Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 14

Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist · Chapter 14

p. 137CHAP. XIV. The Fourteenth Difference. Several Ʋſages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Euchariſt, declare, That they did not believe Tranſubſtantiation, or the Preſence of Chriſt's Natural Body there; whoſe contrary practices or forbearance of them, in the Roman Church, are the Conſequences of that belief. As alſo ſome things the preſent Roman Church practiſes, becauſe they believe Tranſubſtantiation, and the Corporal Preſence, and dare not neglect to practiſe, ſo believing; which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of, not knowing any obligation thereto; which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Euchariſt in thoſe Points.

IT is poſſible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes, as any I have urged before, tho', I think, I have urged very cogent ones. For tho' ſome Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others, and to ſhift off an Argument of that kind, yet they cannot ſo eaſily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact, and a plain Practice. I ſhall therefore try, by ſeveral Inſtances of Uſages and Forbearances, in the caſes above-named, whether we may not ſee as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breaſts, that the Ancient Church, and the preſent Church of Rome, were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter.

1. Inſtance.

It was a part of the Diſcipline of the Ancient Church, to exclude the uninitiated, (Catechumens) the Energumeni, (acted by evil Spirits) and Penitents, from being preſent at the Myſteries, and to enjoin all that were preſent to communicate.

It is ſo known a Caſe, that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid ſuch depart, as I before named, when they went to the Prayers of the Maſs, (which was ſo called from this diſmiſſion of Catechumens, Penitents, &c.) that I p. 138ſhall not ſtay to prove it. (See the Conſtitutions attributed to Clemens, l. 8. cap. 6, 7, 9, 12. and S. Chryſoſtom, Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Epheſ.)

By the ſame Laws of the Church, thoſe that remained, after the excluſion of the reſt, were all to communicate; whom the Author of the Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, under the name of Dionyſius the Areopagite (n)(n)Hurarch. Eccleſ. c. 3. foreign.Eccl 3calls, Perſons worthy to behold the Divine Myſteries, and to communicate.

For this (becauſe it is not ſo univerſally acknowledged as the former) I ſhall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o)(o)Can. 2. Concil. Antioch. —foreign, &c., which ſays, That they which enter into the Church of God, and hear the Holy Scriptures, and do not communicate in Prayers with the People, or turn away from receiving the Euchariſt through any diſorderlineſs, are to be caſt out of the Church, till they confeſs their Sin and repent, &c.

Which is the ſame in ſenſe with that Canon (p)(p)Canon. Apoſtol. 9. foreign.which is very ancient, (tho' not Apoſtolical, as it pretends) That all the Faithful that enter, and hear the Scriptures, and do not continue at Prayer, and alſo at the Holy Communion, are to be ſeparated, as thoſe that bring diſorder into the Church.

S. Chryſoſtom diſcharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence, againſt thoſe Perſons that were preſent at the Euchariſt, and did not communicate (q)(q)Chryſoſt. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Epheſ. foreign.—In vain, he tells them, do's the Prieſt ſtand at the Altar when none participates; in vain is the daily Sacrifice.—He minds them, that the Cryer had ſaid indeed, —foreign.That thoſe that were in penitence (or penance) ſhould depart—but thou, ſays he, art not of that number, but of thoſe that may participate (i.e. —foreign—not being hindred by any Church-Cenſures as Penitents were) and regardeſt it not. —foreign;—foreign.He ſays, That the King at the Marriage-Supper, did not ask, Why didſt thou ſit down? but why didſt thou enter? And adds, That whoſoever (being preſent) does not receive the Myſteries, ſtands there too boldly and impudently. p. 139The reſt is well worthy the reading in that Homily.

Gregory the Great alſo tells us, (r)(r)Dialog. l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat, det locum.it was the cuſtom in his Time, for a Deacon to cry aloud, If any do not Communicate, let him depart. There muſt be no Spectators, that is, unleſs they were Communicants. For as Juſtin Martyr (s)(s)Apolog. 2. Of foreign.acquaints us, it was the uſage of his Time, That the the Deacons reach to every one preſent of the conſecrated Bread, and Wine, and Water, that they may communicate.

If we now look upon the practice of the Roman Church, we ſhall find all quite contrary. There they may have as many Spectators as pleaſe to come, when there is but one alone that receives the Euchariſt, I mean the Prieſt. Any one that knew nothing of the Matter, would conclude, when he ſaw their Maſſes, that they came thither about another Buſineſs ordinarily, than to eat and drink in remembrance of their Saviour; which was the only uſe that the Ancients underſtood of it. They conſidered it as a Sacrament, by Inſtitution deſigned to repreſent Chriſt's Paſſion and Crucifixion; theſe conſider the preſence of his Glorified Body and his Divinity there, and are taken up with adoration more than any thing elſe. That they will not abate, every day you are preſent, when the Hoſt is ſhown for that end: But as for the other, the receiving of the Euchariſt, they are ſatisfied if it be done but once a Year. The Ancients look'd upon it as an Invitation to a Table, where the Sacrament was to be their Meal; but here you are called to look upon the King preſent, and ſitting in ſtate; and chiefly to take care that, upon the Sign given, all may fall down together and worſhip him.

S. Chryſoſtom (t)(t)Loc. citat. foreign;calls it, a contumely againſt him that invites one to Feaſt, to be preſent and not to partake of it; and asks, Whether it had not been better for ſuch a one to have been abſent?

But the Council of Trent was of another mind, and their Opinion is (u)(u)Conc. Trid. Seſſ. 22. c. 6. Non propterea Miſſas illas in quibus ſolus ſacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat, ut privatas & illicitas damnare, ſed probare, at que adeo commendare., That thoſe Maſſes in which the Prieſt communicates ſacramentally alone, are not to be condemned as private and unlawful, but to be approved and commended.

p. 140And not content with this, they thunder out an Anathema (x)(x)Ibid. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Miſſas, in quibus ſolus ſacerdos Sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas eſſe adeo que abrogandas, anathema ſit.againſt thoſe that ſay, (and let S. Chryſoſtom look to himſelf) that ſuch Maſſes are unlawful and to be abrogated.

At theſe Maſſes the Novices and Catechumens may be preſent, and no Deacon cries out to them to withdraw; for tho' indeed they may not eat, yet they may worſhip: And the Penitents that were excluded, while their Penance laſted, from ſo much as ſeeing the Sacrament in the Ancient Church; in this Church, the oftner they come for this purpoſe, the more welcome; and by direction, when publick Penance has been enjoined, the Holy Altar has been the place choſen before which to perform it; as their Annals (y)(y)Annal. Japon. ad An. 1579.tells us of one Sangunus, a noted Courtier in Japan, that for the expiation of a Crime, came and fell down at the Altar, in the Church of the Royal City, and there before the Holy Sacrament, claw'd his Back with Scourges ſo long, as one of the Seven Penitential Pſalms was recited.

Theſe Practices, tho' ſo contrary to one another, are yet natural enough, and well-ſuited to the Principles of each Church; but then, it is plain, their Principles and Opinions concerning the Sacrament, were widely different; and that ſuch things were never practiſed of old, was not becauſe Chriſtians then wanted their Devotion, but their Faith.

2. Inſtance.

A ſecond practice of the Chriſtian Church of old, was, giving the Communion in both kinds; the Cup, that is, as well as the Bread; tho' now, by a Law of the Roman Church, (in the Council of Conſtance and Trent) aboliſhed.

That the ancient Practice was to deliver it in both Kinds, has been often proved by Learned Men on our ſide, and particularly by an excellent late Dicourſe againſt the Biſhop of Meaux (x)(x)Diſcourſe of the Communion in one kind, in Anſwer to the Biſhop of Meaux's Treatiſe.upon this Subject; and has been alſo acknowledg'd by the Learned Men of the Roman Communion, ſuch as Caſſander, Wicelius, Petavius, &c. Which makes it needleſs to inſiſt further upon the proof of it.

We are ſure it continued thus even to the Age when Tranſubſtantion was eſtabliſhed by the Lateran Council, ſince we p. 141find a whole Army of Charles King of Sicily, (as the Hiſtorian (a)(a)Apud Du Chiſn. Tom. 5. Hiſt. Franc. p. 840. citante Dallaeo, de cultib. Latin. lib. 5. c. 12. Cum exercitus eſſet in procinctu, Decanum Meldenſem, aſſociatis ſibi Monachis, corpus & ſanguinem Chriſtiregiis militibus dediſſe.tells us) juſt before they went to the Fight againſt Manfred, Ann. 1265. (or 1266, as other Hiſtorians will have it) all received the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Aquinas agrees, That it was the ancient Cuſtom of the Church, That all that communicated of the Body, communicated alſo of the Blood (b)(b)In Joan. 6. Propter periculum effuſionis.John 6But for to prevent ſpilling the Blood, he ſays, in ſome Churches the practice is, that the Prieſt alone communicates in the Blood, and the reſt in the Body of Chriſt.

We ſee then about what time this grand Sacrilege, as P. Gelaſius calls it (c)(c)Speaking of ſome Perſons that taking the Body, abſtained from the Cup of the Holy Blood, ſays, Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia diviſio unius ejuſdem que myſterii ſine grandi Sacrilegio non poteſt pervenire. Apud Gratian. decrit. 3. part. 2. diſt.of dividing one and the ſame Myſtery, made a more publick entry into the Church; it was, when Tranſubſtantiation had been newly made an Article of Faith; and it was very natural, that this practice ſhould, within a while, by eaſy ſteps, be a Conſequent of that. For Tranſubſtantiation makes Chriſt's Fleſh and Blood (the ſame which he took of the Virgin, and which he had when he was crucified) to be actually and corporally preſent in the Euchariſt, and that in a glorified State, to which Divine Adoration is due; this is apt to beget a profound Veneration, and a mighty Concern, leſt any thing contumelious ſhould happen to that which Men juſtly account ſo very precious. Now it being certain, that the Blood which is under the Species of Wine, is ſubject to thoſe Caſualties, by reaſon of its fluidity, which the other Species is not ſo liable to; and that in the glorified State, the Body and Blood are inſeparable; and therefore that one Species (viz. that of the Bread) contains under it both the Body and Blood together; what could be more agreeable to ſuch Sentiments as theſe, than that Men ſhould willingly part with their Right, in a Matter wherein they ſeem not to be much wrong'd (being only deprived of a few Accidents of Wine, when the Blood was ſecured to them) to ſecure the Honour of their Saviour. It is true indeed, that the Stream of the contrary Cuſtom, made it difficult to remove that at once, notwithſtanding this danger of effuſion of the Blood, which they had been wont in all p. 142preceding Ages to receive; therefore the Wits of Men being ſet on work by a new Tranſubſtantiating Doctrine, found out ſome new Devices, practiſed firſt in the Cells of the Monks; but afterwards, about the time of Berengarius, brought into the Churches to ſecure that dreadful Danger, and yet not deprive the People of communicating in the Blood of Chriſt.

One was the Device of Intinction, or ſteeping the Bread in the Wine, and thus receiving both at once, which as Card. Cuſanus informs us (d)(d)Epiſt. 3. ad Bohem. Non parva altercatio in principio mutationis illius prioris—tamen univerſalis Eccleſia, quia ita tempori congruebat, populum cum intincto pane communicare permiſit.tho' it went not down without great contention at the firſt change from the old Practice, yet the Univerſal Church, complying with the Times, permitted it.

But it was not long it was thus ſuffered, for by a Decree of Pope Ʋrban 2. in the Council of Clermont, and by an enforcement of it by his Succeſſor P. Paſchal 2. (whoſe Epiſtle to Pontius Abbot of Cluny concerning this Matter, Baronius has given us (e)(e)Baronius Append. ad Tem. 12. ad An. 1118.) this practice was abrogated.

A ſecond Device alſo, about the ſame time, was brought into play, Of ſucking the Conſecrated Wine through little Pipes or Canes (called Pugillares) like Quills; concerning which Caſſander (de communione ſub utra que ) gives us an account, and that ſome of them were to be ſeen in his Time. And indeed, this ſeems to be a ſufficient ſecurity to the danger of Effuſion, and alſo prevents that great Offence of any drops of Blood ſticking to the Beards of People when they drank out of the Cup: and yet even this would not ſatisfy, nor any thing elſe be a ſufficient Caution againſt the prophanation of the Blood, but only debarring the People wholly of it. Yet this way is ſtill uſed by the Pope himſelf, (and I think he has the ſole privilege to do it) who in that which is called the Miſſa Papalis, when he himſelf celebrates and communicates, he ſucks part of the Blood through a golden Quill **Cum pontifex Corpus Chriſti ſumpſerit, Epiſcopus Cardinalis porrigit ti calamum, quem Papa ponit in Calice in manibus Diaconi exiſtente, & Sanguinis partem ſugit. Sacrarum Cerimon. lib. 2. cap. de Miſſa Majori, Papa perſonaliter celebrante..

p. 143But neither do's he always thus communicate, for their Book of Sacred Ceremonies acquaints us, ****Ibid. cap. Si Papa in nocte Nativitatis perſonaliter celebrat, Non ſugit ſangainem cum calamo, ſed more communi.That when He celebrates perſonally on the Night of the Nativity of our Lord, that all things are obſerved, that are deſcribed in the Papal Maſs, except that he communicates at the Altar alone, and not in his eminent and high Seat, and do's not ſuck the Blood with a Quill, but takes it after the common manner.

But now, after all, what account can we give of the Ancient Fathers? they apprehended it neceſſary to receive in both Kinds in all their Publick Communions, and ſo they practiſed. Muſt we not then accuſe them, either of great Dulneſs, or Indevotion? either that they wanted Sagacity, in not apprehending the imminent danger they in their way expoſed the Blood of Chriſt to; or that they were guilty of a ſtrange careleſneſs and indifferency, in not preventing it by any of thoſe Methods which the Roman Church hath found out to do it? Truly, for my part, I am inclined to have as great, if not a greater opinion of them, in both reſpects, (eſpecially for their Devotion) than I can have of the Roman Church; and I am the more perſwaded hereto, becauſe the Apoſtles themſelves muſt come in to the ſide of the Ancient Church, their practice being the ſame: not to inſiſt upon the Deference that ought to be paid to that Holy Spirit that we are ſure acted them; who if there had been any ſuch real danger of prophanation, by receiving in both kinds, or ever was likely to be any ſuch, would not have failed to have given directions to them how they ſhould avoid it; and we cannot think the Apoſtles would not have ſet down thoſe Directions to us in ſome of their Writings. But they have not done it; no not the Zealous St. Paul, who yet ſays ſo much to the careleſs Corinthians about this Argument, and tells them, that they came together, not for the better, but the worſe; charges them with unworthy receiving, and being thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, (1 Cor. 11.) and that for this cauſe many were weak and ſick among them, and were judged of the Lord for their prophanations, &c. But this is none of the Charges againſt them, nor does he direct them to any of the wiſe Methods of the Roman Church for preventing this Danger; p. 144tho' he ſays, What he received of the Lord he delivered to them.

There is nothing then remains, but that we aſſign the true Cauſe of this different Practice; which can be none other, but the Roman Churches innovating in their Faith about the Sacrament, and altering ſo their Opinions about the Body and Blood of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, that they require a different Conduct for their Devotion; ſo that neither the Practice of the Primitive Fathers, nor the Rules of the Apoſtles, will ſuit and agree with their Perſwaſions and Apprehenſions. But now the Faith of the Ancient Church in this Matter was ſuch, as neither requires nor can admit of any Alteration like what the Church of Rome has made in communicating the People only in one Kind. For, as I have before proved, they look'd upon this Sacrament, not as an actual Exhibition and Preſentation of the Natural and Glorified Body of our Saviour, which they believed to be abſent and contained in the Heavens, but as a Repreſentation of his Crucified Body, where his Blood was ſeparated from his Body, and poured out of his Veins; and that not only the Elements, but the Sacramental Actions of breaking the Bread, and pouring out the Wine, and our eating and drinking were inſtituted to ſhew forth this painful Death of our Lord, and the ſhedding of his moſt precious Blood for the Remiſſion of Sins.

By the preſence of his glorified Body there, (as the Roman Church believes) this cannot be done, no breaking, nor no parts to be made of that, nor no ſeparation of Blood, as out of the Body. But all can be done in the Repreſentative Body of Chriſt, which is the Euchariſt, all the Ends of the Inſtitution can be there fully effected, and the Sacrifice on the Croſs, in this Image of it, made preſent to our Faith, and to our Minds, and ſet livelily before us; and by the Effects of this upon our Hearts, while we partake of the Elements, through the powerful Grace of God's Holy Spirit, we may be prepared to receive all the Bleſſed Fruits and Benefits of his Paſſion.

According to theſe Perſwaſions, it's plain, there can be no abatement of communicating in the Cup; becauſe, without that, there is no repreſentation of a Crucified Body; for the p. 145diſtinct partaking of the Blood, (not as ſuppoſed to be contained and received in the other Species) is that which alone ſhows (as I ſaid before) the ſeparation that was then made of his Body and Blood.

3. Inſtance.

Another Practice of the Roman Church differing from the Ancient, is, The Elevation of the Euchariſt, that all preſent may at once adore it. For thus the Miſſal (*)(*)Ritus celebr. Miſſam cap. 8. Dicit, hoc eſt enim Corpus meum, Quibus prolatis, celebrans Hoſtiam tenens inter pollices & indices—genuflexus eam adorat. Tunc ſe erigens, quantum commodè poteſt, elevat in altum Hoſtiam, & intentis in eam oculis (quod in Elevatione Calicis facit) populo reverenter oſtendit adorandam.directs, That when the Prieſt comes to the words of Conſecration, and has ſaid, This is my Body; then holding the Hoſt, (as he is directed) he kneels down and adores it. Then raiſing himſelf as high as he is able, he lifts up the Hoſt on high, and fixing his Eyes upon it, (which he do's alſo in the Elevation of the Cup) he ſhows the Hoſt reverently to the People to be adored.

This is the preſent Practice; which the Council of Trent (f)(f)Seſſ. 13. c. 5. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Chriſti fideles pro more in Eccleſia Catholica ſemper recepto, latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur, huic ſanctiſſimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant.endeavours to countenance, by telling us, That there is no doubt but that all Chriſtians, according to the Cuſtom always received in the Catholick Church, ought to give the Worſhip of Latria (which is ſupreme Worſhip) to the moſt Holy Sacrament in their worſhip of it.

By which Sacrament (as their beſt Interpreters explain it) is meant, Totum viſibile Sacramentum, all that is viſible there, (together with Chriſt) and is one entire Object, conſiſting of Chriſt and the Species, and muſt be together adored. But whatſoever, beſides Chriſt who is inviſible, is viſible there, call it what you pleaſe, is a Creature; and I am ſure the Ancient Church never practiſed the adoration of any ſuch; and it is ſtrange impudence to talk of the Cuſtom of the Catholick Church in this Matter. Neither can it be ſhown, by any good Teſtimonies of the Ancients, that this their Elevation, in order to Adoration, was ever uſed by them: No not ſo much as any Elevation for any purpoſe, is mentioned by thoſe Fathers, who on ſet purpoſe have given an account of the Rites of communicating in the firſt Ages of the Church, neither by Juſtin Martyr, nor the Author of the Conſtitutions called Apoſtolical; nor Cyril of Jeruſalem, nor the pretended p. 146Denis the Areopagite, or any other before the Sixth Century.

A dilligent Searcher of Antiquity, tells us (g)(g)Dallaeus de relig. cult. object. l. 2. c. 5., That he cannot find, among all the Interpreters of Eccleſiaſtical Offices in the Latin Church, the mention of any ſort of Elevation before the Eleventh Century, (that is, the Age of Innovation in the Faith about the Euchariſt).

As for the Greeks of later date, in them we may meet indeed with an Elevation of the Euchariſt, but for quite other purpoſes than Adoration. One of the Ends of their Elevation, is mentioned by Germanus Patriarch of Conſtantinople (h)(h)In Tom. 2. Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. —foreign., which was, to repreſent Chriſt lifted up upon the Croſs, and his Death upon it, and the Reſurrection it ſelf.

Another reaſon they give is, by the ſhowing of this Food of the Saints, to invite and call them to partake of it. Which Nic. Cabaſilas gives a full account of (i)(i)In Expoſ. Liturg. apud Bibl. Pat. Gr. Lat. Tom. 2. foreign., ſaying, That after the Frieſt has been partaker of the ſanctified Things, he turns to the People, and ſhowing them the Holy Things, (i. e. the Bread and Wine) calls thoſe that are willing to communicate. Or, as he ſtill more fully explains it, The Life-giving Bread being received (by the Prieſt) and ſhown, he calls thoſe that are likely to receive it worthily, ſaying, Holy Things are for the Holy **foreign.. Behold the Bread of Life which ye ſee. Run therefore you that are to partake of it; but it is not for all, but for him that is Holy, &c.

It is certain then, that the Roman Practice (when for Adoration they elevate and ſhow the Hoſt) is an Innovation; and that it proceeded from the Novel Doctrines then ſet on foot in the church, is highly probable; not only becauſe they commenced about the ſame time; but alſo becauſe their practice ſuits ſo exactly with, and ſprings ſo freely from thoſe Doctrines, it being ſo natural, when ſuch a glorious Body as our Saviour's is believed to be made preſent where it was not before, to be wholly taken up with thoughts of Adoration and Worſhip above any thing elſe; as it is notoriouſly true in this Church, where the main End of the Euchariſt, viz: communicating p. 147in the Body and Blood of Chriſt is ſtrangely neglected; and they are more concerned, in carrying the Sacrament in Proceſſions, in praying to it before their Altars, in preparing ſplendid Tabernacles where it may repoſe, decking and adorning the places of its Reſidence, and the like, than in engaging Men to receive it; which was the main thing the Ancient Church deſigned, that they might worthily partake of it; and when this was not deſigned, their way was wholly to conceal it.

4. Inſtance.

Another Practice of the Roman Church, different from that of the Ancient Church, is, that now the Communicants Hands are unimployed in receiving the Euchariſt; and all is put by the Prieſt into their mouths.

Their Hands indeed may bear a part in their Adoration and ſhowing ſome Signs of that, but otherwiſe they are uſeleſs. For now ſince Chriſt's Body is believed to lie hid under the Species of Bread and Wine, that is thought too ſacred to be touched by the Hands of any, but the Prieſts. We may therefore conclude fairly, that if the Fathers had not this care to forbid this touching by the Peoples Hands, they had not this Faith of the Roman Church, that the Natural Body of Chriſt is in the Euchariſt: ſince if this had been their Opinion, in all probability their practice would have been the ſame, Since that they had an equal concern for their Saviour's Honour, cannot well be doubted of.

Now that they gave the Sacrament into the Peoples Hands, for the ſpace of eight hundred Years or more, is clear by their Teſtimonies. Of which I'll mention only three or four out of an hundred that might be given.

Clemens of Alexandria (k)(k)Stromat. lib. 1. foreign.ſays, That when the Prieſts have divided the Euchariſt, they permit every one of the People to take a portion of it.

Tertullian (l)(l)Lib. de Idol. Cap. 7. —Eas manus admovere Corpori Domini, quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt.reproaches the Chriſtian Statuaries, That they reached thoſe hands to the Lord's Body, which had made Bodies for Devils.

p. 148St. Ambroſe (m)(m)Apud Theodoret. Hiſt. Eccleſiaſt. Lib. 5. c. 19. —foreign;Story is a known one, how he repelled Theodoſius from the Holy Table, after the ſlaughter he had made at Theſſalonica, with theſe words; How wilt thou extend thy hands, yet dropping with the Blood of an unjuſt ſlaughter? How with thoſe hands wilt thou receive the Lord's moſt Holy Body?

He that will conſult Cyril of Jeruſalem's 5th Myſtagogical Catechiſm, will find him there directing the Communicant how to order his Hands and Fingers in taking the Sacrament into them. Which a Roman Maſter of the Ceremonies would not have ſaid a word about, being only concerned about the Mouth.

That this manner of receiving was uſed in the 9th Century, appears by the Capitulary of Carolus Mag. (n)(n)Capit. Car. M. Lib. 7. Placuit ut omnes qui Sacram acceperint Euchariſtam, & non fumpſerint, ut ſacrilegi repellantur.who ordered, That all that received the Euchariſt (acceperint, that is, into their Hands) and did not take it (ſumpſerint, that is, into their Mouths) ſhould be kept back as ſacrilegious Perſons. If they had received it by their Mouths only, this diſtinction could not have been made.

5. Inſtance.

Another Practice, very unagreeable with the belief of Tranſubſtantiation, is this, That the Ancient Church was not afraid to adminiſter the Euchariſtical Wine in Glaſs Veſſels and Cups: tho' now it would be a great Crime in the Church of Rome to do ſo.

For that Ancient Practice, I might urge that of Tertullian (o)(o)Lib. de pudicit. c. 7, & 10. Procedant ipſae picturae calicum veſtrorum, ſi vel in illis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius, utrumne Chriſtiano an Ethnico peccatori de reſtitutione conliniet. Cap. 10.—At ego ejus Paſtoris. Scripturas haurio, qui non poteſt frangi., who reflecting upon the Church's Indulgence to Sinners, mentions the Picture of the Shepherd carrying the Loſt Sheep on his Back, drawn on the Chalices, which might be ſeen by all, being pellucid.

To which he oppoſes, afterwards, the Scriptures of that Shepherd that could not be broken.

As alſo that of St. Jerom (p)(p)Epiſt. 4. ad Ruſticum. Nihil illo ditius, qui Corpus Domini caniſtro vimineo, ſanguinem portat in vitro., where ſpeaking of S. Exuperius, he ſays, Nothing is richer than he who carries the Lord's Body in a wicker Basket, and his Blood in a Glaſs.

p. 149But it is needleſs to add more Teſtimonies, becauſe the thing is confeſſed by Baronius (q)(q)Notis ad Martyrol. Rom. in Auguſt. 7. A temporibus Apoſtolorum vitreus Calix in uſu fuiſſe videtur., in his Notes upon the Acts of S. Donatus, who confeſſes, That Glaſs Chalices ſeem to have been in uſe from the Times of the Apoſtles. And ſays a great deal more than I have mentioned, to confirm it.

And that this Cuſtom continued long in the Church, may be concluded from hence, That Baronius can find no earlier prohibition of it, than that of the Council of Rhemes, which he ſays was held in the Days of Charles the Great. I have nothing to do with the Commendation he adds of this Prohibition, (being concerned only in the Matter of Fact) ſaying, That it was very laudable; but I do not think it was ſo meerly for his Reaſon, [ob periculum quod immineret materiae fragili] becauſe of the imminent danger in ſuch brittle Matter. For if the Cuſtom was as ancient as the Apoſtles, how came they to want that quick Senſe the Roman Church now has to prevent that Danger? But we may be certain, that they, and the Church after them, that uſed ſuch Glaſſes, had not the preſent Perſwaſions of this Church, about a hidden Deity, and the latent glorified Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, elſe they would have had both the Diſcretion and Devotion to have provided him a better place of reception.

Now they have done it in the Canon Law (r)(r)Can. ut Calix. diſt. 1. de Conſecrat. —De aere aut aurichalco non fiat Calix, quia ob vini virtutem aeruginem parit, quae vomitum provocat. Nullus autem de ligneo, aut vitreo calice praeſumat miſſam cantare., enjoining, that the Cup and Patent be, if not of Gold, at leaſt of Silver, (allowing only Pewter in caſe of great Poverty) but in no wiſe the Cup muſt be of Braſs or Copper, the virtue of the Wine cauſing a ruſt that procures Vomiting, (which yet one would think the Blood of Chriſt, where there is no Wine, ſhould not cauſe) but over a Wooden or a Glaſs Cup, none may preſume to ſay Maſs. All is very agreeable to their ſeveral Perſwaſions.

6. Inſtance.

To this let me add another Inſtance, more difficult ſtill to be reconciled with the belief of Tranſubſtantiation, viz. The mixing the Blood of Chriſt with Ink, for writing things of moment. So I call the conſecrated Wine, according to the uſual p. 150Language of the Fathers, giving it the name of Chriſt's Blood; but it's not poſſible to believe that they who thus uſed it, thought it to be ſo, any otherwiſe than by repreſentation: ſince you can hardly think of a higher profanation, by any mixture, than this, of blending the true Blood of Chriſt with Ink, unleſs I except the caſe of mixing it with Poiſon, for the deſtruction of Perſons; and thus P. Victor 2. and P. Victor 3. and Henry 7. Emperor, all died by receiving Poiſon in the Sacrament, as is atteſted by numerous and credible Hiſtorians.

Taking it therefore for granted, that no Body will have the confidence to aſſert, that they who thus mixed it with Ink, did believe Tranſubſtantiation, I ſhall now ſet down three remarkable Inſtances of a Pope, a General Council, and a King, that thus uſed it.

The firſt is of Pope Theodorus, who as Theophanes (whoſe words Baronius (s)(s)Ad an. D. 648. Sec. 14.has given us) relates, when Pyrrhus the Monothelite departed from Rome, and was come to Ravenna, and returned like a Dog to his Vomit; and when this was found out, P. Theodorus Calling a full Congregation of the Church, came to the Sepulchre of the Head of the Apoſtles, and asking for the Divine Cup, he dropped ſome of the Life-giving Blood into the Ink; and ſo, with his own hand, made the depoſition of excommunicated Pyrrhus. Thus Theophanes.

The next Inſtance, is, the doing of the ſame in the Condemnation and Depoſition of Photius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, by the Fathers of the 4th Council of Conſtantinople (which the Romaniſts call the 8th General Council) which is thus related by Nicetas in the Life of Ignatius (t)(t)Apud. Concil. Labbe. Tom. 8. pag. 1231. foreign.. The Biſhops ſubſcribed his Depoſition, not with bare Ink, but, which may make one tremble (as I have heard it atteſted by thoſe that knew it) dipping the Pen in the very Blood of our Saviour; thus they condemned and exauthoriz'd Photius, and with him, all that had been ordained by him. All this was Anno. Dom. 869.

The laſt Example is, of a Peace or Agreement ſtruck up between Charles the Bald, and Bernard count of Barcelona, in in the ſame Age, related by Odo Aribert; (whoſe Fragment p. 151Baluzius has given us) (u)(u)Notis ad Agobardum, p. 129.who tells us, That Agreement at Tholouſe, was confirmed and ſigned between the King and the Count, Sanguine Euchariſtico, with the Blood of the Euchariſt. Tho' notwithſtanding this Charles ſtabb'd Bernard with his own hand.

7. Inſtance.

The next Inſtance ſhall be, The different Practices of the Ancient Church and the Preſent Roman, with reference to the Reſervation of the Euchariſt, after the Communion was ended, and what they did with the Remains not received.

Concerning which, for methods ſake, I ſhall refer all to three remarkable differences.

1. Difference.] What was not received in the Euchariſt by the Communicants, the Ancient Church took no care to reſerve it; But the new Roman Church reſerves all publickly that is unreceived, and puts little of it to any uſes that are Sacramental.

I will not ſay that there was no reſervation of the Remains, after the Euchariſt was over, of what had been conſecrated, and not received, even before the Innovations took place, which were introduced by the Roman Church, becauſe there may perhaps be ſome Inſtances given of communicating the Sick out of ſuch Remains; and among the Greeks there was alſo communicating, ex praeſanctificatis, of what had been conſecrated before; but theſe, I ſay, were but later Cuſtoms of the 6th and 7th Centuries, and both before and after the contrary Cuſtom did prevail; and where theſe Reſervations were, they employed them to the ends of the Sacrament, for to be eaten and not to be adored.

But as to the moſt Ancient Cuſtom of the Church, it is truly given by the Author of the Commentary upon S. Paul's Epiſtles, among S. Jerom's Works (x)(x)Tom. 9. Edit. Froben. in 1 Cor. 11. In Eccleſia convenientes ſuas ſeparatim offerebant, & poſt communionem quaecun que eis de ſacrificiis ſuperfuiſſent, illic in Eccleſia communem coenam comedentes pariter conſumebant.1 Cor 11. Who on thoſe words of S. Paul (1 Cor. 11.) This is not to eat the Lord's Supper, &c. ſays thus, Meeting in the Church, they ſeparately made their Oblations, and after the Communion, whatſoever remained of the Sacrifices there in the Church, eating a common Supper, they conſumed them together.

p. 152But when theſe common Meals ceaſed, and this way of conſumption with them; The Ancient Church had other ways to do it. Witneſs the Practice mentioned by Heſychius (y)(y)Lib. 2. in Levit. cap. 8. Quod nunc videmus in Eccleſia ſenſibiliter fieri, igni que tradi quaecunque remanere contigerit inconſumpta.Lev 8, who explaining that place of the Law, which required, That whatſoever of the Fleſh and Bread remained, ſhould be burnt with Fire; adds, which we ſee alſo now ſenſibly done in the Church; that whatſoever happens to remain (of the Euchariſt) unconſumed, is burnt.

Evagerius (z)(z)Hiſtor. Lib. 4. c. 36. foreign—foreign—foreign.mentions another different uſage, but with the ſame effect, at Conſtantinople, where, he ſays, It was an old Cuſtom, that when a great deal of the Holy Parts of the Immaculate Body of Chriſt our God remained, they ſent for ſome Youths that went to School, of an unripe Age, who eat them up.

Nicephorus Calliſtus ſays, That this continued ſo to his Time, and that he himſelf had been one of thoſe Youths that ate up thoſe Particles (a)(a)Lib. 17. Hiſt. c. 25..

Neither was this a Practice of the Eaſtern Church only, but alſo of the Western, as appears by a Canon of a Synod of Maſcon (b)(b)Concil. Matiſcon. Can. 6. apud Tom. 5. Conc. Labb. p. 982. Quaecunque reliquiae Sacrificiorum, poſt peractam Miſſam in Sacrario ſuperſederint, quarta & ſexta feria innocentes, ab illo cujus intereſt, ad Eccleſiam adducantur & indicto eis jejunio eaſdem reliquias conſperſas vino percipiant., An. 505. Whatſoever Reliques of the Sacrifices ſhall remain in the Repoſitory after Maſs is ended, on Wedneſdays and Fridays the Officer ſhall bring little Children to Church, and appointing them to Faſt, they ſhall receive the ſaid Remains ſprinkled with a little Wine.

If Tranſubſtantiation had been their Belief, theſe had been lewd Prophanations of the Lord's Body.

The Roman Church therefore having this Belief, have ordered Matters quite otherwiſe, all is reſerved that remains; the Pretence I know is, that they may have the Sacrament always in readineſs to communicate the Sick withal; but they have been often told, that this is altogether needleſs, when the Prieſts with their portable Altars, have leave, upon leſs Occaſions, to celebrate Maſs privately; and when ſo many hundred Maſſes in the great Churches are daily celebrated, how eaſily may the Sacrament immediately (without being p. 153reſerved) be conveyed from one of their Altars to ſuch ſick Perſons.

But whatſoever is pretended, they intend other things more ſuitable to that Preſence, which they ſuppoſe to be there included; ſtately Tabernacles they prepare upon the Altars for his repoſe, with lighted Torches burning Day and Night before it; they come thither, even out of the Times of the Aſſemblies to make their Proſtrations; for ſo Card. Bellarmine (c)(c)De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 4. S. Quinta ratio. Quia in Templis ordinariè praeter Dei praeſentiam, quae eſt ubique, eſt etiam praeſentia Mediatoris Chriſti corporaliter in Euchariſta, quae certè auget ſpem & fiduciam orantis., among the Encouragements to make private Prayers in Temples, gives this as one Reaſon, becauſe ordinarily in them, beſides the Preſence of God which is every where, there is alſo the Preſence of Chriſt our Mediator corporally in the Euchariſt, which increaſes the Hope and Truſt of him that prays.

This is a new way of increaſing Faith and Hope, which the Ancients were not acquainted with; they waited indeed at the Altar for that end, when the Euchariſt was adminiſtred, and the evident repreſentation and ſetting forth of Chriſt before their Eyes as crucified, was very proper to increaſe their Faith and Hope: And there in a Sacramental Senſe, while they thus received, in the Phraſe of Optatus (d)(d)Lib. 6. adv. Donatiſt. Quid vos offenderat Chriſtus, cujus illic per certa momenta corpus & ſanguis habitabat?, the Body and Blood of Chriſt did inhabit for certain Moments. But theſe certain Moments will not do the Buſineſs of this Church, which requires a more conſtant and fixed Reſidence. They do not think their very Temples holy and venerable enough without it; for among the things that make a Temple ſo, and moreover endue it with a kind of a Divine Virtue, the forenamed Cardinal (e)(e)Ibid. cap. 5. ſec. Tertio probatur.reckons the preſence of the Body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt. So that it ſeems by their Opinions and Practice, the reſerved parts of the Sacrament, are as neceſſary as thoſe that are received.

Eſpecially if you remember that theſe reſerved Parts are deſigned, not only to receive their Adorations, when they come to ſay their Prayers before it in the Churches, but alſo when it travels abroad, as it do's upon many occaſions, when none have occaſion to receive it, nor think of ſaying their Prayers, being engaged in the Streets about their Secular Affairs; p. 154yet even there, when they happen to meet the Euchariſt going in a ſolemn Proceſſion, they muſt kneel and adore it. We know alſo that there is a peculiar Feaſt inſtituted (tho' of a late Date, An. 1264.) on Corpus-Chriſti Day, on which, with the greateſt pomp and ſtate imaginable, it is carried about the Streets and publick Places to be ſeen and worſhipped. Not to mention ſome extraordinary contingences, ſuch as the breaking out of a great Fire ſuddenly, occaſioning the drawing it out of its Retirement, to oppoſe againſt and ſtop its fury.

Beſides, the Pope himſelf has often need of the reſerved Hoſt, not to Take and eat (according to the Inſtitution) but to take along with him when he, in his Pontificals, rides to any Church, or takes a Journey to a City, this always accompanies him; and the Book of Sacred Ceremonies, will give you an account of the Horſe, and the colour of it, upon which it is ſet, with the Bell about his Neck, and the pompous Train, the Canopy carried over it, and lighted Torches before it, &c.

Let me only add farther, That in that caſe which is pretended to be the great occaſion for the reſervation of the Euchariſt, I mean, to be in readineſs for ſick Perſons, yet even here the Proceſſion, and the Pomp, and the Magnificence in the conveying it to ſuch Places, and the Receiving the Adorations of all it meets, ſeems to be as much deſigned, as the communicating thoſe ſick Perſons; which they will be contented as ſoon to let alone, as to abate thoſe attending Ceremonies.

The Ancient Church had very homely practices; they uſed and ſuffered, in caſes of great neceſſity, things that this Church would account incongruous if not profane. Such as that which Dionyſius of Alexandria (f)(f)Apud Euſeb. Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. 6. c. 44.Sir 50:6relates concerning old Serapion, who when he lay a-dying, ſent a young Grand-child of his to call one of the Presbyters of Alexandria to give him the Sacrament: Who by reaſon of Ilneſs, not being able to go along with him, he made no more ado, but took a little portion of the Euchariſt, and gave it into the Youth's Hand, and directed him to moiſten it, and ſo to infuſe it into his Mouth; which he did, and immediately upon the ſwallowing p. 155it, the old Man expired: I Queſtion, whether the Gentlemen of the Roman Church will allow this to be a true Communion; but I believe, with their perſwaſions, they would not follow it for a World.

We may more than gueſs ſo, by a remarkable Story Nic. Trigautius tells us of what was reſolved upon by the skilful Jeſuits, in a Caſe exactly like the former (g)(g)Nic. Trigautii exped apud Sinas, l. 5. c. 7. p. 503. Neque domi loco convenienti celebrari poterat, neque pro majeſtate per vicos deferri: ſolabantur igitur illum ſocii neceſſaria peccatorum confeſſione perfunctum, poſſe ſine viatico, quod legitime impeditus minimè ſuſciperet, coeleſtem gloriam introire., at Pekin in China; One Fabius who had been converted and baptized, being above Eighty Years old, fell ſick to Death; and having been confeſs'd of his Sins, with great earneſtneſs, deſired to receive the Sacrament for his Viaticum; but there being no convenient place at his Houſe to celebrate it in, nor liberty to carry it through the Streets in Pomp and requiſite State, they comforted him with the conſideration of his having made confeſſion of his Sins, which was neceſſary; and told him that he might, without taking the Sacrament, when he was lawfully hindred, go to Heaven; and ſo they left him. Theſe admirable Caſuiſts, you ſee, determine againſt communicating the dying Perſon, when it could not be performed with the majeſtick Ceremonies they deſired.

The Prieſt of Alexandria, and the Fathers in China, differ very widely in their Practice, and you may be ſure their Perſwaſions in this matter were as different; the Man himſelf indeed, he tells us, found a way to get the Communion at laſt, by throwing himſelf into their Houſe, but it was not till they had made a little Proceſſion within doors; till the Tapeſtry was ſpread on the Floors, and the Tapers lighted, nothing could be done.

In a word, to perſwade People of the neceſſity of theſe Pomps and Solemnities in conveying the Sacrament to the Sick, they produce ſeveral Miracles **See the School of the Euchariſt, Title, Aſſes and Mares, &c., how when the Prieſts have carried the Euchariſt through Fields without attendance, Troops of Aſſes and Mares have run to ſupply this defect, and having firſt fallen down on their Knees to worſhip the Deity he carried, they have accompanied him to the Place, waited at the ſick Man's Door till all was over, and then marched back again in good order with him; God ſhowing, by theſe p. 156reſpects paid to it by Beaſts, what he expected much more from Men.

2. Difference, relates to what was received in the Euchariſt; wherein we alſo ſee a plain diſagreement in the uſages of the Primitive, and the preſent Roman Church. Which is this; The Ancient Church allowed great Liberty privately to reſerve what had been publickly received in the Euchariſt: Which would be now a great Crime in the Roman Church; ſo far from being allowed.

It is undeniable, that anciently this was allowed, (whether they did well or ill in it is not at all the queſtion, but concerning the Matter of Fact.) S. Baſil (h)(h)Epiſt. 289.thinks that the Cuſtom took its riſe from Times of Perſecution, when Chriſtians were forced to flee into Deſarts, and live in ſolitude, having not the preſence of a Prieſt to communicate-them, they had the Sacrament reſerved by them, and communicated themſelves. But he ſays (even when this Reaſon ceaſed) this became afterwards an inveterate Cuſtom. And in Alexandria and Egypt, the Laicks commonly had the Sacrament by them in their own Houſes (i)(i)Ibid. foreign. —foreign, &c.; and, he ſays expreſly, this which they ſo reſerved foreign, with all liberty (as his Phraſe is) was a Particle received from the Prieſt's Hand in the Church.

So Nazianzen (k)(k)Orat. 11. foreign, &c.ſays of his Siſter Gorgonia; Whatſoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Chriſt her Hand had treaſured up, &c.

Which very phraſe intimates, that at ſeveral times ſhe had reſerved and made a collection of the Conſecrated Elements.

Tertullian ſuppoſes it a common practice in his time, when he ſays (l)(l)Lib. 2. ad Ʋxor. Non ſciet maritus quid ſecretò ante omnem cibum guſtes, &c., Thy Husband will not know what it is thou taſteſt ſecretly before all other Meat, &c.

It is true indeed that in the Councils of Saragoſa and Toledo in Spain, this was prohibited in the 4th Century, upon occaſion of the Priſcillianiſts, who did receive the communion as others did, and reſerved it, and ſo could not be diſcovered, tho' p. 157they never took it; againſt whom Learned Men think thoſe Councils made thoſe Canons, which anathematized thoſe that received, but did not take it down, but reſerved it. However the foreſaid Cuſtom ſtill prevailed in other Places, as might be ſhown, if it were needful, as far as the 11th Century. As for the preſent Church this is wholly a Stranger to them; they will have no Remains kept any where but upon the publick Altars, where no Hand muſt touch them but the Prieſt's. The Council of Trent (m)(m)Seſſ. 25. cap. 10.will not allow the Sanctimoniales, the very Nuns in their Quires, or in any places within their Cloiſter (intra chorum vel ſepta Monaſterii) to keep it by them, but only in publica Eccleſia, notwithſtanding any former Grants and Privileges. And a Great Man (n)(n)Petavius de Poenit. l. 1. c. 7. Si quis nunc Laicus ſimile quid auderet, is apud nos cenſeretur gravi poena expiandi criminis reus, veluti ſanctiſſimi Sacramenti profanus temerator.ſpeaking of the former Uſages, ſays, If any Lay-man now ſhould dare to do ſo, he would be accounted guilty of a Crime to be expiated by a grievous puniſhment, as a profane Violator of the moſt Holy Sacrament.

But if it be ſo great a Crime with them to reſerve it when they have received it; What will they ſay to the next Difference I ſhall now mention?

3. Difference. That among the Ancients, what was ſo privately reſerved, was put to ſuch uſes as the preſent Roman Church muſt abhor, becauſe they are direct Affronts to the belief of Tranſubſtantiation, and the corporal Preſence.

It appears by S. Cyprian, (libr. de Lapſis) that the very Women in his Time had liberty to take the Euchariſt home with them, and diſpoſe of it as they pleaſed; and the Woman he there ſpeaks of, that lock'd it up in her Cheſt, had not the Roman Opinion of a Latent Deity, which ſuch uſage ill agrees with, or rather affronts.

Neither had Cyril of Jeruſalem (o)(o)Catech. Myſtag. 5. foreign.their Perſwaſions, when he adviſes his Communicant, whilſt his Lips were wet and dewy, with what he had drank in the Cup, with his Hands to touch his Eyes and Forehead, and the reſt of the Organs of his Senſes for their Sanctification.

But what Gorgonia, Nazianzen's Siſter, did with the Remains of the Antitypes of Chriſt's Body and Blood, exceeds it; p. 158when as he reports of her, to her commendation (p)(p)Orat. 11. foreign, &c., ſhe mixed them with her Tears, and anointed her whole Body with it, for the recovery out of a grievous Diſeaſe.

A like Story to which, S. Auſtin gives us (q)(q)Lib. 3. ſecundi op. adv. Jul. Ne que hoc permiſiſſe religioſam matrem ſuam, ſed id effeciſſe ex Euchariſtiae cataplaſmate.of the Mother of one Acatius, who was born with cloſed Eyes, which a Phyſician adviſed ſhould be opened with an Inſtrument of Iron; but ſhe refuſed, and cured him with a Cataplaſm, or Plaſter made of the Euchariſt.

In honour to our Saviour, we find a Woman anointing his Body; but to make his Body an Ointment for hers, or to make it into a Medicine, is but courſe uſage of it, and ſuch as none would adventure upon that was perſwaded it was a deified Body.

The old Cuſtom which Euſebius mentions (r)(r)Lib. 5. Hiſt. Eccleſ. c. 24. foreign.Sir 24of fending the Sacrament from one Biſhop to another, as a Token of Peace and Communion, ſeems to argue but little good Manners, (with the Church of Rome's Opinions concerning it); for tho' God ſent his Son on a bleſſed Errand and Embaſſy, it look too ſaucy for us to ſend him on ours.

What Indecencies would this Church juſtly fear the Body of Chriſt would be ſubject to, if there were that permiſſion that was granted of old to carry the Euchariſt along with them in their Voyages at Sea? Yet this P. Gregory the Great tells us was practiſed by Maximianus and his Commpanions retuining from Conſtantinople to Rome; and being in a Tempeſt in the Adriatick Sea (s)(s)Dial. l. 3. c. 36.—Sibimet pacem dediſſe, corpus & ſanguinem Redemptoris accepiſſe; Deo ſe ſingulos commendantes.They Blood of their Redeemer, recommending every one himſelf to God.

But that which S. Ambroſe informs us (t)(t)Orat. de obitu fratris. Priuſquamperfectioribus eſſet initiatus myſteriis, in naufragio conſtitutus—ne vacuus myſterii exiret è vita, quos initiatos eſſe cognoverat, ab his Divinum illud fidelium ſacramentum popoſcit—ligari fecit in orario, & orarium involvit in collo, at que ita ſe dejecit in mare.of his Brother Satyrus, was ſtill more bold; Who being Shipwrack'd at Sea, and not yet having been baptized, leſt he ſhould die without the Myſtery, he begg'd of ſome of thoſe that were baptized, to let p. 159him have that Divine Sacrament of the Faithful, (the Cuſtom then being to have it reſerved about them) which they granting, he put it up in his Handkerchief which he then tied about his Neck, and ſo threw himſelf into the Sea.

Whatſoever Conceits Satyrus might have when he borrowed it, yet thoſe that beſtowed it, could never think fit (with the foreſaid belief) to deliver it into the Hands of one not yet a perfect Chriſtian, nor to be tied about his Neck in a cloth that I ſuppoſe was no Corporal (as they call it) to be expoſed to the daſhing of Sea-waves, like a Bladder or a Cork to keep him from drowning.

But there is a more irreconcileable Practice of the Ancients with the preſent Belief, with which I ſhall end this Particular about reſervation of the Sacrament. It is the Cuſtom of burying the reſerved parts of it with their dead Bodies. The Author of the Life of S. Baſil (u)(u)Vita Baſil. c. 6. foreign., tells us, That he kept a Particle of the Euchariſt to be buried with him; and left it ſo to be by his laſt Will.

St. Gregory (x)(x)Dialog. l. 2. c. 24. —Quibus vir Dei manu ſua protenus communionem Dominici corporis dedit, dicers, Ite at que hoc Dominicum corpus ſuper pectus ejus ponite, & fic ſepulturae eum tradite. Quod dum factum fuiſſer, ſuſceptum corpus ejus terra tenuit, nec ultra projecit.tells a ſtrange Story of Youth that was a Monk, who going out of S. Benet's Monaſtery without his Benediction, ſuddenly was found dead; and being buried, the next day was forced out of his Grave, and a ſecond Time was found ſo after Burial: Whereupon, ſays he, they ran weeping to S. Benet, praying him to beſtow his Bleſſing upon him. To whom that Man of God gave the Communion of the Lord's Body, ſaying, Go and lay this Body of our Lord upon his Breaſt, and ſo bury him. They did ſo, and then he kept in his Grave, and the Earth threw him out no more.

I know that there are ſeveral Canons of Councils, made againſt this Practice, (as the 20th Canon of the Council of Carthage, and the 83 Canon of the 6th General Council at Conſtantinople in Trullo); upon which laſt Canon, Zonaras obſerves, foreign, &c. That it was an ancient Cuſtom to deliver the Lord's Body to Dead Bodies.

But then methinks it's very obſervable, that the reaſon why the Fathers prohibit it, is not ſuch a one as would be given p. 160in the Roman Church, from the horrible Profanation and contumely in thus uſing the Lord's Body (as it would be if it were truly and properly there, and no Bread remaining): But their Reaſon is from hence, Becauſe it is written, Take and eat; But dead Carcaſes can neither take nor eat.

But notwithſtanding all theſe Prohibitions, the old Cuſtom continued afterwards; for thoſe that write the Lives of Saints, and tell us of the tranſlating of their Bodies from one place to another, inform us that they have found pieces of the Euchariſt uncorrupted lying in their Grave: As Surius (y)(y)Surius vit. Othmar. ad Nev. 16. Eas venerabiliter aſſumens ſacro corpori appoſuit.tells us in the Life of Othmarus, That when he came to be tranſlated ſome Years after he was buried, they found under his Head, and about his Breaſt, little pieces of Bread, which were with much reverence laid by his Body again.

The like do's Amalarius (z)(z)Di div. Offic. l. 4. c. 41. Oblata ſuper pectus Sanctum poſita, veſtimento Sacerdotali indutum, &c.report, (citing Bede for it) that the ſame was practiſed when S. Cutberd was buried, his Head bound with a Napkin, the Euchariſt laid upon his Holy Breaſt, with his Sacerdotal Habit upon him, &c.

It is little leſs than a Demonſtration, that they that thus treated the Sacrament, did not believe it contained a hidden Deity under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine; for ſure they would not then have thus uſed the Lord of Life and Glory, to impriſon him, as it were, and ſuffer him to lie buried with the putrid Carcaſes of the Dead.

8. Inſtance.

The laſt Inſtance of differing Practices in the two Churches, ſhall be, In their over-ſollicitouſneſs to prevent any Accidents that might happen in the Adminiſtration of the Euchariſt; their Frights when any ſuch thing do's happen, and the Expiations required for negligence to purge ſuch Crimes; ſuch as we have no foot-ſteps of in any of thoſe caſes, in the Ancient Church.

As to the firſt of thoſe Caſes, I have ſomewhat prevented my ſelf, in what I before have ſhown, of their Devices of Intinction, ſucking the Sacrament through Pipes; and, which is worſt of all (out of this abundant caution) denying the People the Cup. Here therefore I ſhall mention other Cautions, ſuch as thoſe which tend to prevent any Fragments falling off p. 161from the Bread of the Euchariſt, that no Crumbs may have any diſhonour done to them, by being left unregarded, but either may be received or reſerved.

To this end, they have altered the Ancient Cuſtom of providing common Bread, ſuch as is of ordinary uſe, for the Sacrament, and required that it be unleavened, becauſe this is leſs apt to break into Crumbs, and cleaves better together in its Parts. And tho' they do not ſay that there is no Sacrament where leavened Bread is uſed, yet the Miſſal (a)(a)De defectibus, c. 3. n. 3. Conficiens graviter peccat.affirms, That he that conſecrates in this, do's grievouſly Sin; and herein they have raiſed (ſince the days that Tranſubſtantiation was forming into a Doctrine of Faith) and maintained a great Controverſy with the Greek Church, which do's not uſe their Azyms, no more than the Anclent Church did. They have alſo invented, about the ſame Time, and ſtill uſe, thoſe little round Wafers (as they are commonly called) which is that which they conſecrate for the Bread of the Sacrament, and take care hereby to prevent breaking into Crumbs; for they never break them for diſtribution, but put them whole into the Communicants Mouths; whereas the Ancient Practice was, to provide one whole Loaf of Subſtantial Bread, and to divide this into parts, and break it for to be diſtributed among them all. But theſe Hoſtiolae, little Hoſts, are brought to ſuch a tenuity, that they are the next door to what they call ſpecies, having ſcarce any ſubſtance, and deſerve not properly the name of Bread, as a learned Man (b)(b)Voſſius in Theſ. Theol. Diſp. 19. de S. Coenae Syusb.has ſhown. The very Miſſal (Loc. citat. n. 7.) ſuppoſes, that they may eaſily diſappear, and that a Wind may carry them away, for that is one of the caſes it mentions, (aut vento, aut miraculo, vel ab aliquo animali accepta.)

It is eaſy to ſhow, that all this caution to prevent falling Crumbs, is perfect nonſenſe, according to their principles, ſince the True Body of Chriſt cannot be broken or crumbled into Bits, which is the only ſubſtance remaining; the reſt, which they call Species, being Mathematical Lines and Colours only, and no matter under them; a whole World of them can never make up a Crumb of Bread, or any Fragment. And yet theſe are they about which ſuch ſuperabundant Caution is uſed; which are mentioned in the Miſſal.

p. 162To name a few. When the Prieſt that celebrates do's communicate himſelf, it is then only that he breaks the Hoſt into three parts, one of which he puts into the Cup; and after he has taken the other two which are upon the Patin, he is directed (c)(c)Miſſal. Ron. ritus celtor. Miſſam, c. 10. Sect. 4.to take the Patin, to view the Corporal, (or Cloth ſpread under it) to gather up the Fragments with the Patin, if there be any on it, and with his Thumb and Fore-finger of his right Hand, to wipe the Patin carefully over the Chalice, and alſo his Fingers, leſt any Fragments remain on them.

Then for the Hoſts that are reſerved to another time, after the Prieſt has taken them off from the Corporal, and put them into the Veſſel appointed for them, he is directed to mind carefully (d)(d)Ibid. Sect. 15., leſt any Fragment, the leſt imaginable, remain upon the Corporal; and if there be any, carefully to put them into the Chalice.

When he has taken the Cup, with the 3d Particle of the Hoſt put into it (e)(e)Ibid. Sect. 5., he muſt purify himfelf, drinking ſome wine poured into the Cup by the Miniſter that attends; then with Wine and Water muſt waſh his Thumbs and Fore-fingers over the Cup, and muſt wipe them with the Burificatory; then he muſt drink off the Oblation (wherein he waſhed) and wipe his Mouth and the Chalice with the Purificatory.

Such-like alſo are the Cautions given when the People have communicated **Ibid. Sect. 6.. If the Hoſts were laid upon the Corporal, the Prieſt wipes it (or ſweeps it) with the Patin; and if there were any Fragments on it, he puts them into the Chalice. The Miniſter alſo holding in his right Hand a Veſſel with Wine and Water in it, and in his left a little Napkin (Mappulam), do's reach the Purification (to waſh their Mouths) to them, a little after the Prieſt, and the little Napkin to wipe their Mouths.

The Communicants alſo are directed (f)(f)See the Rom. Ritual, de S. Euchariſt., after receiving, not preſently to go out of the Church, or talk, or look about careleſly; nor to ſpit, nor read aloud Prayers out of a Book, left the Species of the Sacrament ſhould fall out of their Mouths.

All this is preventing Care: But now when Accidents do happen, they ſeem, by their ordering Matters, to be in a frightful Concern; and ſtrange things are to be done, if poſſible, to make an honorable amends.

p. 163In the laſt Chapter I have given the Reader ſome Inſtances of thoſe ſtrange Things, and will here only add two Caſes which the Roman Miſſal provides for.

The firſt is, If a Conſecrated Hoſt, or any part of it, ſhould fall to the Ground, the direction is (g)(g)Miſſal. Ram. de defect. Miſae, c. 10. Sect. 15., That it be reverently taken up, and the place where it fell muſt be cleanſed, and a little ſcraped away, and ſuch duſt or ſcrapings muſt be put in the Holy Repoſitory. If it fell without the Corporal upon the Napkin (Mappam) or any ways upon any Linen Cloth, ſuch Napkin, or Linen, muſt be carefully waſhed, and that Water poured out into the Holy Repoſitory.

The ſecond Caſe is, When by negligence (h)(h)Ibid. c. 10. Sect. 12.any thing of the Blood is Spilt. If it fell upon the Earth, or upon a Board, it muſt be licked up with the Tongue, and the place ſcraped ſufficiently, and ſuch ſcraping be burnt, and the Aſhes laid up in the Repoſitory. But if it fell upon the Altar-ſtone, the Prieſt muſt ſup up the Drop, and the place be well waſhed, and that water caſt into the Repoſitory. If it fell upon the Altar-Cloths, and the Drop ſunk as far as the ſecond or third Cloth, thoſe Cloths muſt be thrice waſhed where the Drop fell, putting the Cup underneath to receive the Water, and that Water thrown into the foreſaid place. And ſo it directs to ſuch waſhing when it falls upon the Corporal alone, or the Prieſt's Garments, &c.

I cannot but here annex alſo the Conſtitution which the Reader may find in the Appendix to the Hiſtory of the Church of Peterburgh, Pag. 344. (being the firſt of two there ſet down) directing what is to be done, when any negligence happens about the Lord's Body and Blood, and how to expiate the Crime.

When there is ſo great negligence about the Lord's Body and Blood, that it happens to fall downward, or into any place where it cannot be fully perceived, whether it fell, and whether any of it came to the Ground; Let the Matter be diſcovered as ſoon as may be to the Abbot or Prior, who taking ſome of the Friars with him, let him come to the place where this has happened; And if the Body ſhall have fallen, or the Blood have been ſpilt upon Stone, or Earth, or Wood, or Mat, or Tapeſtry, or ſuch like, let the duſt of the Earth be gathered, part of that Stone be ſcraped, part of that Wood, Mat, Tapeſtry, or the like, p. 164be cut away and caſt into the Holy Repoſitory. But if the place where it is thought chiefly to have fallen, let there be the like gathering, Scraping, cutting away, and caſting into the Holy Repoſitory. Then they by whoſe negligence this has happened in the next Chapter ſhall humbly declare their Fault, and on their naked Bodies receive Judgment (judicium nudi ſuſcipiant) and Penance be enjoined them, either of Faſting, or Whipping, or Rehearſing ſo many Pſalms, or ſuch like. Which Perſons going back to their places, from their Puniſhment (de judicio) all the prieſts then preſent ſhall riſe up, and with all devotion offer themſelves to receive Puniſhment. Then he that holds the Chapter, ſhall detain ſeven of them, which he pleaſes to chuſe, to receive the Judgment (of whipping) and command the reſt to go away. The Chapter being ended, all proſtrating themſelves together, ſhall ſay ſeven Penitential Pſalms in the Monaſtery, beginning to ſing them as they go out from the Chapter. Then ſhall follow after the Pſalms, the Pater Noſter, with theſe Chapters and Collects. Let thy Mercy, O Lord, be upon us. Remember not our Iniquities. The Lord be with you. Let us pray. Hear, O Lord, our Prayers, and Spare the Sins of thoſe that confeſs themſelves to thee; that they whoſe guilty Conſciences do accuſe them, thy merciful Pardon may abſolve them. Or that other Collect. O God, whoſe property is always to have Mercy; or ſuch other collect for Sirs.

But if the Blood fell upon the Corporal, or upon any clean Cloth, and it be certain whether it fell, let that part of the Cloth be waſhed in ſome Chalice, and the firſt Water it was waſh'd in be drunk off by the Friars; the other two waſhings be caſt into the Repoſitory. The ſaid Fault muſt be diſcovered in the firſt Chapter, but they alone, by whoſe negligence this has happened, ſhall receive the foreſaid Diſcipline, but all the Friars ſhall ſay over in the Monaſtery all the ſeven Pſalms, with the Chapters and Collects, as was ſaid before. If that day, the ſhort one for the Dead ſhall be read in the Chapter, let them firſt ſing my words going into the Church: After that the ſeven Pſalms, as p. 165aforeſaid. But if in any other manner a lighter negligence ſhall happen relating to this Sacrament, the Friar, by whoſe Fault it happened, ſhall be puniſhed with a lighter Revenge at the diſcretion of the Abbot or Prior.

Thus I have given a ſufficient Specimen of the ſtrange Caution and Fears the Roman Church are under, leſt any thing ſhould happen, even to the very leaſt Particle or Drop of the Sacrament, that is diſhonourable: And indeed, their Caution is very agreeable to their Perſwaſions, as I have before often hinted.

But now if we turn our Eyes upon the Ancient Church, tho' we cannot queſtion, either their Devotion or reverent Behaviour in all Acts of Religious Worſhip, and particularly in this great One; yet there is not to be found any ſuch ſcrupuloſities about minute things; nor ſuch frightful apprehenſions in the caſe of unforeſeen Accidents, nor ſuch Expiations as we have before heard of. They did not forbear to uſe the Common Bread (as I ſaid before) tho' it might be more liable to crumble; they took their Share from one Common Loaf; they received the Wine without intinction, or ſucking it through Pipes, &c. Which are all later Inventions, ſince the Faith was innovated concerning the Euchariſt.

But becauſe this is only a Negative Argument, I will therefore add a Poſitive one, to demonſtrate that the Ancients were far from theſe Scrupuloſities; and alſo that they came into the Church with Tranſubſtantiation, and not before; viz. The Practice of Communicating Infants. It is not my Buſineſs here to prove, that this was the common Uſage in the Church, from the Times of S. Cyprian at leaſt, even to later Ages, which has been done effectually by others (i)(i)See Mr. Chillingworth's Additional Treatiſes, in 4 to., and is acknowledged by our Adverſaries.

Maldonate (k)(k)Comm. in Joan. 6.53.John 6:53the Jeſuit owns, that it continued in the Church for ſix hundred Years.

And Card. Perron (l)(l)De loc. Auguſt. c. 10.grants, That the Primitive Church gave the Euchariſt to Infants as ſoon as they were baptized: And that Charles the Great, and Lewis the Pious, both teſtify that this Cuſtom remained in the Weſt in their Age, that is, in the 9th Century in which they lived. But it went down lower, even to two Ages after Charles the Great. For p. 166that Epiſtle of P. Paſchal 2. (which I mentioned in another Chapter) given us by Baronius, at the end of his laſt Tome, (Ad Ann. 1118. when that Pope died) wherein he forbids Intinction of the Bread in the Wine, and requires that the Bread and Wine ſhould be taken ſeparately; gives us alſo this exception, (praeter in parvulis ac omnino infirmis qui panem abſorbere non poſſunt) that it may be allowed to little Children, and thoſe extreamly weak, that cannot get down the Bread: Which had been a needleſs proviſion for them, if Infants had not then received the Sacrament.

This being then a certain and confeſſed thing, that Infants received the Euchariſt, I refer it to the Conſcience of any Romaniſt, whether he can think the Ancients had any of their aforeſaid Fears, and nice Scrupuloſities, about the Accidents that might happen to the conſecrated Elements, which in that Practice could not be prevented; it being impoſſible, where ſucking Children receive either Bread or Wine, to hinder the happening of ſomething which the Church of Rome will call highly diſhonourable to the Sacrament. For to inſtance in a Caſe which S. Cyprian (m)(m)Lib. de Lapſis.mentions, of a Chriſtian little Girl, that by her Nurſes Wickedneſs had receiv'd polluted Bread in an Idol's Temple, and afterwards was brought by the Mother, knowing nothing, into the Church to receive the Communion. He relates how the Child, when its turn came to receive the Cup, turned away its Face, ſhut its Lips, and refuſed the Cup. But the Deacon (n)(n)Ibid. Perſtitit Diaconus, & reluctanti licet de Sacramento Calicis inſudit. Tunc ſequitur ſingultus & vomitus; in Corpore at que ore violato Euchariſtia permanere non potuit.perſiſted, and though it ſtrove againſt it, did infuſe into it of the Sacrament of the Cup. Then followed ſighing and vomiting; the Euchariſt could not remain in a Body and Mouth that had been prophaned.

How would a Romaniſt ſtart at the thoughts of pouring the Sacrament, as this Deacon did (who ſure was a Zuinglian) into the Mouth of a ſtrugling Child? But here is no mention of any concern about that, or what happened upon it; from whence it is natural to conclude, that the Ancients in this common Caſe having none of this Church's Scruples and Fears, that they had none of their Faith; for they muſt have had more Caution, if they had had their Opinion about the Euchariſt.

p. 167It is alſo very obſervable, to confirm what I have ſaid, that though we can trace the Cuſtom of Communicating Infants, as far as to the Age when the Tranſubſtantiating Doctrine was ſet on foot, and ready to be formed into an Article of Faith; yet here we are at a full ſtop, and can go no further, for this begat ſuch Scruples and Fears, that made this quickly give place and vaniſh, which had ſo many Hazards attending it, and we hear no more of it ſince that in the Latin Church; but other great Churches, that have not made This an Article of their Faith, ſtill retain the old Cuſtom (though they err therein) of Communicating Infants. As the Greek Churches, the Muſcovites, Armenians, Habaſſins, Jacobites, &c. concerning which ſee Dallée de Cultib. Latin. l. 5. c. 4. Thomas à Jeſu de Converſ. gentium, l. 7. c. 5. & c. 18. Ludolfi Hiſtor. Aethiop. l. 3. c. 6. Sect. 37, 38. Hiſtor. Jacobitarum, Oxon. cap. 9. See alſo Father Simons Critical Hiſtory of Religions, concerning the Georgians, cap. 5. p. 67, 71. Neſtorians, p. 101. Cophties, p. 114. Armenians, c. 12. p. 128.