The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 21
CHAP. XXI. That in the firſt ages of the Chriſtian Church the Sacrament was not worſhipped. The Cardinals allegations and proofs are examined.
THE cuſtom of ſitting at the table when the Euchariſt was celebrated, did not continue long after the Apoſtles. For ſoon after their death another cuſtom was brought in, that the Deacons ſhould bring the Sacrament to every communicant, or that every communicant ſhould come to the Paſtour of the Church to receive the communion in the two elements.
But as for the adoration, it is certain, that as they did not elevate the Sacrament, ſo they did not worſhip it; and for that our adverſaries bring no proof that can ſerve their turn, nor any example, or teſtimony of antient writers of the time that(a)In his book againſt M. du Pleſſis book 3. ch. 11 M. du Perron ſet for his limit, that is, till the fourth univerſal Council, which was in the year of Chriſt 451. But in the 23. Canon of the third Council of Carthage we have this conſtitution, Ʋt cum altari aſſiſtitur, ſemper ad Patrem dirigatur oratio. That when the Prieſt aſſiſts before the Altar, the prayer be alwayes directed unto God the Father. If it was then unlawful to make the addreſs of prayers unto Chriſt in the Euchariſt, it was alſo unlawful to worſhip his body; for in Chriſtian Religion all adoration imports invocation: yea the word adoratio comes from oratio, which ſignifieth prayer.
For the adoration of the Sacrament they alledge Dionyſius in ch. 3. of Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, ſaying,(b)Dionyſ. de Hier. Eccl. cap. 3. foreign. O holy and Divine ceremony, removing the vails of the riddles wherewith thou art ſymbolically invironed, ſhew they ſelf clearly to us and fill our eyes with thine only and unſhadowed light. The Cardinal tranſlateth foreign a Sacrament, and by the Sacrament he underſtands Chriſt. A willfull abuſe, to call Chriſt foreign, that is a myſtery or myſtical ceremony. So did Faber Stapulenſis tranſlate it. O divinum penitus ſanctumque myſterium! Who ſees not that this is an Apoſtrophe, a Rhetorical compellation, whereby many times things inanimate are ſpoken to as if they underſtood, and perſons abſent as if they were preſent? It was ſo that Ambroſe ſpake to the element of water;(c)Ambroſ. in Luc. lib. 10. c. 22. O aqua quae humano aſperſum ſanguine ut praeſentium lavacrorum figura praecederet, orhem terrarum lavaſti, &c. O aqua quae Sacramentum Chriſti eſſe meruiſti, &c. O water which haſt waſhed the globe of the earth ſtained with human blood, &c. O water that haſt merited (that is obtained) to be a Sacrament of Chriſt, &c. It was ſo, that the Prophets ſpake many times to heaven and earth. But what? That book is not of Dionyſius Areopagita, but was made many ages ſince, as we might eaſily prove.
(d)Du Perron libro ante citato, cap. 1.The Cardinal ſaith, this Author is not the true Dionyſius Areopagita, but that it is enough that he is a Catholick Author above thirteen hundred years old, that is, about three hundred years after Chriſt. And he proveth it, becauſe the Council of Conſtantinople in Trullo, held in the year 681. and Gregory who writ about the year of Chriſt 595. cite that Author. An ingenious proof, That a book was written about the year 300. of Chriſt, becauſe ſome Authors have ſpoken of him about 700. years after Chriſts birth! It is falſe that Gregorius Nazianzenus did ever alledge that book, as Budeus ſuſpecteth. And if Nicolas the Coloſſian ſaith that he ſaw the Comments of Dionyſius of Alexandria upon that book, he is no credible witneſs. For who will believe that theſe Comments were hid eight or nine hundred years, and that this Nicolas was the firſt that ſaw them after ſo many ages? which I ſay, not to deſpiſe the book of the Hierarchy aſcribed to Dionyſius Areopagita; a very uſeful book, and altogether contrary to Tranſubſtantiation, to Purgatory, and to the Popes primacy. Only I ſay it cannot be of that Dionyſius, and that it was written by ſome Chriſtian Platonician about 350. or 400. years after Chriſts birth, in the time that Monks began to ſpread, when the Churches were flouriſhing, and the time quiet.
Read all the Fathers of the firſt ages; not one word ſhall be found in them of adoring the Sacrament, and deferring a divine worſhip unto it; no trace of that is extant in Juſtin Martyr, nor in Ignatius, nor in Clemens Alexandrinus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor in Cyprian, nor in that book of the Lords Supper which is falſly fathered upon him, as we have proved; nor in Arnobius, nor in Lactantius, nor in Athanaſius, nor in Euſebius, nor in Baſilius, nor in Gregorius Nyſſenus, nor in Gregorius Nazianzenus. Neither do the Liturgies of S. James and Baſilius, though falſified and diſguiſed with many additions, ſpeak a word of them.
The antienteſt Author alledged by the Cardinal, that ſeems to ſpeak of the adoration of the Sacrament, is Cyrillus of Jeruſalem, who writ about the year of Chriſt 380. he ſpeaks thus in the fifth myſtagogical Catecheſis, After the Communion of Chriſts body, I draw near to the chalice of the blood, not ſtretching forth my hands, but bowing in a form of adoration and veneration. But theſe myſtagogical Catecheſes are a ſuppoſititious book; for they are quite of another ſtile, more conciſe then the precedent eighten Catecheſes, which ought alſo to be called Myſtagogical, becauſe they ſerve alſo for introductions to myſteries. But the diverſity of the Author, is the cauſe of the diverſity both of the title and ſtile. That this work is ſpurious, it appeareth not only by the diverſity of the ſtile, but alſo becauſe in the firſt Myſtagogical Catecheſes(e)foreign, &c. the Author chideth his hearers for frequenting the hippodrom, that is, the place appointed for horſe races, and for freqenting the Amphitheater, where Gladiatours were fighting againſt Tygers and Lyons; and labours to dehort them from ſuch ſpectacles. Such admonitions could not be done at Jeruſalem, where there was neither Hippodrom, nor Amphitheater.
No Cities had thoſe ornaments and ſpectacles, but the capital Cities of the Empire, as Rome, Conſtantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, where the ordinary reſidence of the Emperour was, or of his Lieutenants, in Aſia and Egypt, and ſome few towns where the Roman Legions wintered, as Nemanſus in Gaules, and ſome Towns in the Eaſt upon the borders of Perſia. But as for Jeruſalem, it was ſubject to Ceſarea the Metropolitan of Paleſtina, and was one of the leaſt Towns of the Empire as for the civil order. Herod the great had built an Amphitheater at Ceſarea, as Joſephus teſtifieth. But in the time of Cyrillus it was no more frequented. Geſner in his Library, ſaith, that theſe Catecheſes are found in the Library of Auſpurg under the name of one John of Jeruſalem.
As for the other eighteen Catecheſes, although I think that moſt of them are of Cyrillus, yet ſome of them are none of his, as the eighteenth. For that Catecheſis being made a few dayes before Eaſter, yet the Authour ſpeaks as if they had been then in the depth of winter.(f)foreign. Now (ſaith he) is the time of winter, and the trees ſtand now as dead. Whereas in Jeruſalem at Eaſter, the corn begins to be in the ear. A fortnight after Eaſter, at the lateſt, they offered in the Temple the new fruits and the new ſheaves. It is like that theſe Catecheſes were pronounced at Conſtantinople where winters are often hard and long, by reaſon of the neighbourhood of Pontus Euxinus.
The ſame eighteenth Catecheſis makes us clearly ſee that the Myſtagogical which follow, are not of the ſame Author. For towards the end of that eighteenth Catecheſis, the Author promiſeth more Catecheſes to follow. And ſaith, that the firſt ſhall begin by theſe words foreign, which are not found in the firſt Myſtagogical, and it begins otherwiſe.
Yet let us ſuppoſe that theſe Catecheſes are of Cyrillus. What do they ſay for the adoration of the Sacrament? The alledged paſſage ſaith only, that we muſt come to the Communion of the Sacrament with the geſture and countenance of a man that worſhippeth God and Chriſt ſitting at the right hand of God; for of worſhipping the Sacrament he ſaith never a word.
Thus Gregorius Nazianzenus in the oration upon his ſiſter Gorgonia, ſaith, that at midnight ſhe came and proſtrated herſelf before the altar, and with a loud cry called upon him that is honoured upon the altar. It cannot be ſaid that ſhe worſhipped the Sacrament, ſeeing that the holy Euchariſt was not celebrated at midnight, and that ſhe was alone in the Church.
The ſame I ſay of the paſſage of Ambroſe in the third book of the Holy Ghoſt, ch. 12. where expounding that footſtool mentioned in the Pſalm, he ſaith,(g)Itaque per ſcabellum terra intelligitur; per terram autem caro Chriſti, quam nunc in myſteriis adoramus, et quā Apoſtoli in Domino Jeſu adorarunt. By the footſtool the earth is underſtood, and by the earth the fleſh of Chriſt, which now we worſhip in myſteries, and which the Apoſtles worſhipped in our Lord Jeſus. And of the paſſage of Auſtin upon Pſalm 98.(h)Et quia in ipſa carne hic ambulavit, et ipſam carnem manducandam nobis ad ſalutem dedit, nemo illam carnem manducat niſi prius adoraverit. He walked in the fleſh, and gave us his fleſh unto ſalvation. Now no body eats that fleſh unleſs he hath firſt worſhipped it. Theſe paſſages ſpeak not of worſhipping the fleſh of Chriſt under the ſpecies of bread, but only of worſhipping the fleſh of Chriſt in the fraction of the Sacrament. It is one thing to worſhip Chriſt in the Lords Supper, and another thing to worſhip the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Thus in the Euchariſt we worſhip the Father, yet we worſhip him not under the elements, as if that Sacrament were God the Father. The antient Chriſtians worſhipped in the Euchariſt the body of Chriſt ſitting at the right hand of God; and to that end were warned, that while they received the holy bread, they ſhould lift up their hearts on high; Surſum corda. Auſtins words are moſt conſiderable, That none eats the fleſh of the Lord, unleſs he hath worſhipped it before. None can deny, that he ſpeaks of the true and ſerious worſhip, which is done as well with the heart as with the body. Whence it appeareth, that he ſpeaks not of a manducation with the mouth; for many eat the Sacrament with the mouth, without ſuch a ſerious worſhip of Chriſt. Judas (as Auſtin ſaith often) ate the Sacrament of Chriſts body, yet without worſhipping Chriſts body. And ſo Auſtins ſaying ſhould be found falſe, That none eats the fleſh of the Lord except he hath worſhipped it before. But this Father ſpeaks moſt true, becauſe he ſpeaks of the ſpiritual manducation by faith, which cannot be but in them that fear Chriſt and worſhip him.
Hierom upon the ſame Pſalm,(i)Quod autem adorari debeat, eo aſcendente, Apoſtoli docuerunt cum adorantes regreſſi ſunt in Hieruſalem; ſed et ad crucem Dominicam et ad animam ſanctam haec referenda ſunt. The Apoſtles ſhewed that the fleſh of Chriſt muſt be worſhipped, when he aſcending to heaven, they worſhipping returned to Jeruſalem. But theſe things muſt be referred to the Croſs of the Lord, and to his holy ſoul; not then to the adoration of the Sacrament.
In the ſame manner muſt we underſtand the expreſſions of Chryſoſtom in the 7. Homily upon Matthew, and in the 24. Homily upon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, where he exhorteth his hearers by the example of the Magi that came out of Perſia, who worſhipped Chriſt in the manger, to worſhip him alſo in the ſacred myſteries; They are Rhetorical declamations, in which he exhorteth the people to worſhip Chriſt in the Euchariſt, not to worſhip the Euchariſt.
I cannot wonder enough how the Cardinal durſt alledge Theodoret, Book 3. c. 17. of the Euchariſt againſt du Pleſſis.who in the firſt Dialogue having ſaid, that Chriſt (k)foreign, &c. foreign, &c.gave to the ſign the name of his body, and that he honoured the viſible ſigns with the name of his body, having not changed their nature, but adding grace unto nature, in the ſecond Dialogue ſpeaks the ſame language, ſaying,(l)foreign. After the conſecration the myſtical ſigns depart not from their proper nature, for they remain in their former ſubſtance, figure and form, and are viſible, and to be handled as they were before.
Theodoret addeth according to the Cardinals verſion, The ſigns are underſtood to be the things which they are made, and are believed and worſhipped, as being that which they are believed to be. But there is according to the Greek, and according to Theodorets intention, The ſigns are underſtood to be the things that they were, and are believed and venerated, as being that which they are believed to be. Theodoret ſaith that foreign, the ſigns are venerated, or as the Cardinal tranſlates, the ſigns are worſhipped. Upon which we give the choice to our adverſaries, whether they will have Theodorets meaning to be, that the ſigns are worſhipped with the ſoveraign …orſhip due unto God alone, or whether they will have foreign according to the cuſtom of the Grecians to ſignifie only venerating and reverencing. If they will have Theodorets meaning to be, that the ſigns or figures of Chriſt are worſhipped with a ſoveraign adoration, they make Theodoret guilty of horrible idolatry, as deferring unto the ſigns or figures of Chriſt a worſhip equal to the adoration due to the ſoveraign God; for the ſigns are not God. Or if they will, that Theodoret by foreign underſtands only venerating or reverencing, then they make him ſpeak as we do; for we honour and venerate theſe ſigns. But in that ſenſe, this teſtimony of Theodoret will avail nothing for the ſoveraign adoration deferred unto the Sacrament.
But though the Cardinals verſion were receivable, yet it is a weak proof in the mouth of the Romaniſts; for they make two ſorts of religious adoration, the one ſoveraign, the other inferiour; and by conſequent when they hear Theodoret, ſaying, that the ſigns of Chriſts body are worſhipped, reaſon obligeth them to take that of the inferior adoration which they defer unto Saints, to bones, and to relicks. When Tertullian againſt Hermogenes ſaith, I adore the plenitude of Scripture, he underſtood not that the Scriptures were God, or that they were to be worſhipped like God, but only that he did reverence them.
In the Liturgy attributed to Chryſoſtom theſe words are found:(m)Liturg. Chryſoſt. edit. Marcelli, p. 85. foreign, &c. The Deacon having ſaid Amen, and worſhipped or venerated with reverence the Holy Goſpel, comes out by the Sacred dores. None, I think, is ſo groſsly idolatrous, as to gather hence that the book of the Goſpel muſt be worſhipped with adoration of latria. In our dayes they worſhip the holy tear of Chriſt, and the wood of the Croſs, and the repreſentation of our Saviours face on a linnen cloth; and yet no man of good ſenſe would worſhip theſe things with the ſame adoration as he worſhippeth God; although Thomas, Cajetan, Biel, Azor, Vaſquez, and a multitude of Doctors ſtiffly maintain that the wood of the Croſs muſt be worſhipped with adoration of latria.
Here I cannot paſs by the ignorance or fraud of Cardinal du Perron, who defends this adoration in the Maſs with the example of Aaron and Moſes, who ſpake by Gods command unto the ſtone whence the waters flowed: as though Moſes and Aaron by ſpeaking to that ſtone had worſhipped it. The words which they ſpake to the ſtone, were not words of adoration, but of command.
Such was the word of Chriſt ſpeaking to Lazarus lying in the ſepulcher, Lazarus come forth. Such ſhall Gods command be, when in the laſt day he ſhall command the earth and the ſea to give up the dead.
Theodoret then meant, not that the inanimate ſigns of Chriſts body and blood muſt be worſhipped with the adoration due to God, but that they muſt be venerated, reſpected and honoured as ſacred things, and as the myſtical and ſacramental body of Chriſt ought to be venerated. So ſpeaks Auſtin 118. Epiſtle;(n)Neuter eorum exhonorat corpus & ſanguinem Domini, ſi ſal…berrimum Sacramentum certatim honorare contendunt, &c. Ille honorando non audet quotidie ſumere, & ille honorando non audet illo die praetermittere non captū. Solum non vult cibus ille ſicut m…ana ſaſtidium. Inde enim & Apoſtolus indigne dicit acceptū ab iis qui hoc non diſcernebant à caeteris cibis veneratione ſingulariter debita. Neither of them diſhonoureth the Lords body and blood, if they ſtrive with emulation to honour the moſt ſalutary ſacred ſign, &c. The one out of reſpect dareth not take him every day, the other out of reſpect dareth not let one day paſs without taking it. Only this meat will not be loathed as Manna was once. Wherefore alſo the Apoſtle ſaith, that it is received unworthily by thoſe that do not diſcern it from other meats by a veneration eſpecially due. When it is queſtion of the dignity of the Sacrament, alwayes this good Doctor ſpeaks of honouring and venerating, never of adoring the Sacrament.
The ſame Father in book 3. of Chriſtian doctrine, ch. 9.(o)Qui aut operatur aut veneratur uti que ſignum divinitus inſtitutum, cujus vim ſignificationemque intelligit, non hoc veneratur quod videtur & tranſit, ſed illud potius quò talia cuncta referendà ſunt. He that maketh or venerateth the ſign divinely inſtituted, whoſe vertue and ſignification he underſtands, doth not venerate that which is ſeen and is tranſitory, but that rather to which all ſuch things ought to be referred.
And in the 164. Epiſtle,(p)Baptiſmū Chriſti ubique veneramur. We venerate everywhere the Baptiſm of Chriſt. Which is done without adoration.
But above all, the authority before alledged of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria is pregnant, with the expoſition which Hierom brings to it. This Theophilus in the firſt Paſchal Epiſtle diſputing againſt Origen, had ſaid, Origen conſiders not that the mystical waters of Baptiſm are conſecrated by the coming of the Holy Ghoſt, and that the bread of the Lord, whereby the body of our Saviour is ſhewed [or repreſented] and which we break for our ſanctification, and the ſacred chalice which are ſet upon the table, and which are indeed inanimate things, are ſanctified by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghoſt. Excellent words, eſpecially where Theophilus ſaith that we break the bread of the Lord, whereby the body of the Lord is ſhewed; and that the water of Baptiſm is ſanctified by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghoſt. Shewing thereby, that this ſanctification is done by invocation or prayer, not by pronouncing theſe words, This is my body. And that as this ſanctification or conſecration doth not tranſubſtantiate the water of of Baptiſm, alſo the conſecration of the bread doth not tranſubſtaniate it into the body of the Lord. For he acknowledgeth but one kind of conſecration for Baptiſm and for the Euchariſt.
Hierom tranſlator of theſe Epiſtles writes to the author of them Theophilus, and ſpeaks thus with a reflexion to this paſſage: We have admired in thy book the profit which all the Churches receive by it; that the ignorant being instructed by the teſtimonies of holy letters, may learn with what veneration they muſt receive holy things, and ſerve to the miniſtry of Chriſts altar; and that they may not think that the ſacred chalices, and the holy vails, and other things belonging to the ſervice of Chriſts paſſion, are deprived of holineſs as inanimate and ſenſeleſs, but that they may know, that becauſe they accompany the body and blood of the Lord, they ought to be venerated with the ſame Majeſty as his body and blood. Theſe words ought to be well weighed. Hierom ſaith, that the chalices and linnen clothes, and other appurtenances of the outward ſervice of the Sacrament ought to be venerated with the ſame Majeſty and reverence as the body and blood of Chriſt. Now it is clear, that linnen clothes and chalices ought not to be worſhipped with the ſoveraign adoration due unto God alone. Whence it appears, that the body and blood of Chriſt, of which Hierom ſpeaks here, muſt not be worſhipped with ſoveraign adoration, and that the Lords body of which he ſpeaks, is the myſtical and Sacramental body of Chriſt, not the natural. For would Hierom have been ſo profane or ſo ignorant, as to preſcribe that linnen clothes and chalices ſhould be worſhipped with a worſhip equal unto that which is due unto Chriſt himſelf? Wherefore alſo he ſaith not that the body and blood, or the chalices and vails muſt be worſhipped, but only that they muſt be venerated. And this is the ſame thing that Hierom told us before (that we may return to our beginning) that there are two ſorts of body and blood of Chriſt. It was from him that the Canon Dupliciter was taken in the ſecond diſtinction of the Conſecration, which ſaith,(q)Duplicit…r intelligitur caro Chriſti; vel spiritualis illa at que divina de qua ipſe ait Ca…o mea vere eſt cibus; vel caro ea quae crucifixa eſt, & ſanguis qui militis effuſus eſt lanceá. The fleſh of Chriſt is underſtood two wayes. It is either that ſpiritual and divine fleſh, of which himſelf ſaith, My fleſh is meat indeed; or that fleſh which was crucified, and that blood which was ſhed by the ſouldiers ſpear. And the Canon De hac, in the ſame diſtinction,(r)De hac quidem hoſtia quae in Chriſti commemoratione mirabilit…r fit edere licet. De illa vero quam Chriſtus in ara cru…is obtulit, ſecundum ſe nulli edere licet. It is indeed lawfull to eat of that victim, which is done wonderfully in the commemoration of Chriſt. But it is lawfull to none to eat that victim in it ſelf which was offered in the altar of the Croſs. Note theſe words in it ſelf: It is not lawful to eat in it ſelf the Lords fleſh offered in the Croſs: For thereby he declareth, that it is lawfull to eate it in Sacrament, or in myſtery, not in it ſelf, ſo that it enter into our mouth or ſtomack. We heard alſo Auſtin ſaying upon Pſ. 98. as perſonating Chriſt, You ſhall not eat this body which you ſee, and ſhall not drink the blood which they that crucifie me ſhall ſpill. Then another ſort of Chriſts body is eaten, even the myſtical and ſacramental.
This diſtinction of the two ſorts of body of Chriſt being the key of the intelligence of the Fathers in this matter, it is no wonder that the Cardinal is alwayes wandring from his matter and accumulates texts of the Fathers to no purpoſe, becauſe he did not obſerve this diſtinction, and ſpeaks not a word of it in all his book of the Euchariſt.