from the laity, and denied one part of the sacrament wholly to the people. Let us now return again to the ancient Church. SECT. 3.-That the Ancients received sometimes standing, sometimes kneeling, but never sitting. The next question may be concerning the posture in which they received. The resolution of which must be in these three conclusions. 1. That they sometimes received standing. 2. Sometimes kneeling. 3. Never sitting, that we read of. That they frequently received the communion standing, may be evidenced two ways: by a direct, and by a collateral argument. The direct argument is their positive assertions concerning the standing posture. Thus Dionysius of Alexandria, speaking of one, who had often communicated among the faithful, represents him as,' rparty Tapasávτa, standing at the Lord's table." Upon which Valesius makes this remark, that anciently they received the eucharist standing, not kneeling as now the custom is. And Habertus undertakes to prove against the Italian divines, as he calls them, that the whole divine liturgy was celebrated standing, and that they both consecrated standing, and received standing. And Bona acknowledges the same for the Greek Church, though he is a little more doubtful of the Latin. For the Greek Church he produces the authority of Chrysostom, Orat. in Encænia, and Cyril of Jerusalem, who bids his communicant receive it bowing his body in the posture of worship and adoration. Some interpret this kneeling; but it signifies standing with inclination or bowing of the body in the manner of adoration. And so St. Chrysostom' represents both priest and people as stand 'Dionys. Epist. ap. Euseb. lib. vii. cap. 9. Stantes, non ut hodiè genibus flexis, accipiebant. Archieratic. par. viii. observ. x. p. 150. lib. ii. chap. xvii. n. 8. Vales. in Loc. 8 Habert. * Bona, Rer. Liturg. 5 Cyril. Catech. Myst. v. n. 19. Κύπτων και τρόπῳ προσυνήσεως και σεβάσματος, λέγων, ἀμήν. Hamon Lestrange, Alliance of Div. Offic. chap. vii. p. 209. Chrys. Hom. xx. in 2 Cor. p. 886. Τέτο φρικωδέσερον θυσιαςήριον ἐκείνο ᾧ σὺ παρέςηκας ὁ λαϊκὸς. It. Καθάπερ ἔτηκε ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸ Πνεῦμα καλῶν. &c. ing at the altar. "This altar," says he, speaking of the altar of a man's own soul, sending up devoutly prayers and alms to God," is a more tremendous altar than that whereat thou, who art a layman, standest." And again, “As the priest stands invoking the spirit, so thou invokest him also, not by thy words, but by thy works." In like manner St. Austin representing the Christians' way of worshipping God at the altar, to answer the calumny of the heathen, who accused them of giving divine worship to their martyrs, says,1 "Which of the faithful ever he ardthe priest, when he stands at the altar, say in his prayers, I offer sacrifice unto thee, O Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian,' when he offers to God at their monuments or memorials?" Which I produce here only to shew, that their prayers were then offered in a standing posture at the altar. Upon which account it was usual for the deacon at such times, especially on such days as this posture was used, to call upon the people in some such form of admonition as that mentioned frequently by St. Chrysostom and the Author of the Constitutions, " 'OpFoì swμεv kaλç, Let us stand rightly and devoutly to offer our sacrifices and oblations." Some think Tertullian also refers to this posture, when he says, “ Nonne solennior erit statio tua, si et ad aram Dei steteris? Will not your station be the more solemn, if you also stand at the altar of God?" But to speak freely I think Tertullian in that place uses the word standing, not to distinguish any particular posture of prayer, but only to denote a longer continuance in it on the stationary days, or half fasts, when they continued their religious assemblies till three in the afternoon: for on these days, as we shall hear presently, they prayed alway kneeling, though on other days they did not; and 1 Aug. de Civ. Dei lib. viii. cap. 27. Quis audivit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare-dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane, cum apud eorum memorias offeratur Deo, &c. It cont. Faustum. lib. xx. cap. 21. Quis antistitum assistens altari, aliquando dixit, Offerimus tibi Petre, aut Paule, aut Cypriane? Sed quod offertur, offertur Deo, &c. 2 Chrys. Hom. ii. in 2. Cor. s Constit. p. 740. Hom. 29. de Incomprehensibili. tom. i. p. 375. therefore Tertullian could not mean that they prayed standing on those days, but only that they extended their devotions to a greater length on those stationary days beyond others. But without this controverted passage of Tertullian, there is sufficient evidence from the foregoing testimonies, of their standing to receive the eucharist at the Lord's table. And this is further confirmed by a collateral argument, which is, that on the Lord's day, and all the days of Pentecost, they were obliged to pray standing, and in no other posture, as has been shewn at large above therefore it is very reasonable to believe, that at all such times they received the eucharist in the same posture they were obliged to pray in, that is, standing at the altar. But then the usual custom was, on all other days, and particularly on the stationary days, for the whole Church to pray kneeling, as has likewise been fully evinced before: and therefore it is no less reasonable to believe, that they received the communion in the same posture as they prayed, though there are not such positive evidences of their practice. What some allege out of Tertullian, that the people did," Aris Dei adgeniculari, kneel down to the altars of God," is no good proof; for that is only a corrupt reading of the first editions, which others since read more correctly, "Caris Dei adgeniculari, falling at the knees of the favourites of God," alluding to the custom of penitents falling at the feet of the ministers and people, to beg their prayers for them when they went into the church. Nor is the argument much more solid that others bring out of Cyril's Catechism, where he bids his communicant receive the eucharist "KÚTTшv:" for that, as I have observed just now, signifies not kneeling, but standing in a bowing posture. What St. Chrysostom says in one of his exhortations to communicants, seems more nearly to express it: "Let us come with trembling, let us give thanks, let us fall down and confess our sins, let us weep and lament for our mis Book xiii. chap. viii. sect. 3. 3 Tertul. de Poenitent. cap. ix. 2 Book xiii. cap. viii. sect. 4 Chrys. Hom. Ser. 31. in Natal. Christi, fomn. v. 450. Προσπέσωμεν ἐξομολογάμενοι, &c. carriages, let us pour out fervent prayers to God, and let us come with a becoming reverence as to our heavenly King." But if there were none of these expressions, the very custom of kneeling at prayers on these days, is a sufficient indication of the posture in which at the same time they received the communion. As to sitting, there is no example of it, nor any intimation leading toward it in any ancient writer. I have shewn before, that in many Churches they allowed no sitting at all in time of divine service, neither in preaching, nor reading the Scriptures, nor in psalmody, nor in praying, nor after praying neither. And it would be unreasonable to imagine that what was rejected at all other times, should be allowed in receiving the communion. Cardinal Perron indeed labours hard to prove, that the Apostles received sitting, and that sitting was also a posture of adoration. But his vanity is abundantly chastised and exposed by the learned Daille, as I have noted before upon another occasion.' So that this posture is wholly without example in the ancient Church. Nor are there many examples of it among the Moderns, and of those that be, some of them are such, as considering their motives, one would least of all choose to imitate. The Arians in Poland are said to receive the communion sitting, to shew that they do not believe Christ to be their God, but only their fellow creature. For which reason some of the Protestant Polish synods expressly forbid this posture, as peculiar to the Arians, and obliged all their people to receive either standing or kneeling, not sitting, as being a posture taken up by the Arians, and contrary to the practice of all Protestant Churches. We are likewise told, that it is the singular privilege of the Pope to communicate sitting whenever he performs the 'Book xiii. chap. viii. sect. 7. Synod. Wlodislav. An. 1588. Artic. 6. in Corpore Confession. par. ii. p. 309. Sententia jam olim in Sendomiriensi synodo agitati, et conclusio in generali Cracoviensi atque Petricoviensi synodo facta ac repetita, in hoc etiam confessu approbata est; nempe ne in usu sit sessio ad mensam dominicam in ullis hujus nostri consensus ecclesiis. Nam hæc ceremonia, licèt cum cæteris libera, ecclesiis Christianis et cœtibus evangelicis non est usitata, tantùmque infidelibus Arianis, cum Domino pari solio sese colocantibus propria, &c. Vid Synod. Petricoviens. art. iv. ibid. p. 306. Synod. Cracoviens. Art. iv. p. 303. office of consecration. Bona not only tells us this,' but describes the whole ceremony out of the book called, Ceremoniale Romani Pontificis, and the old Ordo Romanus, which they that are curious in such matters, may consult in their proper places. I go on with the practice of the ancient Church. SECT. 4.-No Elevation of the Host for divine Adoration in the ancient Church for many Ages, till the Rise of Transubstantiation. There is no one thing, that has made greater stir and confusion in the Christian world, for some ages passed, than the adoration of the Host, grounded upon a false presumption, that it is not bread and wine, but transubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ. I intend not to enter upon the history of transubstantiation, which is a doctrinal point, and comes not properly into this work, which only inquires into the practice of the Church, but shall content myself to say, that in fact the most eminent of the ancient Fathers have declared, as plain as words can make it, that the change made in the elements of bread and wine by consecration, is not such a change as destroys their nature and substance, but only alters their qualities, and elevates them to a spiritual use, as is done in many other consecrations, where the qualities of things are much altered without any real change of substance. Thus Gregory Nyssen,1 "This altar, before which we stand, is but common stone in its nature, differing nothing from other stones, wherewith our walls are built; but after it is consecrated to the service of God, and has received a benediction, it is an holy table, an immaculate altar, not to be touched by any but by the priests, and that with the greatest reverence. The bread also at first is but common bread, but when once it is sanctified by the holy mystery, it is made and called the body of Christ. So the mystical oil, and so the wine, though they be things of little value before the benediction, yet after their sanctification by the spirit, they both of them work wonders. The same power of the word makes a priest become 1 Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. cap. xvii. n. 8. Christi tom, iii. p. 369. 2 Nyssen de Bapt. |