aeterno anathemate dignos esse pronuncio c. I Berengarius unworthy Deacon c. knowing the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith do anathematize all Heresie especially that for which I have hitherto been defamed which endeavours to maintain that the Bread and Wine placed on the Altar after Consecration are only a Sacrament or Sign and not the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and cannot save only in the Sign be handled or broken by the Priest's Hands or be ground by the Teeth of the Faithful But I agree with the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolick Seat and do with my Mouth and from my Heart profess That I hold the same Faith concerning the Sacraments of the Lords Table which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this Holy Synod by Evangelical and Apostolical Authority has delivered to me to hold and confirmed to me viz. That the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar after Consecration are not only a Sacrament but also the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and is sensibly not only in the Sign and Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the Priests Hands and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful Swearing this by the Holy and Co-essential Trinity and by the most Holy Gospels of Christ And as for those that oppose this Faith I judge them with their Opinions and Followers worthy of an eternal Anathema c. This we may look upon as the Belief of that Church then and this to be the manner of eating the Body of Christ since as Bellarmine well observes (o) De Sacr. Euchar. l. 3. c. 21. Nec coguntur ulli abjurare anathematizare sententias dubias sed eas tantùm quae damnantur ab Ecclesia tanquam haereses exploratae None are compelled to abjure and anathematize dubious Opinions but only such as are condemned by the Church as known Heresies But however Infallible this Pope and that General Council were this way of eating Christ's Body by tearing it with the Teeth was quickly opposed as a late Learned Preface to the Determination of Joh. Parisiensis shews at large Peter Lombard could not digest it (p) Sentent lib. 4. dist 12. Fractio partes quae ibi videntur fieri in Sacramento fiunt i. e. in visibili specie Ideoque illa Berengarii verba ita distinguenda sunt ut sensualiter non modo in Sacramento sed in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus Sacerdotum Frangi verò atteri dentibus verè quidem sed in Sacramento tantum For tho' the Pope and Council defined That both the handling and also the breaking and tearing with the Teeth of Christ's Body were not only in the Sign and Sacrament but in Truth performed he makes a distinction and in express words cited in the Margin says That Christ's Body is handled indeed not only in Sacrament but in Truth but that it is broken and torn with the Teeth truly indeed but yet only in Sacrament That is in the visible Species as he before explains that Phrase Directly contrary to Berengarius's Recantation The words also of Job Semeca the Author of the Gloss upon the Canon-Law (q) Gloss apud Gratian. de Consecr Dist 2. c. Ego Berengarius Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haeresin quam ipse habuit ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas nam de Christi corpore partes non facimus are very bold against it Unless you understand the words of Berengarius in a sound sense and there can be no other the words are so plain but what must contradict it you will fall into a greater Heresie than he was guilty of and therefore you must refer all to the Species that 's directly contrary to the Pope and Council for we do not make Parts of Christ's Body In fine all the great Writers especially the Jesuits have forsaken this Definition as not to be maintained and this Eating in the most proper sense is wholly discarded and we are told (r) De Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Ad rationem manducationis non est necessaria attritio sed satis est sumptio transmissio ab ore ad stomachum per instrumenta humana naturalia i. e. linguam palatum by Bellarmine That grinding with the Teeth is not necessarily required to Eating but it suffices that it be taken in and transmitted from the Mouth into the Stomach by humane and natural Instruments viz. the Tongue and Palate This way in plainer terms is swallowing the Body of Christ without chewing And indeed without this Descent of it into the Body there could no Account be given of that Prayer in the Roman Missal (s) Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis Lord let thy Body which I have taken and thy Blood which I have drunk cleave unto my Entrals They have also determined how long this Sacred Body makes its stay there Aquinas whom they all now follow says (t) In 3. part quaest 76. art 6. ad 3. Corpus Christi remanet in hoc Sacramento quousque species sacramentales manent Quibus cessantibus desinit esse corpus Christi sub eis The Body of Christ remains in this Sacrament so long as the Sacramental Species remain When they cease to be the Body of Christ ceases to be under them Thus also Domin Soto (u) In 4. dist 12. qu. 1. art 3. Est indubiè tenendum quod corpus sc Christi descendit in stomachum Cùm digestio fiat in stomacho illic desinunt esse species atque adeo corpus quare non descendit in ventrem We ought undoubtedly to hold That Christ's Body descends into the Stomach Since Digestion is made in the Stomach there the Species cease to be and so also Christ's Body and therefore will not descend into the Draught But now comes a scurvy Case that will force out the whole Truth Suppose by reason of any Disease the Species should descend further than the Stomach as in a Flux when there is no Digestion of the Species nor time to do it in the Stomach but they are presently carried downward whole or else brought up immediately as in case of sudden Vomiting This also is resolved by the same Principles So the last-named Author (x) Soto ibid. Sed si ob aliquem morbum species descenderent consequenter ipsum corpus descenderet emitteretur Pudor enim non debet esse in causa negandi veritatem If by reason of any Disease the Species should descend into the Draught he means the Body also it self would descend and be sent forth For Shame ought not to be a Reason for denying the Truth To which S. Antoninus (y) Part. 3. tit 13. cap. 6. sect 3. Igitur corpus Christi sanguis tamdiu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu
the visible Species and according to the visible Creature or according to the Substance of the Creatures Which are Modes of Speech which the present Roman Church will not allow of in the Eucharist For they tell us their plain Belief what Species are in a Sequence on Corpus-Christi day which explains it thus Sub diversis Speciebus Signis tantum non rebus Latent res eximiae Admirable things lie hid under the different Species which are only Signs and not Things CHAP. V. The Fifth Difference The Fathers differ from the Roman Church in their Assertions about the Nature and Properties of Bodies EVery one knows what the Sentiments of the Roman Church are herein and what they must necessarily assert believing Transubstantiation That a Body that is Organical as Christ's is may be invisible and impalpable commensurate to no Space That it may possess one Place so as to be in more at the same time That it may be entire in one Part and in one Point and may exist after the manner of a Spirit See Bellarmine de Eucharist lib. 1. cap. 2. reg 3. lib. 3. c. 7. The Council of Trent says (a) Sess 13. cap. 3. Totus Christus integer sub specie panis sub qualibet ejus speciei parte existit Whole and entire Christ is in the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and under every part of the Species of Bread. I shall now show That the Fathers assert quite contrary to all these Maxims of the Roman Church giving us a different Account of the Nature and Properties of Bodies and in the Particulars forenamed make no difference betwixt Christ's Body and ours 1 Assertion They assert That every Organiz'd Body not excepting the Body of Christ is visible and palpable Tertullian (b) De Resurrect c. 35. Corpus hominis non aliud intelligam quam quod videtur quod tenetur I understand nothing by the Body of a Man c. but what is seen and felt Methodius (c) Apud Phatium Cod. 234. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is Incorporeal and therefore Invisible Eustathius Antioch (d) De Engastrimytho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he was Invisible without doubt he was Incorporeal Speaking of Samuel raised at Endor Didymus (e) Caten in Joan. 4.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a thing be Invisible it presently follows that it is Incorporeal Greg. Nazianzen (f) Orat. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If God be a Body what kind of Body and how an impalpable and invisible one This is not the Nature of Bodies And he cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O strange Licence to imagine thus Greg. Nyssen (g) De Opific hom cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says That is not a Body that wants Colour Figure Solidness Space Weight and the rest of its Attributes S. Austin (h) De Verb. Domini Ser. 60. Semper quidem Divinitate nobiscum est sed nisi corporaliter abiret à nobis semper ejus corpus carnaliter videremus speaking of our Lord says He is always with us by his Divinity but if he were not corporally absent from us we should always carnally see his Body Ephrem Antioch (i) Apud Photium Cod. 229. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Man of any sense can say That the Nature of that which is palpable and impalpable of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same Altho' the Valentinians in Eulogius (k) Ibid. Cod. 230. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say That the Nature of that which is visible and that which is invisible is the same And so did the Manichees Ibid. Vigilius (l) Lib. 4. contr Eutych Necesse erit ut caro sicut verbum si unius cum eo est naturae increata sit invisibilis c. Sed carnem his conditionibus subjacere impossibile est speaking of the Lord's Body says It is necessary the Flesh as well as the Word if they be of one Nature be uncreated and invisible But it is impossible that Flesh should be the Subject of such Conditions Titus Bostrensis (m) Contr. Manich. l. 2. Omne quod sub aspectum cadit cum sit corpus natura oppositum est inaspectabili incorporeo c. Every thing that falls under our Sight seeing it is a Body is in Nature opposite to that which is invisible and incorporeal Damascen (n) De Fide Orth. lib. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can that be a Body c which is impalpable and invisible Gregory the Great (o) Moral lib. 14. c. 33. Erit itaque subtilis quia incorruptibilis erit palpabilis quia non amittet essentiam veracis naturae speaking of a glorified Body says It will therefore be a subtile Body because it will be incorruptible and it will be palpable because it shall not lose the Essence of its true Nature Cyril of Alex. in his Explication of the third Anathema of the Ephesine Council (p) Tom. 3 Concil Labbe p. 817. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is not a Stranger to that body which he has united to himself which we say is capable to be felt and to be seen In fine The Church of Rome makes Christ's Body invisible tho' it be present the Fathers never make it so but because it is absent So Ammonius (q) Caten in Joan. 16.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was taken up into Heaven and became invisible unto Men. And the Author imperfecti Operis in Matthaeum (r) Homil. 53. Si sit praesens non creditur sed videtur cùm autem absens fuerit non videtur sed creditur dum timetur When he is present he is not believed but seen but when he is absent he is not seen but believed whilst he is feared 2 Assertion The Fathers assert That every Body is quantum and as it has Quantity possesses a Place or Space and is commensurate to it That a Body cannot be in more than one Place nor be intire in one Part nor exist after the manner of a Spirit All which are false if Transubstantiation be true S. Basil (s) Contr. Eunom l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes that to be incorporeal whose Essence cannot be divided three ways or has not three Dimensions Greg. Nyssen (t) De Opific Hom. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That if you take Quantity Solidness and other Properties from the Subject the whole Nature of the Body is dissolved c. S. Austin says so much upon this Argument that I must only mention some few Testimonies out of a great Heap that might be collected He says (u) Lib. 4. de Orig. Animae c. 11. Corpus est quicquid majoribus minoribus suis partibus majora minora spatia locorum continentibus constat A Body is that which consists of greater and lesser Parts containing greater and lesser Spaces of Place Again
non deseratur Christ says he expounded the manner of his assignment and gift how he gave his Flesh to eat saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this if he abides in Christ and Christ in him if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him And he concludes with this Exhortation (m) Ibid. propè finem Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat dilectissimi ut carnem Christi sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento quod multi mali sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus bibamus ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus ut ejus spiritu vegetemur c. Let all that has been said Beloved prevail thus far with us that we may not eat Christs Flesh and Blood in Sacrament or sign only but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spirit that we may remain as Members in our Lords Body that we may be enlivened by his spirit c. CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference Several Vsages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Eucharist declare That they did not believe Transubstantiation or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there whose contrary practices or forbearance of them in the Roman Church are the Consequences of that belief As also some things the present Roman Church practises because they believe Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and dare not neglect to practise so believing which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of not knowing any obligation thereto which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes as any I have urged before tho' I think I have urged very cogent ones For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others and to shift off an Argument of that kind yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact and a plain Practice I shall therefore try by several Instances of Usages and Forbearances in the cases above-named whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts that the Ancient Church and the present Church of Rome were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter 1. Instance It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church to exclude the uninitiated Catechumens the Energumeni acted by evil Spirits and Penitents from being present at the Mysteries and to enjoin all that were present to communicate It is so known a Case that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart as I before named when they went to the Prayers of the Mass which was so called from this dismission of Catechumens Penitents c. that I shall not stay to prove it See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens l. 8. cap. 6 7 9 12. and S. Chrysostom Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes By the same Laws of the Church those that remained after the exclusion of the rest were all to communicate whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (n) Hierarch Eccles c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries and to communicate For this because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o) Can. 2. Concil Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which says That they which enter into the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures and do not communicate in Prayers with the People or turn away from receiving the Eucharist through any disorderliness are to be cast out of the Church till they confess their Sin and repent c. Which is the same in sense with that Canon (p) Canon Apostol 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very ancient tho' not Apostolical as it pretends That all the Faithful that enter and hear the Scriptures and do not continue at Prayer and also at the Holy Communion are to be separated as those that bring disorder into the Church S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist and did not communicate (q) Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain he tells them do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates in vain is the daily Sacrifice He minds them that the Cryer had said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those that were in penitence or penance should depart but thou says he art not of that number but of those that may participate i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being hindred by any Church-Censures as Penitents were and regardest it not He says That the King at the Marriage-Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not ask Why didst thou sit down but why didst thou enter And adds That whosoever being present does not receive the Mysteries stands there too boldly and impudently The rest is well worthy the reading in that Homily Gregory the Great also tells us (r) Dialog l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat det locum it was the custom in his Time for a Deacon to cry aloud If any do not Communicate let him depart There must be no Spectators that is unless they were Communicants For as Justin Martyr (s) Apolog. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquaints us it was the usage of his Time That the the Deacons reach to every one present of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water that they may communicate If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church we shall find all quite contrary There they may have as many Spectators as please to come when there is but one alone that receives the Eucharist I mean the Priest Any one that knew nothing of the Matter would conclude when he saw their Masses that they came thither about another Business ordinarily than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour which was the only use that the Ancients understood of it They considered it as a Sacrament by Institution designed to represent Christ's Passion and Crucifixion these consider the presence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there and are taken up with adoration more than any thing else That they will not abate every day you are present when the Host is shown for that end But as for the other the receiving of the Eucharist they are satisfied if it be done but once a Year The Ancients look'd upon it as an Invitation to a Table where the Sacrament was to be their Meal but here you are called to look upon the King present and sitting in state and chiefly to take care
and worshipped Not to mention some extraordinary contingences such as the breaking out of a great Fire suddenly occasioning the drawing it out of its Retirement to oppose against and stop its fury Besides the Pope himself has often need of the reserved Host not to Take and eat according to the Institution but to take along with him when he in his Pontificals rides to any Church or takes a Journey to a City this always accompanies him and the Book of Sacred Ceremonies will give you an account of the Horse and the colour of it upon which it is set with the Bell about his Neck and the pompous Train the Canopy carried over it and lighted Torches before it c. Let me only add farther That in that case which is pretended to be the great occasion for the reservation of the Eucharist I mean to be in readiness for sick Persons yet even here the Procession and the Pomp and the Magnificence in the conveying it to such Places and the Receiving the Adorations of all it meets seems to be as much designed as the communicating those sick Persons which they will be contented as soon to let alone as to abate those attending Ceremonies The Ancient Church had very homely practices they used and suffered in cases of great necessity things that this Church would account incongruous if not profane Such as that which Dionysius of Alexandria (f) Apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. relates concerning old Serapion who when he lay a-dying sent a young Grand-child of his to call one of the Presbyters of Alexandria to give him the Sacrament Who by reason of Ilness not being able to go along with him he made no more ado but took a little portion of the Eucharist and gave it into the Youth's Hand and directed him to moisten it and so to infuse it into his Mouth which he did and immediately upon the swallowing it the old Man expired I Question whether the Gentlemen of the Roman Church will allow this to be a true Communion but I believe with their perswasions they would not follow it for a World. We may more than guess so by a remarkable Story Nic. Trigautius tells us of what was resolved upon by the skilful Jesuits in a Case exactly like the former (g) Nic. Tâ—â—gantii exped apud Sinas l. 5. c. 7. p. 503. Neque domi loco convenienti celebrari poterat neque pro majestate per vicos deferri solabantur igitur illum socii necessaria peccatorum confessione perfunctum posse sine viatico quod legitime impeditus minimè susciperet coelestem gloriam introire at Pekin in China One Fabius who had been converted and baptized being above Eighty Years old fell sick to Death and having been confess'd of his Sins with great earnestness desired to receive the Sacrament for his Viaticum but there being no convenient place at his House to celebrate it in nor liberty to carry it through the Streets in Pomp and requisite State they comforted him with the consideration of his having made confession of his Sins which was necessary and told him that he might without taking the Sacrament when he was lawfully hindred go to Heaven and so they left him These admirable Casuists you see determine against communicating the dying Person when it could not be performed with the majestick Ceremonies they desired The Priest of Alexandria and the Fathers in China differ very widely in their Practice and you may be sure their Perswasions in this matter were as different the Man himself indeed he tells us found a way to get the Communion at last by throwing himself into their House but it was not till they had made a little Procession within doors till the Tapestry was spread on the Floors and the Tapers lighted nothing could be done In a word to perswade People of the necessity of these Pomps and Solemnities in conveying the Sacrament to the Sick they produce several Miracles * See the School of the Eucharist Title Asses and Mares c. how when the Priests have carried the Eucharist through Fields without attendance Troops of Asses and Mares have run to supply this defect and having first fallen down on their Knees to worship the Deity he carried they have accompanied him to the Place waited at the sick Man's Door till all was over and then marched back again in good order with him God showing by these respects paid to it by Beasts what he expected much more from Men. 2. Difference relates to what was received in the Eucharist wherein we also see a plain disagreement in the usages of the Primitive and the present Roman Church Which is this The Ancient Church allowed great Liberty privately to reserve what had been publickly received in the Eucharist Which would be now a great Crime in the Roman Church so far from being allowed It is undeniable that anciently this was allowed whether they did well or ill in it is not at all the question but concerning the Matter of Fact. S. Basil (h) Epist 289. thinks that the Custom took its rise from Times of Persecution when Christians were forced to flee into Desarts and live in solitude having not the presence of a Priest to communicate them they had the Sacrament reserved by them and communicated themselves But he says even when this Reason ceased this became afterwards an inveterate Custom And in Alexandria and Egypt the Laicks commonly had the Sacrament by them in their own Houses (i) Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he says expresly this which they so reserved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all liberty as his Phrase is was a Particle received from the Priest's Hand in the Church So Nazianzen (k) Orat. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says of his Sister Gorgonia Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her Hand had treasured up c. Which very phrase intimates that at several times she had reserved and made a collection of the Consecrated Elements Tertullian supposes it a common practice in his time when he says (l) Lib. 2. ad Vxor Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes c. Thy Husband will not know what it is thou tastest secretly before all other Meat c. It is true indeed that in the Councils of Saragosa and Toledo in Spain this was prohibited in the 4th Century upon occasion of the Priscillianists who did receive the communion as others did and reserved it and so could not be discovered tho' they never took it against whom Learned Men think those Councils made those Canons which anathematized those that received but did not take it down but reserved it However the foresaid Custom still prevailed in other Places as might be shown if it were needful as far as the 11th Century As for the present Church this is wholly a Stranger to them they will have