The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 19
CHAP. XIX. Proofs of the cuſtoms repreſented in the Chapter before.
I Said that in the firſt ages the ſacred table was commonly made of wood. This we learn of Athanaſius, who complaineth that the Arians his enemies,(a)Athenaſ. ad ſolitariam vitam agentes, p. 656. foreign. had burnt before the Church-porch the ſeats, the chair, and the table which was of wood, and the vails of the great Church of Alexandria.
(b)Lignis altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt.Auſtin in the 50. Epiſtle makes the like complaint of the Donatiſts. By the way, theſe vails wherewith the Churches were hung, were white linnen: whence it is evident, that then they had no Images in Churches. Of which cuſtom a trace remains in the Roman Church in Lent, for then Images are hid with white linnen.
Optatus Milevitanus in the beginning of the firſt book againſt Parmenian. (c)Quis fidelium neſcit in peragendis myſteriis ipſa ligna linteamine operiri? Inter ipſa Sacramenta velamen potuit tangi, non lignum.Which of the faithful ones knows not that in the celebration of the myſteries the very wood is covered with linnen? In the celebration of the Sacraments the Tablecloth might be toucht, not the wood. (d)Altaria radi tantummodo aut removeri.There alſo he ſpeaks of removing the Altars from their place.(e)Aug. quaeſt. Vet. & Novi Teſt. qu. 101. Nam utique & altaria portarunt & vaſa ejus, &c. The book of queſtions of the Old and New Teſtament aſcribed to Auſtin, ſaith it was the Deacons office to carry the Altar.
It is true, that even in the time of Conſtantine the Great, under whom the Chriſtians began to build magnificent Temples, in ſome principal Churches they began to erect Altars of ſtone.
There was then but one Altar in every Temple, not a multitude of petty Altars in ſeveral corners of the Church, as it is ſeen now among the Romaniſts. Ignatius in the Epiſtle to the Philadelphians, (f)foreign.The whole Church hath but one Altar. (g)Non unū altare quod habet Eccleſia, ſed altaria haereticorum plurima.Hierom upon the third of Amos, Not the only Altar which the Church hath, but the Altars of the hereticks which are many. And Chryſoſtom in the 18. Homily upon the 2. Epiſtle to the Corinthians, (h)foreign.There is one only Baptiſm, and one only Table. Alvarez in the Ethiopick hiſtory ch. 3. ſaith that the Ethiopick Churches have but one Altar. That cuſtom of having many Altars hath a reliſh of Paganiſm. Virgil ſpeaking of the Goddeſs Venus, ſaith that
(i)Ubi templum illi centum que Sabaeo Thure calent arae, &c.From hundred Altars in her Temple aſcends
The ſmoak of odours that rich Saba ſends.
(k)Omnibus ante pedes poſita eſt ſua cuique vetuſta Arula.Prudentius in the firſt book againſt Symmachus obraideth the Pagans, that in their Temples every god had his little Altar before him. And God obraideth the Iſraelites with the like Idolatry, Hoſ. 8.11. ſaying, that Iſrael had made many Altars to ſin.
Upon the Sacred Table the Deacons brought not a round Hoſt, but a quantity of bread and wine, as much as would ſerve all the aſſiſtants to communicate under the two kinds. For that there is an antient order of the Roman Church attributed to Clement the firſt in theſe words,(l)Clem. 1. de Conſecr. Diſt. 1. Can. Tribus gradibus. Tanta in altari holocauſta offerantur quanta populo ſufficere debeant. Quod remanſerit in craſtinum non reſervetur, ſed in timore et tremore, clericorum diligentiâ conſumatur. Let ſo many ſacrifices be preſented upon the Altar as may ſuffice the people. Let not the remnant be kept for the morrow, but with the fear and care of the Clarks let it be conſumed, that is eaten. For although theſe Decretals be ſuppoſititious, yet they ſhew, that when they were forged, the round Wafers and the Maſſes where the Prieſt alone receiveth, were not yet in faſhion. Alſo the cuſtome of burning the remnant of the Lords body, or giving it to little ſchool-boyes to eat, of which we ſhall ſpeak hereafter, is a very clear proof that there was a quantity of bread upon the Table, ſome part whereof alwayes remained after all the people had communicated. I have ſeen the repreſentations of the Euchariſt ſet out by the Jeſuit Richeome, where Chriſt is pictured ſitting at the Table with his Diſciples, every one having his round Wafer upon his Trencher. There wanted no more but a Crucifix ſtampt upon theſe Hoſts.
For the linnen cloaths we have produced the teſtimony of Optatus. And as for the double curtaines ſpread before the table, which were drawn at the hour of the Communion, Chryſoſtom in the third Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Epheſians ſpeaks thus of them,(m)foreign. When thou ſeeſt the double curtaines drawn, think that heaven opens it ſelf.
Of the cuſtom of giving the Sacred bread in every Communicants hand, we have proofs without number. Cyprian in the Sermon de Lapſis, (n)Cypr. de Lapſis §. 13. A Diaboli aris revertentes ad ſanctū Domini, ſordidis et infectis nidore manibus accedunt, &c. Domini corpus invadunt.Returning from the Altars of Devils, they come unto the Holy of the Lord, with their hands defiled and infected, &c. they lay hold on the Lords body. Euſebius(o)Euſeb. lib. 7. cap. 9. foreign. He had ſtretched forth his hands to apprehend this holy food. Ambroſe rebuking the Emperour Theodoſius for the maſſacre committed at Theſſalonica, ſaid to him,(q)Theod. hiſt. lib. 5. c. 18. foreign; How ſhalt thou ſtretch thy hands yet stilling with the blood of that unjuſt murther? How ſhalt thou with ſuch hands receive the Lords Sacred body? And not only men, but alſo women received the Sacrament with their hand, ſome put it up in a linnen cloth, and carryed it home.
Cyprian in the Treatiſe of the Tombs, ſect. 21. ſpeaks of a woman that had carried home the bread of the Euchariſt, and had ſhut it up in a Trunk. We alledged before the example of Gorgonia, of whom her brother(q)Greg. Naz. Epitaphico Gorgoniae. Gregory Nazianzen ſaith, that ſhe would lay up ſome part of the ſigns of the venerable body and blood of the Lord, and mingle it with her tears.
And Hierom, or rather Pelagius upon 1 Cor. 11. will have good care taken that the linnen where the Sacrament is put up, be not ſoul, &c. (r)M. du Perron alledgeth this paſſage againſt M. du Pleſſis, p. 851. and it is cited by Anaſtaſius Biſhop of Nice, and tranſlated by Voſſius. foreign.Yea Baſil in the Epiſtle to Ceſaria Patritia ſpeaks thus, One may in caſe of neceſſity, in time of perſecution, there being neither Prieſt nor Miniſter preſent, take the Communion with his own hand. It is ſuperfluous to ſhew that there is no inconvenience in it, ſeeing that long cuſtome hath approved it by effect. And he addeth, that in Alexandria and Egypt every Lay-man hath very often the Communion in his own houſe, and takes of it himſelf when he liſteth. (ſ)Againſt du Plaſſis, p. 852.M. du Perron proveth by Hierom, that the Romans took the Communion in their houſes when they thought good. In the ſixt Univerſal Council aſſembled again in the Palace of Conſtantinople, there is an expreſs Canon(t)foreign. (the 102.) forbiding to receive the Euchariſt in a veſſel, and injoyning that it be received with the hand.
As for ſending the Sacrament to an abſent perſon by a boy or by a woman, we have ſeen before how Euſebius in the ſixt book of his hiſtory, ch. 38. relates that Seraphion being on his death-bed deſired the Euchariſt, and that the Prieſt ſent it him by a little boy. Ambroſe in the book of widows, tells us, that in his time widows were imployed to carry the Sacrament of Chriſts body, ſaying,(u)Oportet eam carere variarum illecebris voluptatum ut corpus et ſanguinem Chriſti miniſtret. She (meaning the widow) muſt be without the allurements of divers pleaſures, that ſhe may miniſter the body and blood of Chriſt.
Now as ſcruples will grow, and with the decay of piety, geſtures and outward obſervations will increaſe, in the ſixt and ſeventh age, the cuſtom was introduced that men ſhould receive the Sacrament with their bare hand, but the women with a linnen cloth over their hand, for fear of touching the Sacrament. The 42. Canon of the Council of Auxerre held in the year 590. hath theſe words, Ʋnaquaeque mulier quando communicat, ſuum Dominicale habeat. Let every woman when ſhe communicates have her Dominical. Maximus of Conſtantinople, who writ about the year 650. hath theſe words,(*)Omnes viri qui communicare deſiderant, prius lavent manus ſuas, ut mente pura & nitida conſcientia Chriſti Sacramenta ſuſcipiant. Similiter & mulieres nitida exhibeant linteamina, ubi Chriſti corpus accipiant pura mente & munda conſcientia. Bar. an. 57. ſ. 148. Let all men that will communicate, waſh their hands first, that with a pure ſpirit and a clean conſcience they may receive Chriſts Sacraments. Likewiſe let women preſent clean linnen, where they may receive the body of Chriſt with a pure mind and a clean conſcience.
As for the remnant of the Sacrament, the cuſtoms were diverſe. Heſychius in the ſecond book upon Leviticus ch. 8. hath theſe words, Moſes commandeth that the remnant of fleſh and bread be burnt in the fire, (x)Quod nunc videmus etiam ſenſibiliter in Eccleſia fieri, igni que tradi quaecunque remanere contingerit inconſumpta.Which alſo wee ſee now ſenſibly done in the Church, and that all things which remain not conſumed (that is, not eaten) are caſt into the fire.
This cuſtome of the Latin Church was altered, when the Prieſts began to reſerve the Sacrament. For then it was conſtituted that the Sacrament ſhould not be burnt, but when it began to grow mouldy.(y)Yuo Secunda Parte de Sacramento corporis, cap. 59. Omne ſacrificium ſordida vetuſtate perditum, igne comburendum eſt, & cinis juxta altare ſepeliendus. Yuo's Decree alledgeth the fift Canon of the Council of Arles, conſtituting, that every ſacrifice ſpoiled with foul old age be burnt in the fire, and the aſhes buried by the Altar. And Burchards Decree alledgeth the fourth Canon of a Council of Orleans, (z)Burchard. lib. 5. cap. 12. Oblationes quae in altari offeruntur de Sabbalo in Sabbatum ſemper innoventur, quia panes propoſitionis qui ſuper menſam Domini poncbantur à ſabbato in ſabbatum ſemper mutabantur, ne diu ſervati mucidi fiant, & ut quidam ſentiunt igne concremari, &c.Let the oblations which are offered upon the Altar be alwayes renewed from one Saturday to another (for the ſhew-bread which was ſet upon the Lords table, was changed from one Saturday to another, leſt that being long kept they ſhould grow mouldy) And as it is the opinion of ſome, they ought to be burnt with fire.
Out of all theſe it appears how far they were from believing Tranſubſtantiation. For it would have been a profane mad part to have caſt the natural body of Chriſt into the fire. Let our adverſaries tell us, what the Fathers of that Council of Arles underſtood by mouldy ſacrifices. Can one ſay without blaſphemy, that Chriſts body is mouldy? No more can it be ſaid, that by mouldy ſacrifices, the accidents of bread are underſtood, for theſe accidents are not the Sacrifice; and length, whiteneſs and roundneſs are things which grow not mouldy.
Other Churches had other cuſtoms. That of Conſtantinople of giving the remnant of the Communion bread to little School-boyes, we ſee in Evagrius in the fourth book of his Hiſtory, ch. 36. The whole Greek text we brought in before. They would not have done ſo, if they had believed it to be Chriſts natural body.
In Balſamon there is a conſtitution of Theophilus (a)Edicta Theophili Can. 7. foreign.Patriarch of Alexandria, which ſheweth, that in Egypt they had another cuſtome. For it enjoyns, that the remnant of the Sacrifices be eaten by the Clarks and other faithful brethren that were not Catechumens. The like is found in Clements Conſtitutions.(b)Conſt. Clem. 11. book. ch. 20. Poſtquam omnes ſumpſerint, accipiant Diaconi reliquias & portent in paſtophoria. After all have communicated, let the Deacons take the reſidue and carry it to the Paſtophores, that is, to the houſes of the Court about the Church where the Prieſts dwelt.
All theſe cuſtomes ſhew three things evidently. The one, that the old Chriſtians did not put around wafer upon the table, but a quantity of bread and wine for the whole aſſembly to communicate. The ſecond, that they believed not then that the Sacrament was the natural body of Chriſt, for they would not have burnt it, or given it to little boyes; and it would have been againſt common ſenſe to ſpeak of pieces and reſidue of the body of Chriſt. The third, that they did not reſerve the Sacrament, ſince it was a conſtitution, that the remnant of the conſecrated bread ſhould be eaten: And this was practiſed even in the Apoſtles time, as Hierom or Pelagius teſtifie (which of the two is doubted) upon 1 Cor. 11.(c)Poſt communionem quaecun que ea de ſacrificiis ſuperfuiſſent, illic in Eccleſia communem coenam comedentes pariter conſumebant. After the Communion (ſaith he) they that are the Supper together in the Church, made an end together there of that which remained of the Sacrifices. There Hierom ſpeaks of the cuſtom of the Corinthians, whom the Apoſtle rebuketh, not for the abuſe which they committed in the Agapes as the Cardinal holds,(d)In his book againſt da Pleſſis, book 3. ch. 6. but for the prophanation of the Lords Supper. For St. Paul tells them, This is not to eat the Lords Supper, declaring that by their abuſe of the Lords Supper they corrupted and altered the nature of the ſame.
Beſides the cuſtoms here repreſented of eating or burning the reſidue of the Sacrament, we have ſeen before the Conſtitution, which our adverſaries attribute unto Clement the firſt, that ſo many Sacrifices be laid upon the Altar as are needfull to ſuffice the people, and that the reſidue be not kept till the next day. To which add Origens teſtimony in his fift Homily upon Leviticus, (e)Nam & Dominus panem quem D…ſcipulis dabat, non diſtulit nec ſervari juſſit in craſtinum.The Lord did not put off his Diſciples to eat afterwards the bread which he gave them, neither did he command that it ſhould be kept for the next day. Which Gabriel Biel freely acknowledgeth in the 36. Leſſon upon the Canon of the Maſſe, ſaying,(f)Ne que dedit Diſcipulis ut ipſum honorifice conſervarent, ſed dedit in ſui uſum, dicens, Accipite, Manducate. Chriſt gave not this Sacrament to his Diſciples to keep it honourably in ſtore, but to put it in uſe, ſaying, Take eat.
In vain the Cardinal brings many authorities of the Fathers which approve the reſervation of the Sacrament for the time to come. For thoſe places ſpeak of the reſervation which private perſons made of the bread they had received in the Church, not of the reſervation made by Biſhops and Prieſts of the reſidue of the ſacred bread after the Communion. And though it were otherwiſe, the cuſtoms of ſome private perſons ought not to be ballanced againſt publick Conſtitutions.
Something alſo muſt be ſaid of the uncovering and elevation of the Sacrament. In the antient Church the bread and wine laid upon the table were covered with a linnen cloth untill the hour of the Communion: then they took off the linnen to ſhew the Sacrament unto the people. This Baſil calls the demonſtration or exhibition,(g)Baſil c. 27. lib. de Sp. S. foreign. ſaying, Which of the Saints have left us in writing the words of the Invocation, when the bread of the Euchariſt is ſhewed? For M. du Perron ſhall not perſwade us that foreign in this place ſignifieth conſecration. So there ſhould be a vain repetition in theſe words. For foreign invocatio, ſignifieth the conſecration. The Cardinal then makes Baſil to ſay, Which of the Saints have left us in writing the words of the conſecration when the bread is conſecrated? (h)Pachymeres in c. 3. Eccl. Hier. foreign.Pachymetes who hath commented upon Dionyſius, whom they ſay to be the Areopagite, ſpeaks thus, After prayers the holy gifts are uncovered which had remained covered untill the time of the participation. This is that which Dionyſius, whom he expoundeth, calls foreign, bring to evidence.
As for the elevation, as Chriſt made no elevation of the ſacred bread and wine, ſo we finde not in the antient Church that ever the Prieſt lift up a wafer over his head (which is that they call lifting up God) to make the people worſhip it. Only I finde that in the ſixth age the Biſhop or Prieſt taking the diſh, where the ſacred bread was, with both his hands did raiſe it a little from the table, to let the people ſee it better. Anaſtaſius Sinaita who writ in the year 550. (if the books be his which bear his name) ſaith that(i)Poſtquā ſacrificium illud tremendum ſanctificavit, panem vitae ſuſtulit, eum que omnibus ostendit. after he hath ſanctified that dread ſacrifice, he lift up the bread of life and ſhewed it unto all. Yet that elevation was of the bread only, not of the chalice. As it may be gathered out of German Patriarch of Conſtantinople in the contemplation of Eccleſiaſtical things.(k)foreign. The elevation (ſaith he) of the venerable body repreſents the elevation in the Croſs and reſurrection it ſelf. And that the divine bread alone is lifted up, ſheweth that he is the King and Lord, and himſelf is the head according to the Apoſtle. This paſſage is alledged and ſet down in Greek in the Cardinals margent, but he falſifieth it in the interpretation, tranſlating foreign the elevation on high, adding theſe words on high, which are not in the Greek, to make the Reader believe that the elevation was done very high, and above the Prieſts head. This fraud appears evidently in that in the ſame line there is foreign, the elevation in Croſs, where the Cardinal(l)M. du Perron of the Euchariſt againſt du Pleſſis, book 3. p. 849. tranſlates the elevation, without on high: but he commits a greater falſification in tranſlating foreign, to elevate the bread alone a part, which words a part are his own, and are not in the Greek.
In the Liturgies falſely attributed to S. James and to S. Chryſoſtom, mention is made of the elevation of the gift. But beſides that theſe Liturgies are falſe and ſowed up with diverſe pieces made in ſeveral ages, it is certain, that the elevation mentioned in theſe Liturgies, is not that of the wafer above the Prieſts head while the Prieſt turns his back to the people, but the elevation of the diſh where the bread was, which the Biſhop or the Prieſt made with his face turned towards the people.
Cardinal du Perron having found nothing in all the antient Church untill the time of the fourth Univerſal Council, brings theſe Liturgies, and ſome new obſcure Authors, as one Nicolaus Pectoratus, and a piece of a Liturgy, whoſe words he produceth, foreign, and expounds them thus, for he elevates not then the holy bread. He was ſo raw in Greek that he eſteemed that foreign ſignified then, whereas it ſignifieth altogether, or wholly. Sometimes foreign ſignifieth lately but very ſeldome, and that ſignification hath nothing common with the ſenſe of, this place.
Francis Alvarez a Portughez Monk, who lived ſix years in Ethiopia and Damian Goes, upon the relation of an Ethiopian Ambaſſador, ſay that the Ethiopian Churches make no elevation of the Hoſt. I will relate the very words of Alvarez in the third chapter of his Ethiopian Hiſtory. Having ſaid, that in the Maſs or Liturgy of the Ethiopians, they make a great cake of fine flower, and that the loaf is ſomewhat big and ſubſtantial becauſe all communicate. Alſo that all communicate in the two kinds; He addeth, The Prieſt uncovereth the cake which he held covered like a Sacrament; Then he takes it in his hands, and lifting up his right hand leaveth it upon the left, printing upon it with his thumb five or ſix marks; One above, another in the midſt, the third at the foot (ſo he ſpeaks) the others on the ſides. Then he conſecrates in his language, after our manner, in proper ſenſe, and with the ſame propriety of words; only he doth not elevate the Sacrament. He ſaith alſo, that after that the Prieſt hath taken the Sacrament of the blood, the Deacon doth adminiſter it in ſpoons. That another Prieſt giveth water to drink, to them that have participated the cup, who waſh their mouth with it and then ſwallow it; And that the Prieſt drinks a draught of water after he hath celebrated the Maſs; for that Monk calls that Maſs, although the Ethiopians call it otherwiſe. He adds that the Office of the Maſs is very ſhort, and that it is hardly begun, but it is ended preſently after. For theſe Churches have not the Introits, nor the Graduals; Only they read the inſtitution of the Sacrament ſet down in the Goſpel, adding to it a little ſinging and ſome bleſſings.
Out of all this it appears how far the Abyſſine Church (that contains ſeventeen great Provinces which are ſo many Kingdoms) differs from the belief of the Roman Church. There they make no elevation, and by conſequent no adoration. There every Communicant participates the two kinds. There the Service is in a known tongue. And the water, which the Prieſt and the Communicants drink after the Service is done, ſheweth that they believe not Tranſubſtantiation. This mingling of water with the body and blood of Chriſt newly taken (to ſpeak after the ſtile and belief of the Romanifts) would be held an unwarrantable mixture. Neither do they ſpeak of the Pope in that Country, nor of obedience to the Roman Church. Neither can one ſay that they have ſhaken off the yoke of the Pope: for they never were ſubject to him. Neither did ever the Pope complain, that they had departed from his obedience, or ever laid any claim of domination over them, although theſe Churches have ſubſiſted now aboe a thouſand years.