should prostrate and adore Others say that these words Demand Pardon do only signifie that those which meet the Sacrament should demand Forgiveness either of the Priest the same as in communicating Ibid. l. 2. c. 30. p. 145. for they all demanded Pardon of each other and kissed the Priest's hand before they received the holy Sacrament or of God in consideration of the death of Jesus Christ Ibid. l. 1. c. 13. p. 58. c. 38. p. 92. whereof the Sacrament is a Memorial Whereunto they add that the same was practised in this famous Assembly when the Cross was uncovered on Good-Friday and the day called The Exaltation of the Holy Cross and that the Pardon which they asked upon these two occasions is distinguished from Adoration Moreover they say that in the thirtieth Chapter of the second Book of these Customs wherein is exactly represented what was practised in those times in this famous Monastery in the Consecration and in the Communion of the Eucharist there is not one word said of the Elevation of the Host Whence they infer that they did not practise the Adoration of the Sacrament which in the Latin Church for some Ages past doth immediately follow the Elevation of it After all should the words in question be applied unto the Adoration of the Host no other consequence could from thence be drawn but this to wit that in the XI Century at the end whereof was collected together in three Books all these ancient Customs this Adoration began to be practised that is to say after the Condemnation of Berengarius although there was no Decree for it until the XIII Century And as before the XIII Century there was no Decree made touching the Adoration of the Sacrament so also before that time there was no Holy Day dedicated unto its honour from whence the Protestants do not fail to make their advantage against the Adoration of the Eucharist saying That if this Adoration had been practised in the ancient Church Christians would not have referred it unto Urban the Fourth the care of instituting the Feast of the Sacrament which he did in the Year 1264. But it is not sufficient to know that Urban the
relates in his History to demand of him Thuan. Hist l. 28. That the Holy Day of the Body of Jesus Christ which had been newly invented might be abolished because it was the occasion of many Scandals and that it was no way necessary for said she this Mystery was instituted for a spiritual Worship and Adoration and not for Pomp and Pageantry And George Cassander in his Consultation addressed unto the Emperors Cassand Consult de circumgest Euchar Ferdinand the First and Maximilian the Second The practice saith he of carrying publickly the Bread of the Sacrament in publick pomp and often to expose it unto the sight of all the World seemeth to have been introduced and received not very long ago contrary unto the practice and intentions of the Ancients for they had this Mystery in so great veneration that they suffered none so much as to see or receive it but the Faithful whom they esteemed to be Members of Jesus Christ and such as were worthy to partake of so great a Mystery therefore before Consecration the Catechumeny the Possessed the Penitents and in a word all those which were not fit to receive were by the voice of the Deacon commanded to withdraw and were turned out by the care of the Door-keepers This practice therefore of thus carrying this Bread ought to be abolished without any prejudice unto the Church on the contrary it would receive great advantage thereby provided the thing were prudently done seeing it is but a late thing and that without this Procession the honour of the Sacrament is nothing lessened and may still at this time be discontinued seeing for the most part this Ceremony seems rather for Pageantry and Shew than for the peoples Devotion By reason whereof continues he Albert Crantz a man of very great Judgment doth commend in his Metropolis Nicholas de Cusa Legat in Germany to have taken away the abuse which was committed in too often carrying about the Sacrament of the Eucharist in Procession upon Holy Days and commanded that it should not be carried out in publick but betwixt the Octave of the Feast dedicated unto the Sacrament And Albert adds a memorable reason for it Because saith he the Heavenly Master instituted this Sacrament for Use and not for Ostentation And as for the Feast it self it is certain it was instituted by Urban not to carry the Sacrament in Procession but to make the Assembly the greater and to the end Men should so well prepare themselves by works of Piety that they might on that day participate of this precious Sacrament and receive it with respect for it is what the words of the Decree do import and if the Institution were duly kept I think there would be nothing absurd in it The silence of the Gentiles and the ancient Disputes of Christians against them and of theirs against the Christians doth very much contribute unto the Illustration of the question which we examine We have seen in the 9th Chapter of the second part that the Pagans as well as Hereticks had a particular knowledge of all that was believed and practised in the Church and that there was scarce one of our Mysteries but they opposed and upon which they made not some opposition against Christians But they never disputed against them upon the point of the Eucharist even not then it self when the holy Fathers reproached them of adoring things which might be stolen away and which must be kept under Lock and Key things which sometimes was given in pawn From whence several do infer That the Adoration of the Sacrament was not practised amongst these Christians there being no probability that the Gentiles would have spared them upon the Adoration of the Sacrament which is subject unto all these inconveniences wherewith they charged their false Divinities They farther observe In octav Orat. pro contra Graec. That when Minutius Foelix and Tatian called it an impious and ridiculous thing to adore what one sanctified the former said unto them You adore the Ox with the Egyptians and you eat him afterwards And that Theodoret wrote Minut. Foel Ibid. Quaest in Genes 9.55 That it is the greatest folly in the World to adore that which one eats They observe I say that these Pagans would not have been without a reply had the Church at that time given unto the Sacrament the Soveraign Worship of Religion seeing it had been very easie for them to have retorted back these shameful reproaches upon this Object of their Adoration and to say unto them that they had not justice to condemn them for that which they eat seeing that Christians did the very same thing And because they never reply'd this unto the Church it is concluded That the Church did not adore the Sacrament And what doth the more confirm these People in this Opinion is That the Heathens of these times do not fail to reproach the Latins That they do eat the God which they Worship as hath been represented in the 9th Chapter of the second Part above recited St. Austin establisheth this Maxim Serm. 12. de Divers That the God which the Christians Worship cannot be shewed with pointing the Finger Do not dispute with me I beseech you saith he and do not importune me in asking me What is the God that I adore for it is not an Idol towards which I may point my Finger and tell you That is the God which I adore Neither is it a Planet nor a Star nor the Sun nor the Moon that I may stretch out my hand towards Heaven and shew you That is the God which I adore He also applies this Maxim particularly unto Jesus Christ Incarnate Serm. 74. de Divers Serm. 120. de Divers Whilest saith he we are in this Body we are absent from the Lord and if it were called in question or denied and that we were asked Where is your God we are not able to shew him Jesus Christ is always with his Father as to the presence of his Glory and of his Divinity As to his bodily presence he is now above the Heavens at the right hand of his Father but he is in all Christians by a presence of Faith It is in this sense that St. Cyril of Jerusalem said Catech. 14. He is now absent in regard of his Flesh but he is present in the midst of us in Spirit The Protestants hence do draw this induction that these Maxims are inconsistent with the Adoration of the Sacrament and that they cannot reasonably be established by persons which make the Eucharist an Object of Divine Adoration because it cannot be denied but that the Sacrament is a visible Object which is apprehended by our senses and by consequence an Object which can be shewed with the Finger and of which it may be said See there the God which I adore They also pretend that the Holy Fathers Disputes against the Ebionites and the Docetes two Sects of Hereticks the former of
time the whole History of the Eucharist I will here insert two passages of St. Austin to the end the Reader might judge of his Opinion touching the subject which we examine In the first he puts the Sacrament in the same degree with the other Symbols and gives it only the respect which ought to be given unto Religious things Lib. 3. de Trinit c. 10. To establish a Sign saith he one employs sometimes a thing that was existent before upon Earth as Jacob when he awaked after his Dream made use of the Stone which served him for a Pillow while he slept sometimes the thing one makes use of is made on purpose for it and should continue for some time after as the Brazen Serpent which Moses lifted up in the Wilderness and as our Characters and our Letters But sometimes also it ought to cease to be after having served the use whereunto it was destinated as the Bread which we make on purpose to that end and which is consumed in receiving of the Sacrament But because these things being done by Men are known unto Men they may be honoured or respected as Religious things but to cause admiration as miraculous things it is what they cannot do In the other of these two passages he speaks of Baptism and of the Lords Supper and without making any difference betwixt the one and the other as to the respect which we owe them He attributes unto them only a bare and common veneration and also he will have us give it unto them not through any carnal servitude but by a spiritual liberty that is to say as he explains himself not in venerating these Sacraments for their own sake nor in taking the Sign for the thing signified but in directing our Devotion unto the things whereunto they do relate Him saith he that doth Worship or Venerate a Sign Lib. 3. de Doctr Christian cap. 8. 9. without knowing what it signifies he is made subject to the Law but he that celebrates a Sign which is useful and Divinely instituted in knowing what it doth signifie he doth not venerate that which is visible and temporal but all his Devotion is lifted up unto him unto whom it ought to be referred And I affirm that such a person is free and spiritual even though he had lived under the times of Bondage wherein it was not yet convenient to explain the Signs unto carnal Men they being to be brought under by this yoke The Patriarchs and Prophets and all those of the Ancient Israel which the Holy Ghost made use of were those spiritual Men whereby we have received the aid and comfort of the holy Scriptures But since the Resurrection of our Saviour Jesus Christ in these times wherein the Ensign of our liberty hath manifestly appeared we are not so much as burdened with the troublesome observation of Signs whereof we have the knowledge already Whereas the Ancients had such great numbers we have but very few and these few it self which our Saviour and the example of the Apostles left us are very easily practised very easily understood and of a most pure observation as the Sacrament of Baptism and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Every one that receives them knoweth them very well and whereunto they have relation and they be venerated not by any carnal Obedience but by a spiritual Liberty Besides as it is the Nature of a servile weakness to follow the literal sense and to take the Signs for the things signified I suppose that it is also the Nature of Error and Extravagancy to attribute unto Signs needless and frivolous Explications God Almighty give us all Grace so well to distinguish Signs from the things which they represent that we may never give unto those that which we ought only to render unto these I mean that Jesus Christ only may be the Object of our Worship and Adoration and his Sacraments that of our Veneration and Respect So be it Amen AN Alphabetical Table OF THE Chief MATTERS contained in this BOOK The Letters A B C mark the three Parts of the Work A The First Part B The Second C The Third A. ACcidents cannot subsist without their Subject B. Chap. 5. pag. 254 Albigensis their Doctrine Manners and Persecutions they suffered B. ch 18. 475 Albigensis made profession of the Belief of Berengarius immediately after his death Id. 474 Albigensis and Waldensis had one and the same Belief Id. 475 There must be a distinction made betwixt the Adoration of Jesus Christ and the respect and veneration due unto his Sacrament C. ch 4. 562 Jesus Christ distributing his Sacrament unto his Disciples commanded them not to adore what he gave them neither did they adore it Id. 563 St. Paul speaks nothing of this Adoration in his censuring the Corinthians Id. 564 St. Luke says nothing of it in the Acts where he makes mention of the Celebration of the Sacrament Id. Ibid. The first Decrees made touching the adoring the Sacrament was in the XIII Century Id. 576 The use of ringing a Bell for the same Subject instituted in the same Century Id. ibid. Adoration of the Eucharist doth not agree with many things practised by the ancient Church Id. 571 To adore what one sacrificeth is an Impiety Id. 583 To adore what one eateth is absurd Id. ibid. The Sacrament miraculously adored by Beasts was unknown unto the ancient Church before Berengarius A. Ch. 8. 80 The Adoration of the Eucharist inconsistent with what the Ancients have said in their Disputes against the Heathens Id. 581 The Adoration of the Sacrament never retorted against Christians by the Gentiles Idem 482 The Adoration of the Sacrament doth not appear in the Disputes of the Fathers against the ancient Hereticks Id. 584 Adoration of the Sacrament is not practised by the Greeks nor Abyssins Id. ibid. B. BErtram did write by the Command of King Charles the Bald. B. ch 13. 403 Bertram's Book falsly attributed unto Oecolampadius Id. 406 Bertram's Book unadvisedly attributed unto John Scot. Id. 403 Berengarius much esteemed for his Sanctity B. Ch. 17. 453 Berengarius calumniated Id. 454 Berengarius his Adversaries could not answer his Arguments 457 Several disputed and argued for Berengarius Id. 456 Berengarius favourably heard by the Pope Id. ibid. The Doctrine of Berengarius spread throughout the whole Church Id. 454 Berengarius retracts for fear of death but perseveres again Id. 460 Epitaphs made by Hildebert Bishop of Mentz and by Baldrick Abbot of Bourgueil and Bishop of Doll in praise of Berengarius Id. 461 C. WHence proceeded the Reports of unlawful Copulations and those inhumane Banquets wherewith the ancient Christians were scandalized A. Ch. 2. 8 The Celebration of the Sacrament altered by several Hereticks and rejected by others Id. p. 16. Ch. 3. 24 Wherefore the Eucharist is called the Lord's Supper A. Ch. 5. 40 A general and particular Consideration of the place where the Symbols were
Alexandria to visit the Patriarch Miletus his Country-man unto whom he succeeded after his decease having received a thousand marks of his kindness and friendship during his life time of the vigorous resistance which he made by order of this same Miletus in the Year 1592. and the following years against the Latins who used all their endeavours to take off the Russians and Moscovites from the Communion of the Greek Church of his Voyages into Germany where he visited several of the Protestant Universities into Holland where he became acquainted with Grotius and Cornelius Haga Into England from wence he returned unto Alexandria unto his Patriarch Miletus who dying had his dear Cyril for Successor I should also mention the Voyage which he made unto Constantinople whilst he was Patriarch of Alexandria the good success which he had there of meeting his friend Cornelius Haga Ambassador from the States General of the United Provinces the design then in hand of making him Patriarch the difficulties which interposed therein and his Return unto Alexandria from whence he was again called in the Year 1621. to be installed in this Dignity unto the general satisfaction of the Greek Church The great persecutions and troubles which the Latins stirred up against him and how notwithstanding all their Artifices and endeavours he preserved his Dignity of Patriarch of Constantinople although with some difficulty by reason of the malice of his Enemies from the Year 1621. unto the Year 1638. at which time they got some opportunity to strangle him and several other notable circumstances wherewith his life was attended But because in this place I consider him only as a Patriarch of the Greek Church which spake of the Eucharist in the Confession of Faith which he composed and communicated unto a Synodal Assembly convocated at Constantinople in the Year 1629. although several years before he had made several acquainted with it and had also left a Copy of it with the Bishop of Leopolis from whence it was sent to Rome I shall content my self only in observing that this Confession of Faith found different Receptions The Protestants rejoyced in as much as it is exactly agreeable unto their belief The Armenians finding it contrary unto them in the point of Predestination and of Free Will rejected it as being forged by the Protestants and there were some amongst the Latins which did so too But at last all the World was disabused and every body was constrained to own that it was truly made by the Patriarch And how can it be questioned after being refuted by Caryophylus and two Councils where it is said it was condemned the one under Cyril of Beroe who by the violent death of the other Cyril became the peaceable Possor of the Patriarchship and who in the Year 1639. assembled a Synod at Constantinople wherein he caused the Confession now spoke of to be condemned And the other under Parthenius who having driven out Cyril of Beroe in the Year 1641. had it also condemned in 1642. As to the Refutation of Caryophylus it cannot reasonably be thought to contain the Opinions of the Greek Church because that although he was a Greek by Nation yet he was a Latin by Religion Programmate poster having been bred up at Rome from his Infancy as Nihusius doth confess And as for the two Councils if they be received to be Councils of the whole Greek Church for legitimate Councils where all things were done in due form in a word for true Councils it must be granted that the Doctrine of Cyril of Lucar the same with that of the Protestants had not time to be setled amongst the Greeks but the Protestants do not yield at the sight of these two Councils which they suppose to be only forged by the Latins In fine There was lately communicated unto me a Treatise of a learned Man of this Communion which proves by many strong Arguments and Reasons that these two Councils were only fained by the Latins which I intend not to determine but I shall only say that there is one thing in this History which much surpriseth me which is that Parthenius under whom the latter of these Councils was to have been assembled in the Year 1642. was driven out by another Parthenius unto whom Leo Allatius a Greek Latinized and Library-keeper of the Vatican gives this testimony De perpet consens Eccl. Orient Occident l. 3. c. 11. of having been Disciple to Cyril of Lucar and a great favourer of the Calvinists from whence they fail not to infer that the Doctrine of Cyril was not extinguished with his person as neither do they spare to say that if the Greek Church did believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation there would signs of it appear in the Decrees of their Councils as well as in those of the Latin Church in their Liturgies Catechisms and in the publick and authentical pieces touching their Religion which yet they pretend is not to be seen They add also that the Greeks believe that the Communion breaks the Fast that the Eucharist is digested and goes into the draft with other common meats as hath been shewed in the 17th Chapter They observe that they receive the Sacrament standing that they do not bow unto it when it is carried unto 〈◊〉 folks that they have not dedicated unto it any particular Holy day nor Processions that they do not expose it in publick neither in their rejoycings nor in their sorrows that they have not composed any particular Office and Prayers to celebrate its praises and in a word that they do nothing of all which the Latins do to express the Adoration which they give unto it Therefore Arcudius a Latinized Priest of the Isle of Corfu all in a passion demands of Gabriel of Philadelphia wherefore the the Consecration of the Gifts being ended That the Priest doth not bow his head nor adore nor prostrate himself nor give any shew of honour Wherefore is it that he doth not light Candle nor sing any Songs nor Hymns unto the Sacrament making unto it neither reverences nor bowing of the head nor of the knee not honouring it by bowing down unto the ground and not so much as saying unto it Lord remember me in thy Kingdom Besides I think that the Greeks in general are at this time so ignorant that they are not very capable of giving an account of their Faith touching the holy Sacrament So that if I mistake not it would be no difficult matter for persons any thing ingenious whether Protestants or Roman Catholicks to make them to embrace and believe either of the two Opinions But it is now time to treat of the Worship which is to be the Subject of the latter part of this History THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARIST Part III. Wherein is Treated of the Worship of it AFter having seen and considered the manner how the Ancient Christians did Celebrate their Eucharist and what they said and believed of this August Sacrament with