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 Vrban 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) 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 utraque 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 But 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 tho' 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 distinct 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
Old Test did eat the same spiritual meat with us because they ate it by Faith. Page 127 4 Consid They represent Christs Body as dead and that so it must be taken Ergo spiritually Page 128 Two remarkable sayings of S. Austin to prove all this Page 130 CHAP. XIII The Thirteenth Difference The Fathers assert that the Faithful only eat Christs Body and drink his Blood not the wicked the Ro. Church extends it to both Page 131 The Church of Rome will have not only the wicked but bruit Creatures to eat it Page 132 The Cautions of the Mass suppose this ibid. The Fathers will not allow the wicked to partake of Christs Body Page 133 Two remarkable Testimonies of St. Austin Page 136 CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference The different practices and usages of the two Churches argue their different opinions about the Eucharist Page 137 Eight Instances of their differing practices given 1 Instance The Ancient Church excluded Catechumens Penitents c. from being present at the Mysteries enjoining all present to communicate ibid. In the Ro. Ch. any may be Spectators tho' none receive but the Priest Page 139 2 Inst The old practice was to give the Communion in both kinds Page 140 Transubstantiation made this practice cease 141. New devices for security against profaning Christs Blood. Page 142 No reason why the Fathers have not been as cautious in this as the Ro. Church but their different belief Page 143 3 Inst The Elevation of the Host that all may adore it the Roman practice Page 145 This not used in the first Ages at all when used afterwards not for Adoration Page 145 146 4. Inst The Rom. Church allows not the people to receive the Sacrament with their Hands but all is put by the Priest into their Mouths contrary to the Ancient Practice Page 147 5 Inst The Anc. Church used Glass Cups for the Wine which would be criminal now Page 148 6 Inst They mixed of old the Consecr Wine with Ink which would now be abhorr'd Page 149 7 Inst In the Reservation of the Eucharist Three differences herein consider'd 1 Difference The Anc. Church took no care to reserve what was not received in the Eucharist but the Ro. Church reserves all 151 c. 2 Differ What had been publickly received the Anc. Church allowed liberty to reserve privately 156. The present Ch. in no case allows such private reservation 157. 3. Differ They put what was so reserved to such uses of old as the Ro. Church would think profane Page 157 158 c. 8 Inst The infinite sollicitous caution to prevent accidents in the administration of the Sacrament their frights and strange expiations when they happen all unknown and strangers to the Ancient Church 160 c. Which is proved positively from the continued practice of Communicating Infants till Transubstantiation abolished it Page 165 This still a practice in the Eastern Churches that submit not to the Roman Church Page 167 CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference About their Prayers in two particulars 1. That the old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass agree not with the Faith of the now Ro. Church Page 168 2. That their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no Example in the Anc. Church Page 175 CHAP. XVI The Sixteenth Difference That our ancient Saxon Church differ'd from the present Rom. Church in the Article of the corporal presence Page 182 c. The Saxon Easter-Sermon produc'd as a Testimony against them Page 183 184 c. Two Epistles of Elfric the Abbot declare against that Doctrine Page 187 188. A Remarkable Testimony also of Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz alledged Page 189 CHAP. XVII The Conclusion of the whole Shewing that Heathens and Jews reproached not the Ancient Christians about the Eucharist 191. Transubstantiation occasion'd new Calumnies from both 194. The Jew's Conversion seems to be hopeless whilst this is believed by them to be the common Faith of Christians 195. That the Jews have better explained Christs words of Institution agreed better with the Ancient Church in understanding the Sacrament in a figurative sense and have confuted Transubstantiation by unanswerable Arguments proved by Instances from p. 196. to the end Faults Escaped PAge 5. line 16. marg r. Serm. 5. p. 10. l. 7. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 39. l. 11. r. supposes p. 53. l. 2. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 26. marg r. Serm. 5 p. 69. l. 10. r. thou art wholly changed in the inward Man Ibid. l. 12. marg r. totus in interiore homine mutatus es p. 73. l. 6. marg r. qui p. 98. l. 5. à fine r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 149. l. 26. r. Paten p. 152. l. 10. r. Evagrius p. 171. l. 23. r. that of Abel CHAP. I. The First Difference The Church of Rome is forced to assert a continued Series of Miracles to justifie her Doctrine of Transubstantiation But the Fathers never mention any Miracles in the Eucharist save only the Effects of God's powerful Grace working great Changes in us and advancing the Elements in the use of them thereunto without changing their Nature and Substance TO give the Reader a View of what Wonders are to be believed according to what the Trent Council has decreed concerning Transubstantiation we need go no further than to the Trent Catechism * Ad Parcchōs part 2. num 25. which tells us there are three most wonderful things which the Catholick Faith without any doubting believes and confesses are effected in this Sacrament by the Words of Consecration 1. That the true Body of Christ that same Body which was born of the Virgin and sits at the Right-hand of the Father is conteined in this Sacrament 2. That no Substance of the Elements remains in it tho' nothing may seem more strange and remote from our Senses 3. What is easily collected from both That the Accidents which are seen with our Eyes or are perceived by our other Senses are without any Subject in which they subsist in a strange manner not to be explained So that all the Accidents of Bread and Wine may be seen which yet inhere in no Substance but subsist by themselves since the Substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord that the Substance of Bread and Wine cease wholly to be But others of the Romish Writers have made a larger and more particular Enumeration of the Miracles wrought in the Eucharist which no Created Power can effect but God's Omnipotency alone I 'le give them in the Words of the Jesuite Pererius * In Joan. c. 6. Disp 16. num 48. who reckons these Nine distinct Miracles 1. The same Christ remaining in Heaven not departing thence and without any local mutation is really and corporally in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 2. Nor is he thus there only in one consecrated Host but is together in all Hosts consecrated throughout the whole Earth 3.
it self Gelasius Caesarien (m) Citat à Theodoret. Dial. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word was made Flesh not being it self changed but dwelling in us The Tabernacle is one thing and the Word is another the Temple is one thing and God that dwells in it another See also the like Saying in Methodius cited by Photius his Bibliotheca Cod. 234. pag. 920. ult Edit In a word the Fathers oppose all Penetration of Dimensions in Bodies and say (n) Author Libr. cui tit Celebres Opiniones de Anima c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is impossible for one Body to penetrate another Body And the same Author says (o) Ibid. cap. ult Sic dici posset in milii grano coelum contineri That if this were possible you might then say That Heaven it self might be contained in a Grain of Millet The Fathers argue against Marcion upon this Rule That whatsoever contains another thing is greater than that which is contained in it So do's Epiphanius (p) Haeres 42. sec 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So do's Tertullian (q) Contr. Marcion l. 1. c. 15. Irenaeus (r) Adv. Haer. l. 2. c. 1. has the same Rule and laughs at Marcion's God upon that account Greg. Nyssen (s) De Vita Mosis proves that the Deity has no Bounds by this Argument That otherwise what contains would be greater than the Deity contained therein Theophylus Antioch (t) Ad Autolycum l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says This is the Property of the Almighty and True God not only to be every where but to inspect and hear all things Neither is he contained in a Place for else the containing Place would be greater than himself for that which contains is greater than that which is contained in it I will conclude this Chapter with the remarkable Words of Fulgentius (u) De Fide ad Petr. c. 3. Unaquaeque res ita permaner sicut à Deo accepit ut esset alia quidem sic alia autem sic Neque enim sic datum est corporibus ut sint sicut spiritus acceperunt c. Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be one on this manner and another on that For it is not given to Bodies to exist after such a manner as is granted unto Spirits c. CHAP. VI. The Sixth Difference The Church of Rome suitably to the strange Doctrine it teaches about Christ's Body and Blood teaches us not to believe the Report our Senses make That the Substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament but to pass a contrary Judgment to what they inform us herein But the Fathers teach the contrary That we may securely relie upon the Evidence of our Senses as to any Body even as to the true Body of Christ THat the Church of Rome would not have us in this Matter to attend to the Evidence of Sense is needless to prove since nothing is more common than to hear them call upon us to distrust them and to believe against their Report Thus the Trent Catechism * Ad Paroch de Euchar. part 2. num 25. Nullam Elementorum substantiam remanere quamvis nihil magis à sensibus alienum remotum videri possit teaches us to believe That no Substance of the Elements remains in the Eucharist tho' nothing seems more strange and remote from our Senses than this And again †Ib. n. 46. Corpus sanguinem Domini ita sumimus ut tamen quod verè sit sensibus percipi non potest We so receive the Body and Blood of Christ that yet we cannot perceive by our Senses that it is truly so As for the Fathers they are Strangers to this Doctrine nor did they betray the Christian Cause in this manner by taking away all Certainty from the Testimony of our Senses They on the contrary proved the Truth of Christ's Body against the Valentinians the Marcionites and other Hereticks by this Argument which the Church of Rome rejects they made their Appeals frequently as S. John had done before them to what had been seen with Mens Eyes to what their Ears had heard and their Hands had handled without any suspicion of their being deceived Thus Irenaeus (a) Lib. 3. adv Haeres c. 20. Hoc autem illis occurrit qui dicunt eum putativè passum Si enim non verè passus est nulla gratia ei cùm nulla fuerit passio Et nos cùm incipiemus verè pati seducens videbitur adhortans nos vapulare alteram praebere maxillam si ipse illud non prior in veritate passus est Et quemadmodum illos seduxit ut videretur ipse hoc quod non erat nos seducit adhortans perferre ea quae ipse non pertulit This meets with them who say That Christ suffered only seemingly For if he did not truly suffer no Thanks are due to him when there was no Passion And when he shall begin truly to suffer he will seem a Seducer when he exhorts us to suffer Stripes and to turn the other Cheek if he first did not suffer this in truth And as he seduced them in seeming to be that which he was not so he seduces us whilst he exhorts us to suffer the things which he did not suffer Again (b) Id. lib. 5. cap. 1. citante Theodoreto Dial. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were not done seemingly only but in reality of truth for if he appeared to be a Man when he was not so he neither did remain the Spirit of God which he truly was since a Spirit is invisible nor was there any Truth in him for he was not that which he appeared to be He thought it you see absurdity enough to say That Christ appeared what he was not But what absurdity can this be to them that say it is constantly so in the Sacrament where that appears so and so which is not so as the Bread and Wine according to them do's Again (c) Id. lib. 5. cap. 7. Quomodo igitur Christus in carnis substantia resurrexit ostendit discipulis figuram clavorum apertionem lateris haec autem sunt indicia carnis ejus quae surrexit à mortuis sic nos inquit suscitabit per virtutem suam As Christ therefore rose again in the Substance of our Flesh and shewed to his Disciples the Print of the Nails and the Opening of his Side and these are Indications of his Flesh which arose from the Dead so also he says he will raise us up by his Power Tertullian also argues thus against Marcion (d) De carne Christi c. 5. Maluit crede nasci quam aliqua ex parte mentiri quidem in semetipsum ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram sine musculis solidam sine sanguine cruentam sine tunica vestitam sine fame esurientem sine dentibus
Orig. Lib. 6. cap. 19. Eo sc Christo jubente corpus Christi sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae sanctificatur fit Sacramentum operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. gives the same account By the command of Christ we call the Body and Blood of Christ that which being made of the fruits of the earth is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible operation of the spirit of God. 2. Observ The Fathers oft-times in their very manner of speaking concerning the Body and Blood of Christ point at another thing than his Natural Body so that we need no Commentary upon their words to explain them for they carry at first hearing our sense and meaning in them and not that of the Romanists To give a few instances S. Cyprian (g) Epist 63. ad Caecilium Cùm dicat Christus ego sum vitis vera sanguis Christi non aqua est utique sed vinum Quomodo nec Corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit copulatum panis unius compagine folldatum discoursing against those that Consecated and drank only Water in the Sacrament says When Christ says I am the true Vine the Blood of Christ it's plain is not Water but Wine So neither can the Lords Body be flour alone or water alone unless both of them be united and coupled and kneaded tegether into one Loaf Where no Body can doubt of S. Cyprian's meaning that by Christs Body he understands not his natural Body but the Sacrament of it And so the Council of Carthage (h) Pandect Canon p. 565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decreed against the Armenians who made use of Wine only in the Eucharist That nothing shall be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ as the Lord himself delivered it the phrase carries its sense in the face of it if they had said no more but they add that is Bread and Wine mixed with Water What can be more plain than that of Theodoret (i) Dialog 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. when he says That our Saviour changed the names and on his Body he put the name of the sign or symbol and on the sign the name of his Body A little before he shows how You know says he that God called his Body Bread and elsewhere he called his flesh Wheat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except a Corn of Wheat fall to the Earth and die Matth. 12. But in the delivery of the mysteries he called Bread his Body and that which is mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blood. Is it not clear that neither in one case nor the other these sayings are to be understood properly but figuratively Especially when Theodoret before all I now have cited makes this comparison As after Consecration Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call the mystical fruit of the Vine the Lords blood so he Jacob called the Blood of the true Vine the Blood of the Grape Both the one and the other must be figuratively understood When S. Cyprian in the forecited Epistle (k) Epist 63. Hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi says that some might make it an Objection that by partaking of the Communion early in the Morning they might be discovered to the Heathen Persecutors by the smell of the Wine he expresses it thus One fears this lest by tasting Wine he should smell of Christs Blood. S. Jerome has such another saying which cannot well be mistaken to express any other sense but ours when speaking of Virgins (l) Epist ad Eustochium Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt absit ut ego me abstineam à sanguine Christi that were reproved for drinking Wine to excess he says they made this excuse joining sucrilege to their drunkenness and said God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of Christ Either they said nothing to the purpose or they took that which they called the Blood of Christ for Wine properly Thus also S. Chrysostome (m) Epist 1. ad Innocent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of the rudeness of the Souldiers in the Church says that in the tumult the most holy Blood of Christ was shed upon the Souldiers Cleths Which could be nothing but Sacramental Wine Leo the Great speaking of the Manichees that for fear of the Laws came to the Communion of the Catholicks and directing how to discover them he says (n) Serm. 4. de Quadrages Ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant Ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant They so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacraments that they may sometime be more safely concealed with an unworthy mouth they take the Body of Christ but altogether decline drinking the Blood of our redemption In the sense both of Leo and the Manichees the Body and Blood here must be taken figuratively for such bad men as they in the sense of the Antients could not eat or any way receive Christ's Body in a proper sense but being understood of the Type of it viz. of the Sacramental Bread that they would receive but not the Type of his Blood viz. the Wine because as S. Austin (o) De Heres 46. Vinum non bibunt dicentes fel esse principum tenebrarum observes they drink no Wine saying it is the Gall of the Prince of darkness They had no more prejudice against the Blood than the Body of Christ only they took it to be Wine which they abhorred 3. Observ The Fathers speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist with such terms of restriction and diminution which plainly tell us that they understood it not of his substantial and natural Body but in a figurative sense Thus Origen (p) Contr. Celsum l 8. p. 399. Edit Cantabr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says That Bread in the Eucharist is made by Prayer a certain holy Body And S. Austin (q) In Psal 33. conc 2. Accepit in manus quod norunt fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cùm diceret hoc est Corpus meum Christ took in his hands what the faithful understand and after a sort carried himself when he said This is my Body Bede (r) In Psal 33. Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis upon the same Psalm has the same term of restriction Christ after a sort was carried in his own hands S. Austin elsewhere (ſ) Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christs sanguis Christi est In a certain sense the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is Christ's Body and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is Christ's Blood. Just as at Easter we say this day Christ rose because it is a memorial of it
indifferently every day the Sacrament of so great a thing to the Condemnation of his presumption The other place is upon the sixth Chapter of S. John (l) Tract 27. in Joan. in initio Exposuit Christus modum attributionis hujus doni sui quomodo daret carnem suam manducare dicens Qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo Signum quia manducat bibit hoc est si manet manetur si habitat inhabitatur si haeret ut non deseratur Christ says he expounded the manner of his assignment and gift how he gave his Flesh to eat saying He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this if he abides in Christ and Christ in him if he dwells in him and is inhabited by him if he cleaves to him so as not to be forsaken by him And he concludes with this Exhortation (m) Ibid. propè finem Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat dilectissimi ut carnem Christi sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento quod multi mali sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus bibamus ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus ut ejus spiritu vegetemur c. Let all that has been said Beloved prevail thus far with us that we may not eat Christs Flesh and Blood in Sacrament or sign only but may eat and drink as far as to the participation of the Spirit that we may remain as Members in our Lords Body that we may be enlivened by his spirit c. CHAP. XIV The Fourteenth Difference Several Vsages and Practices of the Fathers relating to the Eucharist declare That they did not believe Transubstantiation or the Presence of Christ's Natural Body there whose contrary practices or forbearance of them in the Roman Church are the Consequences of that belief As also some things the present Roman Church practises because they believe Transubstantiation and the Corporal Presence and dare not neglect to practise so believing which yet the Ancient Church did forbear the practice of not knowing any obligation thereto which plainly argues their different Sentiments about the Eucharist in those Points IT is possible this Argument may have as good an effect to open Mens Eyes as any I have urged before tho' I think I have urged very cogent ones For tho' some Men have a Faculty eternally to wrangle about the Words and Sayings of others and to shift off an Argument of that kind yet they cannot so easily get rid of an Objection from Matter of Fact and a plain Practice I shall therefore try by several Instances of Usages and Forbearances in the cases above-named whether we may not see as clearly as if we had a Window into their Breasts that the Ancient Church and the present Church of Rome were of different Minds and Opinions in this Matter 1. Instance It was a part of the Discipline of the Ancient Church to exclude the uninitiated Catechumens the Energumeni acted by evil Spirits and Penitents from being present at the Mysteries and to enjoin all that were present to communicate It is so known a Case that the Deacons in the Churches cried aloud to bid such depart as I before named when they went to the Prayers of the Mass which was so called from this dismission of Catechumens Penitents c. that I shall not stay to prove it See the Constitutions attributed to Clemens l. 8. cap. 6 7 9 12. and S. Chrysostom Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes By the same Laws of the Church those that remained after the exclusion of the rest were all to communicate whom the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite (n) Hurarch Eccles c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls Persons worthy to behold the Divine Mysteries and to communicate For this because it is not so universally acknowledged as the former I shall refer the Reader to the Second Canon of the Council of Antioch (o) Can. 2. Concil Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which says That they which enter into the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures and do not communicate in Prayers with the People or turn away from receiving the Eucharist through any disorderliness are to be cast out of the Church till they confess their Sin and repent c. Which is the same in sense with that Canon (p) Canon Apostol 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very ancient tho' not Apostolical as it pretends That all the Faithful that enter and hear the Scriptures and do not continue at Prayer and also at the Holy Communion are to be separated as those that bring disorder into the Church S. Chrysostom discharges a great deal of his Zeal as well as Eloquence against those Persons that were present at the Eucharist and did not communicate (q) Chrysost Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vain he tells them do's the Priest stand at the Altar when none participates in vain is the daily Sacrifice He minds them that the Cryer had said indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That those that were in penitence or penance should depart but thou says he art not of that number but of those that may participate i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not being hindred by any Church-Censures as Penitents were and regardest it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says That the King at the Marriage-Supper did not ask Why didst thou sit down but why didst thou enter And adds That whosoever being present does not receive the Mysteries stands there too boldly and impudently The rest is well worthy the reading in that Homily Gregory the Great also tells us (r) Dialog l. 2. cap. 23. Si quis non communicat det locum it was the custom in his Time for a Deacon to cry aloud If any do not Communicate let him depart There must be no Spectators that is unless they were Communicants For as Justin Martyr (s) Apolog. 2. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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) 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) 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) 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 But it is needless to add more Testimonies because the thing is confessed by Baronius (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) 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 Language 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) 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) Apud Concil Labbe Tom. 8. pag. 1231. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 yet 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) Apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 44. relates concerning old Serapion who when he lay a-dying sent a young Grand-child of his to call one of the Presbyters of Alexandria to give him the Sacrament Who by reason of Ilness not being able to go along with him he made no more ado but took a little portion of the Eucharist and gave it into the Youth's Hand and directed him to moisten it and so to infuse it into his Mouth which he did and immediately upon the swallowing it the old Man expired I Question whether the Gentlemen of the Roman Church will allow this to be a true Communion but I believe with their perswasions they would not follow it for a World. We may more than guess so by a remarkable Story Nic. Trigautius tells us of what was resolved upon by the skilful Jesuits in a Case exactly like the former (g) Nic. 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 respects paid to it by Beasts what he expected much more from Men. 2. Difference relates to what was received in the Eucharist wherein we also see a plain disagreement in the usages of the Primitive and the present Roman Church Which is this The Ancient Church allowed great Liberty privately to reserve what had been publickly received in the Eucharist Which would be now a great Crime in the Roman Church so far from being allowed It is undeniable that anciently this was allowed whether they did well or ill in it is not at all the question but concerning the Matter of Fact. S. Basil (h) Epist 289. thinks that the Custom took its rise from Times of Persecution when Christians were forced to flee into Desarts and live in solitude having not the presence of a Priest to communicate-them they had the Sacrament reserved by them and communicated themselves But he says even when this Reason ceased this became afterwards an inveterate Custom And in Alexandria and Egypt the Laicks commonly had the Sacrament by them in their own Houses (i) Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and he says expresly this which they so reserved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all liberty as his Phrase is was a Particle received from the Priest's Hand in the Church So Nazianzen (k) Orat. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. says of his Sister Gorgonia Whatsoever of the Antitypes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ her Hand had treasured up c. Which very phrase intimates that at several times she had reserved and made a collection of the Consecrated Elements Tertullian supposes it a common practice in his time when he says (l) Lib. 2. ad Vxor Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes c. Thy Husband will not know what it is thou tastest secretly before all other Meat c. It is
true indeed that in the Councils of Saragosa and Toledo in Spain this was prohibited in the 4th Century upon occasion of the Priscillianists who did receive the communion as others did and reserved it and so could not be discovered tho' they never took it against whom Learned Men think those Councils made those Canons which anathematized those that received but did not take it down but reserved it However the foresaid Custom still prevailed in other Places as might be shown if it were needful as far as the 11th Century As for the present Church this is wholly a Stranger to them they will have 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) 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) 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) Catech. Mystag 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 when as he reports of her to her commendation (p) Orat. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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) Lib. 3. secundi op adv Jul. Neque 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) Lib. 5. Hist Eccles c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 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) 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) 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 atque 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 him 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) Vita Basil c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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) Dialog l. 2. c. 24. Quibus vir Dei manu sua protenus communionem Dominici corporis dedit dicers Ite atque 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
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) 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 In 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) 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) 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 be 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 aforesaid 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) See Mr. Chillingworth 's Additional Treatises in 4 to and is acknowledged by our Adversaries Maldonate (k) Comm. in Joan. 6.53 the Jesuit owns that it continued in the Church for six hundred Years And Card. Perron (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 that 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) 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) Ibid. Perstitit Diaconus reluctanti licet de Sacramento Calicis insudit Tunc sequitur singultus vomitus in Corpore atque 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 It 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. CHAP. XV. The Fifteenth Difference The Old Prayers in the Canon of the Mass concerning the Sacrament agree not with the present Faith of the Roman Church And their New Prayers to the Sacrament have no countenance from the Ancient Church IT is to no purpose to enquire who was the Author of the Canon of the Mass when Wallafridus Strabo (o) De reb Ecclesiast cap. 22. Quis primus ordinaverit nobis ignotum est Auctum tamen fuisse non semel sed saepius ex partibus additis intelligimus who lived in the middle of the 9th Century tells us It was a thing to him unknown Seeing also he adds That it had been enlarged not only once but often it is as vain to ask after its Age. The same also the Abbot Berno (p) Berno Ab. Augiens de rebus ad Missam spectant c. 1. Attamen ipsum Canonem non unus solus composuit totum sed per tempora aliud alius interposuit vel adjecit says It was not one Man that composed the Canon all of it but at several times another interposed and added another thing And as they added so also I doubt not but they altered many things as we may guess by that remarkable Difference betwixt what the Author of the Book of Sacraments under the name of S. Ambrose (q) Lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Fac nobis hanc Oblationem adscriptam rationabilem acceptabilem Quod est Figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaefumus benedictam adscriptam c. facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi tui Filii D. N. J. Christi cites as the Prayer in his Time and what we now find in it speaking of the Oblation it was then Make this Oblation to us allowable rational acceptable Which is the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ our Lord Which now is turned into this Prayer That the Oblation may be made to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son our Lord. But yet to take the Canon as now it is we shall find the Prayers of it not capable of being reconciled with the present Faith of the Roman Church and with Transubstantiation To give some Instances Thus they pray in the Canon immediately after the words of Consecration
among so many false Brethren that were Turn-coats yet there were none that made this an Accusation against them that they are the Flesh of their God and Lord and drank his Blood. We have this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself (*) De Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Verè stulti haberi possemus si absque Verbo Dei crederemus veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari That we might be accounted truly Fools if without the Word of God we believed the true Flesh of Christ to be eaten with the Mouth of our Bodies But whether with or without the Word of God they believed such a corporal eating of Christ's Flesh had been all one to the Heathens if they knew that this was their Belief and it would rather have strengthned their Reproach if they knew that they were bound thus to believe But then what he adds is very remarkable Nam id semper infideles stultissimum paradoxum aestimârunt ut notum est de Averroe aliis That Insidels always counted this a most foolish Paradox as appears from Averroes and others I believe indeed that they must always count this a foolish Paradox which Averroes charged Christians withal in that known Saying of his (b) Se Sectam Christianâ deteriorem aut ineptiorem nullam reperire quam qui sequuntur ii quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant That he found no Sect worse or more foolish than the Christians who tear with their Teeth and devour that God whom they worship But why was not this cast always in the Teeth of Christians if this was always their professed Doctrine Was Celsus or Julian or Lucian less sagacious or less malicious than Averroes that not a word of this foolish Paradox was ever so much as hinted by them to the reproach of Christians then But the Cardinal has instanced the most unluckily in the World in naming only Averroes for this Calumny when all acknowledg that this Philosopher P. Innocent 3. who establish'd Transubstantiation lived in the same Age and some very learned Men prove from the Arabian Accounts that those two were Contemporaries And as for his aliis others I should be glad to see any named that urged what Averroes did to the Christians reproach before the days of Berengarius After that indeed we can meet with a Follower of Mahomet who as a Learned Man (c) Hottinger in Eucharistia dejexja Sect. 14. p. 220. Ahmed bin Edris ita scribit verba autem Isa fic Arabes Christum vocant super quo pax Qui edit carnem meam bibit sanguinem c. Christiani literaliter intelligunt Atque sic Christiani atrociores sunt in Christum quà m Judaei Illi enim Christum occisum reliquerunt hi carnem ejus edunt sangumem bibunt quod ipso teste experientia truculentius est gives us his words says thus Those words of Christ He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood he is in me and I in him c. Christians understand them literally and so Christians are more cruel against Christ than Jews for they left Christ when they had slain him but these eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which as experience testifies is more savage After the Roman Church's declaring for Transubstantiation though not before we meet with the Oppositions of Jews testifying their abhorrency (d) Ibid. Joseph Albo de Ikkarim lib. 3. cap. 25. Nam panis est corpus Dei ipsorum Aiunt enim corpus Jesu quod est in Coelis venire in Altare vestiri pane vino post pronunciata verba Hoc enim est Corpus meum à sacrificulo qualiscunque ille demum fuerit sive pius sive impius omnia fieri Corpus unum cum corpore Messiae c. Repugnant hic omnia Intelligibilibus primis ipsis etiam sensibus of a Doctrine which talks of a Sacrifice and makes Bread to be the Body of their God which he means in the sence of Transubstantiation by being turned into it and cloathed with its Accidents whose Body that is in Heaven comes upon the Altar and upon the pronouncing these words For this is my Body by the Priest whether good or wicked is all one all things are made one Body with the Body of the Messias c. Which things are all repugnant to the first Principles of Reason and to our very Senses themselves As he afterwards shows in several Instances And now we are told that it is a common Bye-word to reproach a Christian by among the Turks to call him Mange Dieu All these took their rise plainly from Transubstantiation and not from the Faith of the Ancient Church For if one of it (e) Theodoret. Interrog 55. in Genes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may speak for the rest the Old Christians agreed in the Abhorrence and called it the extreamest stupidity to worship that which is eaten And again Id. qu. 11. in Levit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can any one of a sound Mind call that a God which being offered to the True God is after wards eaten by him But now after all the saddest Consideration is that the Prejudices are so great against this and another Twin-Doctrine of the Roman Church about the worship of Images that a perpetual Stumbling-block seems to be laid before the Jews and it may be look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will always hinder and obstruct their Conversion whilst it is believed by them to be the common Sence and Faith of Christians and they have too great a Temptation to believe so when they have seen this Church which has got the most worldly Power into its hands persecuting not only Jews but Hereticks as they call all other Christians that deny this Doctrine to the Death for gainsaying it and when that Work will cease God only knows The Jews can never be supposed to get over this hard Chapter whilst they who call themselves the only Catholick Christians hold such things about the Body of Christ and remember that it is about a Body which as the forenamed Jos Albo (f) Ibid. Ista talia sunt quae mens non potest concipere neque os eloqui neque auris audire speaks No Man's Mind can conceive nor Tongue utter nor any Ear can hear He means by reason of their absurdity So that the Case of the Jews and their Conversion seems to be hopeless and desperate according to all humane guesses till there be a change wrought not in the substance of the Bread and Wine this Church dreams of but in the Romanist's Belief And though this also may seem upon many accounts to be as hopeless as the former yet for a Conclusion I will try whether as once the Great Apostle thought it a wise method Rom. 11.14 by the Example of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke the Jews to Emulation so it may not be
CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Fooring in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 40. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matters of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Cathelick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 40. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 80. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 240. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Chursh of England Quarto Mr. Chillingwarth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before Printed viz. against the Insallibility of the Roman Church Trassubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Consutation of the said Motives The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be That Church and the Pillar of That Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy Chap. 3. Vers 15. 4º The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Asserted 4o. A Short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rone being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture Proofs 4o. Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead An Answer to a Late Pamphlet Intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws 4o. The Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin examined and confuted 4o. With a Table to the Whole Preparation for Death Being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died By W. W. 12o. The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled At Agreement between the Church of England and Church of Rome A PRIVATE FRAYER to be used in Difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29 1687 between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tennison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4o. The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer Side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest Way to Heaven 4o. Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Prooss of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom The Pamphlet entituled Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass considered in its False Reasonings and Quotations There are added by way of Preface two further Answers the First to the Desender of the Speculum the Second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences