is not needful to be done again any more In one of the Homilies of Easter which many attribute unto Caesarius Bishop of Arles the Authour be he who it will there maketh this reflection Caesar Hom. 5. de Pasch speaking of Jesus Christ Because he intended to remove from our sight the Body which he had taken and so place it in Heaven It was necessary that in that day he should consecrate for us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to the end that we should honour by the type that which had been once offered for the price of our Salvation But S. Basil or at least the Author of the Commentaries upon Isaiah in his Works hath joined both these regards together in Interpreting these words of the first Chapter What have I to do with the multitude of your Sacrifices God saith he rejected the multitude of Sacrifices Basil in c. 1. Es and desires but one which is That every one should present himself to God a living Sacrifice which may be well pleasing unto him offering by a reasonable Sacrifice the Sacrifice of Praise for when the multitude of Legal Sacrifices were rejected as useless he accepted in the last times one only Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sin because the Lamb of God took away the sins of the World offering himself an Oblation and Sacrifice of a sweet savour And a little after Having declared that the Sacrifices of the Law are no longer in force Id. ibid. he adds There is one only Sacrifice which is Christ and the mortification of Saints for love of him one only sprinkling that is to say the washing of Regeneration one Expiation of sin to wit the Blood which was shed for the Redemption of the World It was also in the same sense that S. Austin expounding what is said in the Fiftieth Psalm and according to the Hebrews the Fifty first August in Ps 50. Hadst thou desired Sacrifices I would have given them said That David lived in the time when Sacrifices and Beasts and burnt Offerings were presented unto God and he beheld the times which were for to come Do not we behold our selves in those words those Sacrifices were Figures which foreshewed the only saving Sacrifice neither have we been left destitute of a Sacrifice which we may offer unto God which he expounds to be of praises and a contrite heart Now of this constant Doctrine of the Fathers proceeded certain uses which were Religiously observed in the ancient Church as to have but one Only Altar or Eucharistical Table in each Temple of celebrating the Sacrament but once a day unless extraordinary necessity required it as hath been shewed of obliging Believers to Communicate as often as the Sacrament was celebrated as shall be hereafter declared of never celebrating the Sacrament without Communicants as all Liturgies do testifie he that celebrates speaking almost ever in the Plural number And that Oblations were received only of those that were admitted unto the holy Sacrament so that the liberty of presenting his gift was alwaies followed by Communicating Concil Eliberit c. 28. Carthag 4. c. 93 94. Constit Apostol l. 4. c. 5. l. 3. c. 8. Epiphan in Panar extr Ambros Ep. 59 alibi as appears by a great many Canons which are not necessary to be alledged upon a matter which is not contested and which is known unto all that have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which proceeding makes me think those holy Doctors looked upon the Eucharist as a Sacrament of Communion only But 't is time to proceed to the Consideration and Examination of the other parts of the outward Celebration of the Sacrament CHAP. IX Of the Elevation and breaking the Bread WE have Observed in the beginning of the foregoing Chapter that although Jesus Christ had broke the Bread presently after having Blessed and Consecrated it without any other Ceremony intervening betwixt the Consecration and Fraction nevertheless the ancient Christians in process of time introduced some other Ceremonies betwixt these two actions which were not used at the beginning I mean the Oblation of the Symbols and the Elevation Having then treated of the former which is of the Oblation and discovered by that means all the Motives and Reasons which obliged the holy Fathers to give unto the Eucharist the name of Sacrifice and how they explained themselves upon the quality and nature of this Sacrifice Now we must consider the Elevation which followed the Oblation but not very suddainly It is most certain that our Saviour made no Elevation when he Instituted and Celebrated his first Sacrament for none of the Evangelists have made any mention of it the Christians which followed in the next immediate Age practised no such thing as appears by the relation made unto us by S. Justin Martyr of all that was practised in that time in celebrating this August Sacrament the Liturgies of this Divine Mystery which may be seen in the Constitutions which pass in the Apostles name in the Writings of the pretended Denys the Areopagite and in S. Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogicks do make no mention of this Elevation So that for four or five Ages of Christianity we do not find that this Ceremony was practised But if we do not find the Elevation of the Eucharist mentioned in the Liturgies of the four or five first Ages of the Church we do therein find another practice very conformable unto the state of the Gospel and unto the nature of the Sacrament I mean the lifting up the mind and heart as S. Cyprian doth expresly teach us The Priest saith he before reciting the Lords Prayer by a Preface doth prepare the Spirits of the Faithful saying Lift up your hearts Cyprian de Orat Dom. that the people being warned in answering Vnto thee O Lord should think only of Jesus Christ An Advertisement found in all the Liturgies which have been since made and also even in that of the Latin Church As for the Elevation of the Sacrament there is some mention made of it in the Liturgy which goes in the name of S. Chrysostome Tab. Chronolog p. 536 537. but cannot be his as the Learned of both Communions acknowledge Therefore those who composed the Office of the holy Sacrament attribute it unto John the Second who was also Bishop of Constantinople but near 200. years after Saint Chrysostome that is towards the end of the VI. Century And I do not conceive that this Elevation appeared before that time so that if it be to be found in any Liturgy which bears the name of any ancienter Authour for instance in that attributed unto S. James I scarce make any doubt but it was forged or at least altered or corrupted But it is nothing to know that after the four or five first Ages of Christianity they begun in some Churches to use the Elevation of the Sacrament if we do not also consider for what end they did elevate
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
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
which this Church retained very punctually almost unto these last times Hugh Maynard and James Goar do make almost the same observation by reason of a passage of the Book of them which are initiated which is in S. Ambrose We have upon this Subject a constitution of the Emperour Justinian who reigned in the V. Century viz. the 123 wherein he ordains to make the Divine Oblation that is to say as Photius explains it in his Nomocanon Tit. 3. Can. 1. The Prayers of the holy Communion not with a low voice but after such a manner that the faithful People might understand what is said a custom which was still observed in the Latin Church in the IX Century for Paschas Radbert in his Letter unto Frudegard and Ratran in his Treatise of the Body and blood of Christ do observe that the People answered Amen unto the Prayers of the Canon Moreover those which in that Age wrote of Divine and Ecclesiastical offices as Amalarius Rabanus Walafridus have very exactly observed all that was practised in their times in the Celebration of the Eucharist But they say not a word of the manner of pronouncing the Sacramental words which the Latins follow at this time an evident proof that it was not then received Miss Rom. tit Rit Celeb. Miss c. 8. §. 5. as it hath been some Ages past For the Missal commands to pronounce the consecrating words with a low voice that is to say in such a manner that no body may hear them The original of so considerable a change had not as many conceive a sufficient foundation for the Author of Divine Offices who cloakt himself under the name of Alcuin who was dead about two hundred years before this Treatise was composed Alcuin de Div. off tlt de Celebr Miss t. 10. Bibl. patr seeing the learned do not judge it was written before the XI Century or at least until the end of the X. Century this Author I say writes that this custom of pronouncing with a low voice the words of Consecration proceeded from a report That God had punished with sudden death certain Shepherds that sang them in the fields those that have spoke since followed the same steps as Hugh of St. Victor a writer of the XII Age John Belet who lived as 't is said in the same time Innocent the third Honorius of Autun and Durandus de Mende who wrote in the XII and XIII and Gabriel Biel who composed the Lessons in the XV. with this difference that some amongst them have added that the Bread upon which the Shepherds pronounced the Sacramental words was converted into flesh and as for them they were destroyed by fire from Heaven Nevertheless they own as well as Cassander in his Treatise of Liturgies that before that time these words were pronounced with a loud voice Now let the Reader judge if the Latins had reason for a motive of this Nature to abolish the antient custome contrary to what is even unto this day practised amongst the Greeks the Syrians the Ethiopians the Armenians the Muscovites or Russians which do all consecrate with a loud voice I know there have been some Doctors of the Latin Church who to render more antient the custom of consecrating with a low voice have had recourse unto the spiritual Meadow of John Moschus who lived in the VII Century It s true he relates two different Histories at least if they may be called Histories which being joyned together contain some circumstances which have a resemblance with what the forged Alcuin hath written and after him several others But in the main there is such notable differences betwixt what the pretended Alcuin has written and what Moschus doth relate that it is easiy to perceive that the Latins have grounded their Decree upon the relation of the former rather than upon that of the latter although neither the one nor the other appears unto judicious persons to be worthy of much credit CHAP. VIII Of the Oblation or of the manner of the Sacrifice IF Christians had done no more in the Celebration of their Sacrament than Jesus Christ had done in his the Consecration of Symbols had immediately been followed with the breaking of Bread and so we should have been obliged to have treated of the breaking of Bread after having examined the form of Consecration but because betwixt the Consecration and the breaking Bread which immediately followed they have in process of time brought in the Oblation and Elevation before we treat of the Fraction we must consider these two other things the former in this Chapter and the other in that which next follows As our Saviour after Prayer and giving Thanks whereby he consecrated the Sacrament proceeded unto the breaking of Bread and distribution there appearing nothing in the History of the Institution of any Oblation or Elevation betwixt the Consecration and the breaking of the Bread so the Apostles who exactly followed his Example and Precepts certainly failed not to do what he had done I mean to proceed unto the breaking the Bread and the distribution of it immediately after having blessed and sanctified it which simplicity was very pleasing unto those who lived in the following Age. For Justin Martyr doth testifie that the Consecration of the Symbols was followed by the Communion of Believers which necessarily presupposed the breaking the Bread therefore he forbore expressing it at large But their Successors thinking they ought to raise and advance the dignity of this Mystery and to elevate the simplicity of it with divers Ceremonies to render it the more pleasing unto the Jews and Pagans which they earnestly desired to draw unto the Communion of the Gospel and of the knowledge of Jesus Christ joyned unto the Consecration of Symbols the Oblation which they made unto God after they had been blessed and sanctified Oblation which was a kind of Sacrifice taking the word in a large sense and by consequence an improper sense they judged of very great importance to work upon the Jews and Gentiles because both the one and the other being accustomed unto outward Sacrifices were exceedingly scandalized that the Christians made use of none in their Religion This appears by the calumnies which they cast upon those who first undertook to defend the innocency of Christianity against their reproaches But the better to understand the nature of this Oblation it is to be observed there are three several sorts to be seen in the Liturgies of Christians the first the most antient and that which was only in use in Justin Martyr's time and afterwards is the Oblation of Bread and Wine which the faithful made in the Celebration of the Eucharist and which the Minister offered unto God by Prayers as may be seen in all the Liturgies That attributed unto St. James shall serve at this time because the same in substance is to be found in all the rest there the Pastor makes this Prayer unto God Liturg. S. Jacob. Cast thine Eyes
to the Scorn of the Enemies of Christianity and have given them Occasion to have derided the Holiness of our Mysteries I could add unto all that we have said in the first place the Simplicity with which the primitive Christians celebrated the Sacrament as we shall perceive by Justin Martyr and the Liturgy of the pretended Dennis the Areopagite for it is very like if they had believed that the Sacrament is the real Body of Jesus Christ they would have used more Ceremony in the Celebration Secondly The Form of Consecration used in the ancient Church as well in the East as the West by Prayers Invocations and giving Thanks as hath been shewn in the seventh Chapter of the first Part doth shew in all likelihood that the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion was not believed because this Conversion could not be made without the abolishing the Substances of Bread and Wine and that Prayers and Benedictions never destroy the Creatures Moreover if what was consecrated were not Holy before Consecration as the Holy Fathers informed us in the same Chapter this Consecration could not happen unto Jesus Christ neither as God nor as Man not as God for in this regard he is Holiness it self not as Man because in this Regard he was ever Holy Besides if this Consecration only retired the Elements of Bread and Wine from their common natural Use to employ them in a religious and holy Use as they have also declared unto us it cannot be seen that this Effect of Consecration can subsist with the Ruin and Abolishment of these Elements For the Use of any Thing be it Prophane or Holy doth always presuppose its Truth and Existency otherwise it were useless in Religion and Nature The Latin Church hath also laid aside this Form of Consecration which she attributed some Ages past unto these Words This is my Body wisely foreseeing that whilst Consecration was made to depend upon Prayers and giving Thanks the substantial Conversion would scarcely be believed I will end this Chapter by another Consideration drawn from the Reasons and Motives which obliged the Holy Fathers to give unto the Sacrament the Name of Sacrifice according to the Enquiry we made in Chap. VIII of the first Part where we have at large proved by their proper Testimonies that they have given it this Title by reason of the Bread and Wine which Communicants presented upon the Holy Table of the Church for the Celebration of the Sacrament and by reason of the Oblation which was made unto God of this Bread and Wine at the instant of Consecration and afterwards Moreover they also called it so because we there render Thanks unto God for bestowing upon us his well beloved Son so that it is an Act of our Thankfulness unto the Father and the Son for the admirable and ineffable benefit of his Death because the Sacrament serves us now instead of the Legal Sacrifices being our external Worship under the Dispensation of the Gospel as Sacrifices was that of the Jews under the Oeconomy of the Law And in sine because it is the Memorial of the truly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross These are the Reasons and Motives of this Name of Sacrifice which the ancient Doctors have given to the Sacrament and which we have largely insisted upon in the before-mentioned Chapter The Protestants hence infer two Things first That all these Reasons and Motives remove from the Minds of Christians the Idea of a real Sacrifice and makes them conceive that of a Sacrifice improperly so called Thence it is that when the Jews and Pagans reproached them that they had neither Altars nor Sacrifices they freely confessed it shewing thereby that if they had given unto the Eucharist the Name of Sacrifice and unto the Holy Table the Name of Altar it was but improperly and by abuse of Language Thence also it is that when they instruct those within and that they teach them what hath succeeded unto the Sacrifices of the Law they contented themselves to oppose unto the Mosaical Sacrifices either the Spiritual Sacrifices which we offer unto God under the Gospel or the Sacrifice of the Cross or both of them together and that there should rest no Scruple in the Minds of the People which they instructed touching the Nature and Quality of the Sacrifice of the Christian Church they unanimously depose at all Times and in all Places that it is an Oblation of Bread and Wine It is also what they were induced to believe because there was but one Altar or one Eucharistical Table in each Church and that the Sacrament was celebrated but once a Day For had they considered the Sacrament as a real Sacrifice they could not have had too many Altars nor too often offer the Sacrifice because in the often doing it there came the greater Benefit and Comfort unto their Souls It is also the Instruction which they drew from Believers being obliged to communicate and that those were made to depart out of the Church which did not communicate in that they never celebrated the Eucharist without Communicants and that Oblations were not received but from those which were admitted unto the holy Sacrament Why should that be if it had been a real Sacrifice seeing one might have assisted with Profit although one communicated not as is now practised in the Latin Church The second thing they infer is That seeing they have not looked upon the Eucharist as a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the Quick and the Dead they have looked upon it as a Sacrament of Communion only and a Sacrament which is the Memorial of Jesus Christ and of his Death and where there is distributed unto the Communicants Bread and Wine for a Pledge of their Salvation For therein is distributed what is there offered unto God after Consecration Now the Holy Fathers testifie That there is offered unto God Bread and Wine Gifts and Fruits of the Earth the first Fruits of his Creatures Food which he bestows upon us the same things which Melchizedeck offered the Symbols and Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So it is they have formally expressed themselves in this eighth Chapter which I desire the Reader to peruse over again to see if these two Inductions are lawful and natural CHAP. VII Continuation of the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and the Inferences of Protestants BEsides what hath been hitherto said it is observ'd that there be certain Occasions wherein the Holy Fathers should have omitted the Names of Figure Antitype Sacrament if they had believed that it had been the real Body of Christ himself nevertheless they have done the quite contrary For instance The Author of Apostolical Constitutions Constit Apost l. 7. c. 26. gives us a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving for the Communion where he makes the Communicants say We give thee Thanks O Father for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us and for his precious Body whereof we
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
any Magick or Enchantment did what he pretended to do by the help of his Sorceries in casting a Mist before the Eyes of those that were present and that by pronouncing of these Words This is my Body This is my Blood they change the Wine of the Cup into the very Blood of the God which they adore Nevertheless St. Irencus nor St. Epiphanius which have narrowly enough examined the Heresy of this Deceiver and all that he did in the celebration of the Mysteries nor any one else that I hear of have not made him this Objection to expose unto the sight of the whole World the folly of his enterprise which shews as the Protestants say that the Orthodox Christians did not then believe that what was in the consecrated Cup was the real Blood of Jesus Christ In the same Chapter of the first part we mentioned the Ascodrutes or Ascodrupites which rejected both Baptism and the Eucharist saying That invisible things should not be represented by visible things nor incorporeal things by sensible and corporal and that Images and Figures ought not to be made upon Earth How could the Holy Fathers grapple with these Hereticks or condemn as a Heresy that which they taught that the Symbols of Spiritual and Heavenly Things ought not to be sensible nor corporal if Catholicks had not in their Sacraments Symbols of this Nature For it would have been unjust to condemn that for a Heresy in others which we believe and approve our selves or how should these Hereticks have abstained from the celebration of Baptism and the Eucharist if the Orthodox had believed with them that there was nothing sensible nor corporal in the one nor the other of these two Sacraments for what made them lay aside these Sacraments was the substance of the Symbols which were corporal and visible and as the same reason which made them deny Baptism made them also reject the celebration of the Sacrament this was the reason that they did not find the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament no less visible and corporal than the Water of the other so that the Holy Fathers opposing their Heresy refute it alike both for the one and the other Sacrament and in disputing against it they own that the substance of the Symbols are sensible and visible in both for in this respect they make no distinction betwixt Baptism and the Eucharist this is the conclusion of the Protestant As touching the silence of Hereticks it is almost of the same force with that of the Gentiles because the same Truths which were the Object of the Scorn and Contempt of Pagans were also the subject of the slander and contradiction of Hereticks some whereof denied the truth of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ as Marcion and several others which attributed unto him an imaginary Body a Shadow and Figure of a Body teaching that the Son of God did not become Man and that he manifested himself unto Man only in a false shape not having a true Body but one in shew Others have denied his Divinity as Ebion Cerinthus Artemon and others which maintained that our Jesus was not God but Man only and that he did not begin to be but when he was born of the Holy Virgin two Mysteries which we have seen whereof the Jews and Pagans both made light The Cross of Christ which was the stumbling block of the Jews and the scorn of the Heathen was also contradicted by Hereticks who were not ashamed to say that Jesus Christ had not truly suffered but that he either put another Man in his stead or avoided the fury of those which crucified him by this seeming Body wherewith they say he was invested * The Resurrection of the Body which was esteemed a Story and Fable by the Gentiles also offended exceedingly some Hereticks as the Gnosticks the Marcionites and some others And to speak in a Word there was scarce any one Article of our Faith which in the first Ages of Christianity was not traversed by some Heresy or that met not with some contradiction amongst Christians themselves What likelihood then say they is there that if the Doctrine of the substantial Conversion and all the Consequences which necessarily depend of it had been taught by Christians and received into the Articles of their Faith but it would have received some attempt by Hereticks who not having disowned the use of their Senses nor of their Reason could not choose as they think but have disputed against them especially when they should have considered that they would have denied the testimony of their Senses and the clearest light of their Reason Nevertheless we cannot find in any Monument of the ancient Doctors of the Church that the Hereticks ever contested with the Catholicks and Orthodox upon the point of the Eucharist it is indeed true that some rejected the celebration of the Sacrament tho upon different Motives but that they charged the Church touching the substantial conversion of the Symbols of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ there is not one to be found especially of those which have owned the truth of the Human Nature of the Son of God at least no such thing is to be seen in their Writings nor in the divers Catalogues of Heresies that still remain nor in the Polemical Writings of the Holy Doctors against Hereticks for as for those mentioned by the Author of the Letter unto those of Smyrna under the Name of St. Ignatius of whom we have spoken in the third Chapter of the first part besides it is very uncertain if there were ever any such they denied the Mystery of the Incarnation and did not confess the truth of the humanity of Jesus Christ they rejected the Sacrament the celebration whereof is a kind of confessing and owning the truth of his Human Nature but neither they nor any others have complained against the belief of the Church upon the subject of the Sacrament they have not armed against her nor have separated from her Communion upon account of this Divine Mystery neither did the Church ever thunder out Anathema's nor Excommunications upon this Subject From whence say some proceeds so universal a Silence and so great tranquillity upon so important an Article which since Paschas his time that is to say the IXth Century hath suffered such an infinite number of Contradictions in the West for this Friar of Corby no sooner published his Opinion but there opposed against him all the Learned Men of that Age and it will appear in the course of this Treatise that ever since that time the Doctrine of the real presence hath never been without a great many Opposers and Adversaries which for that reason have been Excommunicated and esteemed Hereticks by the Latin Church When I make this reflection in my self saith the Protestant that the Minds of Men have been at all times much of one and the same Temper and been ever almost of the same Disposition and that besides the
on Paschas his side I know not precisely the time that he lived although it is very probable it was either at the latter end of the IX Century or it may be in the X. but I know he was not a stout Champion and that his Courage was not able to restore Paschas his Party if they had the fortune to be worsted Unto this day the name and quality of this Proselite is not known as also it is not known who or what Frudegard was if it be not inferred by Paschas calling him Brother and Fellow-Soldier that he was either a Friar or Abbot of some Monastery As for Hinâ—mar Arch-Bishop of Rheims incomparably better known than our Anonymous and more famous than Frudegard by his Dignity and Writings I find my self a little at a loss for when I consider that he saith with St. Cyprian and St. Austin 1 Hinem. de proedest c. 3. epilogi c. 1. That our Saviour recommended his Body and Blood in things that are reduced into one 2 Id. ibid. de cavend viriis c. 12. ad Hincm Laud. c. 48. That he reserves with St. Austin and St. Prosper the eating of the Flesh of Christ for Believers only 3 Id de non trina deitate c. 17. That he declares with the former that the Mystery of Bread passeth into a Sacrament 4 Id. de caven vit c. 11. And that he acknowledgeth with others That our Saviour hath left us the Sacrament as a Pledge of his Love and as a Memorial of his Person and of his Death as a Man travelling into a far Country should leave a Pledge unto his Friend I cannot tell if I should make him a Friend of Paschas whose Doctrine doth not agree well with what we have now mentioned But when on the other hand I find in his Writings some things which seem to favour the same Paschas I cannot tell how to make him his Adversary Id. de cavend vit c. 12. For example what he saith That Jesus Christ is every day consecrated upon his Table that he sanctifies his Sacrament and that he makes himself Id. de pradest â— 31. And that he observes that Prudens Bishop of Trois and John Scot or of Scotland or rather of Ireland said That the Sacraments of the Altar are not the real body and blood of our Lord but only the memorial of his true body and blood Let the Reader then place Hincmar either amongst the Enemies of Paschas or amongst his Friends for my part I am very apt to believe that he was of his favourers I mean that he followed his Opinion in the point of the Eucharist which yet I do not affirm as a thing indubitable and which may not be questioned I will only say that I do not find that he was of any extraordinary esteem for if we believe Father Sirmond who otherwise was no Enemy unto him Archbishop Hincmar was wont to be deceived himself Sirm. de duob Dionys c. 4. Mauguin Hist Chron. p. 442. Apolog. pour les Saints Peres l. 5. p. 3. c. 5. and to deceive others If we believe Monsieur the President Mauguin he calls him a Deceiver and a Dissembler And if we will give Credit unto the description that is made of him in the Apologies of the holy Fathers Defenders of Free Will we shall find him to be both violent and ignorant a Deceiver scandalous and malicious a Calumniator and a Man full of Vanity These are the Colours wherein he is displayed in that excellent Work besides several others which I pass over in silence So that if Hincmar was such a person as these Gentlemen describe him to be I do not think he would render the Party very considerable in which side soever he is placed yet he cannot be denied the Knowledge of the ancient Canons if I mistake not wherein he was better skill'd than in that which is dogmatical and relating unto Divinity In the main see here two Followers of Paschas one of which to wit the Anonymous declares himself directly for him and the other I mean Hincmar though he makes not so formal a Declaration doth nevertheless in all probability follow his steps But in fine they are the only two which I can find to be of the Belief of Paschas in the IX Century if it were true that the Anonimous wrote in that Century whereas if he wrote after as Father Cellot inclines to think he did all the strength of this Friar and afterwards Abbot of Corby will consist in himself and Hincmar in the uncertainty we are in whether St. Austin or Paschas prevailed over Frudegard As for the Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul's Epistles which some attribute unto Haymon Bishop of Alberstadt others unto Remy Arch-bishop of Lyons and others in fine with greater probability unto Remy Friar of Auxerr I do not think he ought to be reckoned amongst the Friends nor Enemies of Paschas He did like those that seeing a Kingdom divided into two Factions take part with neither but think of making a third Party for he would neither follow the Party of Paschas nor the Belief of those which argued against him but would establish in the West as far as I can find the Opinion that Damascen had broached in the East of the Union of the Bread of the Sacrament with the Divinity to make by means of this Union one sole Body with the true Body of our Saviour as we have shewed in speaking of Damascen And this is the reason that we here place Remy of Auxerr although he lived not according to all Circumstances but at the end of the IX Century and to say the truth because he had a middle Opinion betwixt that of Paschas and that of his Adversaries we cannot appoint him a fitter place than this to the end that as he disturbed not the Depositions of Paschas his Friends neither should he trouble the Testimony of his Adversaries That the Opinion of Remy is such as we say I hope the Candid Reader will believe it to be so when he shall see what we here produce of his Commentaries upon the 10th and 11th Chapters of the First to the Corinthians and of his Exposition of the Cannon of the Mass ' The Flesh saith he which the Word took in the Womb of the Virgin into the Unity of his Person Remig. Altiss comment in â— ad Corin. c. 10. and the Bread which is Consecrated in the Church are one Body of Jesus Christ for as this Flesh is the Body of Jesus Christ so also this Bread passeth into the Body of Jesus Christ and they be not two Bodies but one Body for the fulness of the Godhead which was in that Body filleth also this Bread and the same Godhead of the Son which is in them filleth the Body of Jesus Christ which is Consecrated by the Ministry of several Priests throughout the World and causeth that it is one sole Body of
time the utter ruin of it there being no likelihood that being so powerfully opposed as it was it should ever do any harm whereas should they have set about censuring and condemning it publickly it might be feared lest it might recover strength because 't is often seen that persons grow stubborn against Reproofs and more earnestly desiring the things that are forbidden use their utmost skill and power to obtain the Enjoyment These as is supposed were the reasons and motives of the Conduct of these two Popes in regard of the Opinion of Paschas in not condemning him publickly although they did not also approve of him But it was not so of the other Opinion for they plainly did see that the Belief of the Enemies of Paschas was a Belief publickly received by all the World in France in Germany in England and elsewhere and moreover approved by the most learned Men of the Age publickly vindicated by Writings supported by the Authority of the most eminent Princes and Prelates They could not then be ignorant of the danger the Church was in if this Belief were not Catholick nor this Doctrine Orthodox And not being ignorant of it it had been Charity and the duty also of Nicholas and Adrian to have taken notice of it and to have redressed it for the case was not of two or three Friars which Paschas had drawn unto his Opinion but of the greatest part of the West which was over-spread with the Opinion of his Adversaries Had it been an Heretical and Heterodox Opinion and a Doctrine contrary unto the Faith of the Church it cannot be said but these Popes had Credit and Power enough to have opposed themselves For besides that every body knows the Popes had already acquired great Power over the Western Churches wherein they easily caused their Constitutions to be received the Bishops not daring much to oppose the Execution of their Decrees although they found them not always agreeable unto the ancient Canons Besides this I say who knows not but they might at least have protested against so pernicious an Opinion have opposed what they could unto its Settlement and earnestly exhorted the Prelates to stop the course and progress of so dangerous a Doctrine to have used Anathema's and Excommunications against the Promoters of it thereby to have discouraged others Yet nevertheless it is most certain they did no such thing Is it not then a manifest sign that they themselves were of this Belief and that they acknowledged that this Doctrine is the very same whereof the Church had ever been in peaceable Possession until Paschas came to disturb her in the Enjoyment of her Paternal Inheritance These are the Inferences made by Protestants from the Silence of these two Popes They say the thing will appear yet plainer if we consider the temper of Nicholas the First and the occasions he had as also Adrian the Second to take notice of the Doctrine of the Adversaries of Paschas Nicholas the First was a learned Man for that Age a daring and undertaking Man who very much advanced the Dignity of his See unto the prejudice of other Churches France felt the effects of his Policy and Power in that he obtained the Right of assembling Councils which the Kings were wont to do before that he gave a very great Assault unto the little power that its Prelates had remaining and that he began to make them receive the Decretals of the first Popes which had been forged by some Impostor about the time of Charlemain 'T is only necessary to read what the late Monsieur de Marca hath said in his Books of the Liberties of the Gallican Church Marca de concord l. 3. c. 5 6. l. 6. c. 28. l. 7. c. 23. to see what kind of a person Nicholas the First was and what Attempts he made against the Prelates of France and their Synods Nevertheless I do not find that ever he touched the point of the Eucharist although he had occasion either to have reproved their shameful Compliance or their Error For example In the difference he had with the Bishops of France first upon account of Walfad and some other Clerks which had been established by Ebbo Archbishop of Rheims after his Deposition and Re-establishment which was no way Canonical and whose Ordination was esteemed void in a Council of Soissons in the Year 853. And secondly upon the Subject of Rothard Bishop of Soissons who had been deposed by the French Prelates Nicholas informing himself of both these matters and forcing our Bishops to comply with his desires even to the prejudice of their Liberties and of their remaining Authority as those know very well that have any knowledge of the History of those times without reciting here the particularities of it It need only be said That if the Belief of Nicholas upon the point of the Sacrament had been different from that of the Adversaries of Paschas it is likely that these two Conjunctures of matters had offered him two fair occasions of reproaching them That as they made no difficulty of breaking the Canons in deposing of Clerks and Bishops for they thought so otherwise he could have had no pretext for re-establishing of them so also they feared not violating the Rule of Faith in so important a point as is that of the Sacrament either in embracing themselves a new Belief or in suffering it to get ground to the prejudice of the ancient Doctrine of the Church which Paschas had clearly explained Is it likely that Pope Nicholas who was a very learned politick and prudent Man should have forgot to have made them this Reproach in the differences he had with them thereby to have loaden them with shame and with the more plausible shew of Justice to have deprived them of their Rights and Privileges in shewing unto all the World that they had made themselves unworthy of them because they see the ancient Faith of Christians ruined without making any opposition by the establishing of a new Doctrine which insinuated it self into the minds of all Men and which was already generally received in all places It cannot be believed Nicholas would have been silent in these occasions if the Opinion of Paschas had been the first Belief of the Church and that of his Adversaries a new Opinion which they endeavoured to settle in the place of the Old Moreover we have made appear in the precedent Chapter that Heribold Bishop of Auxerr was Principal Chaplain unto Charles the Bald that he could not be so without the consent not only of the Synod but also of the Pope that is either of Nicholas the First or of Adrian the Second for in all likelihood it must have been under one or the other of them And in fine that he had an Opinion contrary unto Paschas upon the Subject of the Eucharist and agreeable unto that of the Protestants Is it probable say some that Nicholas or Adrian would have suffered Charles
the weakness and ignorance of those which did it St. Jerom Disciple of Gregory Nazianzen who departed this life Anno 420. declares himself so fully on this matter that he leaves us no difficulty therein for writing against Vigilantius Tom. 2. advers Vigilant c. 3. Priest of Barcelona who approved not this Custom he saith amongst other things We do not light Flambeaus at Noon-day as you do maliciously accuse us but it is only done by this means to supply the darkness of the Night and to watch by the assistance and favour of the Light to the end we should not sleep with you in darkness but if any do it for the honour of the Martyrs by reason of the ignorance and simplicity of Lay persons or indeed of some devout women of whom it may truly be said I confess they have a Zeal for God but not according to knowledge what prejudice is all this unto you And because Vigilantius charged such People with Idolatry St. Jerom to excuse them sheweth that there was a great deal of difference betwixt what the Pagans did and what was practis'd by these Christians Ibid. That saith he was done unto Idols therefore it ought to be had in detestation but this is done unto Martyrs therefore it may be allowed for in all the Eastern Churches besides the relicks of Martyrs when the Gospel is to be read Lights are set up in day time not to dissipate darkness but for an expression and sign of joy It must then be granted that the practice of Lights and Flambeaus began not to be introduced into the Worship of Christians until the V. Century and not then neither into the whole Church universally but only in the Eastern Churches when they went about reading the Gospel which some did for the honour of Martyrs being the effect of an ignorant Devotion and destitute of true knowledge according to the Opinion of St. Jerom and the Exhortation directed by St. Chrysostom unto his Auditors in the place abovesaid of crossing the Sea with Flambeaus to go to the Sepulchre of the Martyr Phocas tending only to express their holy joy for the advantage they had of possessing the Relicts of this Martyr which had been Transported from Synopius unto Constantinople But after all it appears by St. Jerom's Discourse that those of the West had not yet admitted of this Ceremony and that it was not practiced neither in the Eastern Church but at the time of reading the Gospel Erasmus makes this Annotation upon the passage of St. Jerom It seems St. Jerom believed it was a Superstitious thing to light Flambeaus to the honour of Saints and that none should be used but for the convenience of such as were to be employed in the Night season whereas at this time the principal part of Worship is made to consist in the Lights But it appears this Custom was tolerated in that Age rather than approved Time changeth many things In fine we do not find any mention of it in the Liturgies which go under the names of St. Peter St. James and St. Mark nor even in that attributed unto St. Basil but only in that of St. Chrysostom that is to say in that commonly attributed unto him but which cannot be his but of some Author much later than that Golden Tongue of the Ancient Church or if referring it unto St. Chrysostom it may not truly be said That it hath received great changes and alterations In the number of which may well be put the place where there is mention made of Candles and Flambeaus which yet I will not positively affirm being very probable this Custom was introduced by degrees into the Church after St. Jerom's time Act. 5. t. 4. Concil pag. 102. 103. who died 13 years after St. Chrysostom which was the reason that in the Council of Constantinople under Agapet and Menna Anno 536. Candles were joyned unto the Incense and Perfumes for the publick Prayers which were to be made in the Church and if I mistake not for the Celebration of the Sacrament it self but if in that place it concerned not the Celebration of the Sacrament as I think it cannot be denied that the use of Flambeaus on this occasion was introduced before into the Eastern Church seeing the reading the Gospel mentioned by St. Jerom for the which Candles were lighted in day time in the Eastern Churches related in all likelihood unto the Celebration of the Sacrament and was as it were a part of it It 's true that his limiting this practice unto the Eastern Churches imports that the Churches of the West did not yet observe it But in fine they introduced this same Ceremony into their Worship but to know precisely the time is something difficult In the life of Pope Sylvester Lib. Pontifical t. 1. Concil pag. 251. who held the Pontificial Chair in the days of Constantine the Great there is mention made of several sorts of Works and Flambeaus which he gave unto the use of the Light in the Church but because they might be given to supply the darkness of the Night or to serve only for Decency and Ornament not to insist upon the little credit which the Pontifical Book that contains the Life of Silvester doth deserve we cannot procure from so great a number of Lamps and Flambeaus any light for finding what we look after although we are not ignorant that there were some Churches in the IV. Century especially in the East where was seen Lamps lighted even in day time as in that spoken of by Epiphanius at the end of his Letter unto John Ep. ad Joan. Hierosolym Bishop of Jerusalem which might also happen to be in the West but we enquire for the use of these Lamps and Flambeaus at the Celebration of the Sacrament St. Austin contemporary with S. Jerom but a little younger than him exhorts his Auditors to offer according to their ability little Candles Serm. de Tempor 215. and Oyl for the Lights He doth not positively say it is for the time of Oblation I mean for the Celebration of the Sacrament But this Sermon is none of St. Austins It is a mended and patch't piece of St. Eloy's De rectitudine Catholicae Conversationis besides that in the 7th Sermon De temporibus at least if it be his he declares that it is for the Lights of the Night The 4th Council of Carthage assembled Anno 398. if the Title be true declares that the Acolyte receives a Candle from the Arch-deacon Can. 6. in his Ordination To the end he should know that it was his Duty to light the lights of the Church but he doth not particularly explain himself of the use of these Flambeaus I suppose then to reconcile St. Jerom with the rest it must be said that the use which we examine touching the use of Flambeaus at the time of Celebrating the Sacrament began to be observed in the Western Churches in the days of St.
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