433 confequence, that they are a facrament only as they are diftri- AR T. buted and received. It is true, the practice of referving or fend- XXVII, ing about the elements began very early; the ftate of things at first made it almost unavoidable. When there were yet but a few converted to Chriftianity, and when there were but few Priests to serve them, they neither could nor durft meet all together, especially in the times of perfecution; fo fome parts of the elements were fent to the abfents, to those in prifon, and particularly to the fick, as a fymbol of their being parts of the body, and that they were in the peace and communion of the Church. The bread was fent with the wine, and it was fent about by any perfon whatsoever; fometimes by boys; as appears in the famous ftory of Serapion in the third century. Eur. Hist. So that the condition of the Chriftians in that time, made that lib. vi. c. 44. neceflary to keep them all in the fenfe of their obligation to union and communion with the Church; and that could not well be done in any other way. But we make a great difference between this practice, when taken up out of neceffity, though not exactly conform to the firft inftitution; and the continuing it out of fuperftition, when there is no need of it. Therefore inftead of confecrating a larger portion of elements than is neceffary for the occafion, and the referving what is over and above; and the fetting that out with great pomp on the altar, to be worshipped, or the carrying it about with a vaft magnificence in a proceffion, invented to put the more honour on it; or the fending it to the fick with folemnity; we choose rather to confecrate only fo much as may be judged fit for the number of those who are to communicate. when the facrament is over, we do, in imitation of the practice And of fome of the ancients, confume what is left, that there may be no occafion given either to fuperftition, or irreverence. And for the fuck, or the prifoners, we think it is a greater mean to quicken their devotion, as well as it is a clofer adhering to the words of the inftitution, to confecrate in their prefence: for though we can bear with the practice of the Greek Church, of referving and fending about the eucharift, when there is no idolatry joined with it; yet we cannot but think that this is the continuance of a practice, which the ftate of the first ages introduced, and that was afterwards kept up, out of a too fcrupulous imitation of that time; without confidering that the difference of the state of the Chriftians, in the former and in the fucceeding ages, made that what was at firft innocently practifed (fince a real neceffity may well excufe a want of exactnefs, in fome matters that are only pofitive) became afterwards an occafion of much fuperftition, and in conclufion ended in idolatry. Thofe ill effects that it had, are more than is ne Ff ceffary ART. ceffary to justify our practice in reducing this strictly to the first XXVIII. inftitution. Germ! Conft, in Tit. 12. Ivo. Carn. As for the lifting up of the eucharift, there is not a word of it in the Gofpel; nor is it mentioned by St. Paul: neither Juftin Martyr, nor Cyril of Jerufalem speak of it; there is nothing concerning it neither in the Conftitutions, nor in the Arcopagite. In thofe firft ages all the elevation that is spoken of, is the lifting up their hearts to God. The elevation of the facrament began to be practifed in the fixth century; for it is mentioned in the Liturgy called St. Chryfoftom's, but believed to be much later than his time. German, a writer of the Greek Church of the thirteenth century, is the firft that defcants upon it; he speaks not of it as done, in order to the adoBibl. patr. ration of it, but makes it to reprefent both Chrift's being lifted Ep. de Sacr. up on the crofs, and alfo his refurrection. Ivo of Chartres, Miffe. T.ii, who lived in the end of the eleventh century, is the first of all the Latins that fpeaks of it; but then it was not commonly practifed; for the author of the Micrologus, though he writ at the fame time, yet does not mention it, who yet is very mi nute upon all particulars relating to this facrament. Nor does Ivo fpeak of it as done in order to adoration, but only as a Dur. Rat. form of fhewing it to the people. Durand, a writer of the thirteenth century, is the firft that fpeaks of the elevation as done in order to the adoration. So it appears that our Church, by cutting off thefe abuses, has reftored this facrament to its primitive fimplicity, according to the inftitution and the prac tice of the firit ages. Bibl. pat. div. offic. lib. iv. de fexta parte Can. ARTICLE ARTICLE XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Chrift in the use of the Lord's Supper. The Wicked and fuch as be void of a lively. Faith, although they do carnally and viûbly press with their Teeth (as St. Austin saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chick, pet in no wise are they Partakers of Chiff; but rather, to their Condemnation, do eat and drink the Sign or Sacrament of so great a Thing. TH HIS Article arifes naturally out of the former, and depends upon it: for, if Chrift's body is corporally prefent in the facrament, then all perfons good or bad, who receive the facrament, do alfo receive Christ on the other hand, if Christ is present only in a spiritual manner, and if the mean that receives Chrift, is faith, then fuch as believe not, do not receive him. So that to prove, that the wicked do not receive Christ's body and blood, is upon the matter the fame thing with the proving, that he is not corporally present and it is a very confiderable branch of our argument, by which we prove that the Fathers did not believe the corporal prefence, because they do very often say, that the wicked do not receive Chrift in the fa crament. Here the fame diftinction is to be made, that was mentioned upon the article of Baptifm. The facraments are to be confidered either as they are acts of church-communion, or as they are federal acts by which we enter into covenant with God. With refpect to the former, the vifible profeffion that is made, and the action that is done, are all that can fall under human cognifance: fo a facrament must be held to be good and valid, when as to outward appearance all things are done according to the inftitution: but as to the internal effect and benefit of it; that turns upon the truth of the profeffion that is made, and the fincerity of thofe acts which do accompany it for if thefe are not feriously and fincerely performed, God is difhonoured and his inftitution is profaned. Our Saviour has exprefsly faid, that whosoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood, has eternal life. From thence we conclude, that no man does truly receive Chrift, who does not at the fame time receive with him, both a right to eternal life, and like AR T. ART. wife the beginnings and carnefts of it. The facrament being a XXIX. federal act, he who difhonours God, and profanes this inftitu Comment. tion, by receiving it unworthily, becomes highly guilty before God, and draws down judgments upon himfelf: and as it is confeffed on all hands, that the inward and fpiritual effects of the facrament depend upon the state and difpofition of him that communicates, fo we, who own no other prefence but an inward and fpiritual one, cannot conceive that the wicked who believe not in Chrift do receive him. In this point feveral of the Fathers have delivered themselves very plainly. Origen fays, Chrift is the true food, whosoever eats him shall in Matth. c. live for ever; of whom no wicked perfon can eat; for if it were poffible that any who continues wicked, should eat the word that was made flesh, it had never been written, whofo eats this bread fhall live for ever. This comes after a difcourfe of the facrament, which he calls the typical and symbolical body, and fo it can only belong to it. In another place he says, The good eat the living bread which came down from heaven; but the wicked eat dead bread, which is death. Tom. ii. Zeno bishop of Verona, who is believed to have lived near Specil. Sacr. Origen's time, has thefe words: There is caufe to fear that d'Achery. be in whom the Devil dwells, does not eat the flesh of our Lord, nor drink his blood; though he seems to communicate with the faithful: fince our Lord has faid, he that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. In cap. 66. lfare. Tract. 26. in Joan. Civ. Dei, c. St. Jerom fays, They that are not holy in body and fpirit, do neither eat the flesh of Jefus, nor drink his blood; of which he faid, he that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath eternal life. St. Auguftin expreffes himself in the very words that are cited in the Article, which he introduces with these words: He that does not abide in Chrift, and in whom Chrift does not abide, certainly does not fpiritually eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, though he may visibly and carnally prefs with his teeth the facrament of the body and blood of Chrift: but he rather eats and drinks the facrament of fo great a matter to his condemnaLib. xxi. de tion. And in another place he lays, neither are they (fpeaking of vicious perfons) to be faid to eat the body of Christ, because they are not his members: to which he adds, He that fays, whofe eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him, fhews what it is not only in a facrament, but truly to eat the body of Chrift, and to drink his blood. He has upon another occafion thofe frequently cited words, fpeaking of the difference between the other Difciples and Judas, Tract. 54. in receiving this facrament: Thefe did eat the bread that was the Lord(panem Dominum); but he the bread of the Lord against 25. in Joan. the XXIX. the Lord (panem Domini contra Dominum). To all this a ART. great deal might be added, to fhew that this was the doctrine of the Greek Church, even after Damafcene's opinion concerning the affumption of the elements into an union with the body of Chrift, was received among them. But more needs not be faid concerning this, fince it will be readily granted, that, if we are in the right in the main point of denying the Corporal Prefence, this will fall with it. |