Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

and extortion. Consider that thou not only takest it in thy hands, but puttest it to thy mouth; therefore keep thy tongue pure from all filthy and contumelious words, from blasphemy, perjury, and all such kinds of evil discourse." So again, reproving those, who, in time of sickness, went to the Jews to get charms and amulets to cure their distemper, he asks them, "What apology they would make to Christ for thus flying to his enemies in their distress? How they could call upon Him in their prayers? With what conscience they could come into the Church? With what eyes they could look upon the priest? With what hands they could touch the holy table?" And in another place, repressing the people's fury against Eutropius, (who, having procured a law to be made against men's taking sanctuary at the altar, was himself not long after, by falling under the emperor's displeasure, forced to fly thither for refuge; and then some of the people clamoured against him with revengeful thoughts, and cried out, it was but just that he should suffer the effects of his own law ;) to suppress the people's anger in this case, and incline them to thoughts of mercy and pardon, he asks them, "How otherwise they could take the sacrament into their hands, when sermon was done, and say that prayer, which commands them to beg of God, that he would forgive them their trespasses, as they forgave them that trespassed against them, if they persisted to call for justice upon their enemy?" These are handsome turns of eloquence, grounded upon this innocent and pious custom of the people's taking the sacrament into their own hands, and they had often their due weight and force even upon greatest minds, as may appear from the effect of that speech, which St. Ambrose made to the Emperor Theodosius, when he had caused seven thousand men to be slaughtered without any formal trial at Thessalonica: St. Ambrose met him as he was entering the church, and thus accosted him; "With what eyes wilt thou behold the house of our common Lord? With what feet wilt thou tread his holy pave

the

Chrys, Hom. vi. cont. Jud. tom. i. p. 539. in Eutrop. tom, iv. p. 554

* Chrys. Hom,

ment? Wilt thou stretch out those hands, yet dropping with the blood of that unjust slaughter, and with them lay hold of the most holy body of the Lord? Wilt thou put the cup of that blood to thy mouth, who hast shed so much blood by the hasty decree of an angry and impetuous mind?" This just reproof of the pious bishop, so handsomely addressed to the emperor, made such a deep impression on his mind, that it melted him into tears, and made him refrain from church as a penitent, till by way of satisfaction, among other things, by St. Ambrose's direction, he made this good law, that no sentence of death or proscription for the future should be executed till thirty days after its promulgation, that reason, and not passion, might judge of the equity and reasonableness of it. Such brave speeches and such worthy effects did that ancient pious custom minister the occasion to of old, which is now laid aside in the Roman Church, and changed into another custom, that has neither precedent nor use; serving only to feed superstition, and keep men under the monstrous and inveterate prejudices of transubstantiation, which this innocent rite served in some measure to keep out of the minds of men in the primitive Church.

SECT. 7.-Whether the same Custom was observed in delivering it to Women and Children.

doing.

It is further observable, that in this case no distinction was made between men, women, and children, but all received into their own hands, who were capable of so Only in the latter end of the sixth century, we find a rule made about women, that they should not receive it in their bare hand, but in a fair linen cloth. Some think this as ancient as St. Austin's time, because in one of the sermons De Tempore,' that go under his name, there is mention made of it. For there it is said, it was customary for men to wash their hands when they communicated, and for women to

1 Ap. Theodor. Hist. lib. v. cap. 18.

Aug. Ser. 252. de Temp. Omnes viri, quando communicare desiderant, lavant manus: et omnes mulieres exhibent linteamina, ubi corpus Christi accipiant.

bring their little linen cloths to receive the body of Christ. But, as many of these sermons are spurious, so this in parti cular is sometimes ascribed to other authors, and therefore no weight can be laid upon it. However the Council of Auxerre in France,' Anno 590, made a rule, that no woman should receive the eucharist in her bare hand. But after what manner she should receive it in her hand, is not said. A great many learned persons think, that another canon in that Council orders them to receive it in a linen cloth, because there is mention made of women's wearing a Dominicale when they communicate: which they interpret a linen cloth upon their hand. So not only Baronius, and Binnius, and Sylvius, but also Bona, and Habertus, and even Mabillon, and Vossius understand it. But Baluzius, who is often more sagacious than the rest in telling the meaning of hard words, says, it means only the women's veil, which they were obliged to wear upon their heads by ancient canons, conformable to the rule of the Apostle. And for this he quotes an ancient collection of Canons, where in the Council of Mascon the Dominicale is expressly styled the veil, which the women wore upon their heads at the communion. So that whatever covering the women used for their hands, when they received the communion, it is plain it was a different thing from the Dominicale. The Council of Trullo speaks of some in the Greek Church, who would not receive the sacrament in their hands, but in some little instrument of gold or other precious material, out of a pretended reverence to it, but they condemn, and forbid it as a superstitious practice; ordering all persons to receive the communion in their own hands, set in the form of a cross, as is appointed

1 Con. Antissiodor. can. xxxvi. Non licet mulieri nudâ manu eucharistiam accipere. Ibid. can. xlii. Unaquæque mulier, quando communicat, dominicalem suum habeat. Quod si non habuerit, usque in alium diem dominicum non cominunicet. Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. cap. xvii. n. 3. par. x. observ. viii. p. 264.

Habert. Archieratic. Mabil. de Liturg. Gallic. lib. i. cap. v. n. 25. Voss. Thess. Theol. de Symbolis Cœnæ Dom. p. 477. Si mulier 'Baluz. Not. in Gratian. caus. xxxiii. Quæst. iii. cap. 19. communicans dominicale suum super caput suum non habuerit, usque ad alium diem dominicum non communicet.

• Con. Trull, can. 101.

Chrysostom, and some other ancient writers. But then they sufficiently explain their own meaning, giving us to understand, that they neither speak of oral manducation, nor of adoring Christ as corporeally present in the eucharist, but as spiritually present or else as corporeally absent in heaven. St. Chrysostom says," they fell down before Christ their King as captives in baptism, and that they cast themselves down upon their knees before Him. And yet no one would conclude therefore that they worshipped him as corporeally present in baptism, although baptism made them partakers of his body and blood also." He says further," that the king himself bowed his body because of God speaking in the holy Gospels." But it would be ridiculous hence to infer, either that they worshipped the Gospels, or Christ as corporeally present in them. Mr. Aubertin has demonstrated out of St. Austin's works these several propositions, which are all point blank contrary to the adoration of Christ, as corporeally present in the eueharist. 1. That bread and wine are not properly and substantially the body and blood of Christ, but only sacramentally and figuratively. 2. That Christ is not substantially and corporeally present in the eucharist, but corporeally present only in heaven. 3. That true bread remains and is eaten in the eucharist. 4. That the manducation of Christ in the eucharist is not oral, but spiritual. 5. That the wicked do not eat or drink the proper body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. 6. That the same body cannot be in different places at one and the same time; and that this is particuJarly asserted of the body of Christ. 7. That a body must necessarily occupy some place and space, and be extended by parts, with longitude, latitude, and profundity. 8. That accidents cannot subsist without a subject. All which directly overthrow the corporeal presence of Christ in the eucharist, and consequently shew, that the adoration, which was given to Christ in the eucharist, was not to his corporeal presence, but his spiritual presence, or to his body as absent

in heaven.

Chrys. in illud, Simile est regnum cælorum, &c.

2 In illud, Attendite ne eleemosynam faciatis. ap. Albertin. de Euchar. Albertin. de Euchar. p. 602. &c.

p. 432.

But Durantus undertakes to prove,' that the body of Christ was not only worshipped as corporeally present in the eucharist, in the use and time of celebration, but at other times by non-communicants also. For this he alleges Chrysostom, who says, that the energumens at that time were brought by the deacon and made to bow their heads. Which Durantus interprets of bowing to the eucharist. But Chrysostom unluckily spoils his argument. "For at that time," he says, "the eucharist was not consecrated, but only about to be consecrated; and these energumens were not allowed to stay to hear the prayers of consecration with the faithful, but were dismissed with the catechumens and other non-communicants before the communion-service began." So that if they worshipped the Host, it must be an unconsecrated Host, which, according to Durantus himself, would be plain idolatry. So unfortunate are these gentlemen in the best arguments they can produce for hostworship among the Ancients, that their own very proofs manifestly overthrow it.

On the other hand there are most certain demonstrations, that there could be no such thing as host-worship in the ancient Church, not only taken from their not believing transubstantiation and the corporeal presence, but from many other topics solidly deduced and substantially proved by two learned writers, Mr. Daillé3 and Dr. Whitby* in two excellent discourses upon this very subject, to which I will commend the reader, contenting myself to mention the heads of the principal arguments, which they have more fully drawn out and proved. Mr. Daillé ranks his arguments under two heads, some general ones against the worship of the eucharist, saints, relics, images, and crosses ; and others more particularly levelled against the worship of the eucharist. Among those of the first kind he urges this as very remarkable, that in all the ancient relations of miracles there is never any mention made of miracles being wrought

Durant. de Ritibus. lib. ii. cap. xl. n. 5

Chrys. Hom,

iii. and iv. de Incomprehensibili. p. 365. and 374. tom. i.
* Dalle. de Objecto Cultus Religiosi. cont. Latinos. lib. i. and ii.
Whitby, Idolatry of Host-worship. Lond, 1679. S^.

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »