half Communion IN THE CHURCH of ROME Theoph. SIR I am much obliged to you for your kind and civil Entertainment and much more for that freedom of Discourse which your great Moderation hath allow'd me when somtimes in the defence of Truth and through a flaming Zeal that you should recover it I have neglected the Ceremonies of Friendship to hold the substance I have not sought so much to please as to convince you Phil. Truth is a Jewel which all are concern'd to purchase and hold fast but where this Tresure is to be found is the great Question I have bin diligent in the search and the Providence of God as I believe hath not been wanting in conducting me unto the Catholic Church the great Repository of Divine Truths Theoph. Doubtless the Holy Catholic Church is so the Truth it self hath promis'd to be with her unto the end of the World The Catholic Church will alwaies hold the Catholic Faith and by this Rule we judg particular National Churches to be true Members of the Church Catholic as they hold the Catholic Faith Phil. I mean the Roman Catholic Church whose Faith as Peters cannot fail and which hath alwaies laid a just claim to be the Catholic Church wherein the Truths of God and Eternal Life are conserv'd as her peculiar Tresure and none who do not communicate with her can share in them Theoph. That which you call a just claim will in its due place appear a most intolerable Usurpation and such as make the Catholic Church and the Roman Church to be reciprocal terms of the same amplitude and extent have forfeited their Logic and their Reason together The Church of Rome at best was a part and Member of the Church Catholic and now since thro her manifold Corruptions she hath well-nigh forfeited that Interest lo with an unparallel'd Insolence she flies at all and prescribes to the name of Catholic more solicitously perhaps out of a jealousie the Catholic Church should totally exclude her and out of a consciousness she hath deserv'd it But this digression would usher in a large Controversie besides our present purpose and I design first to insist upon the manifold Errors of your Church one after another as our occasions will permit and then if you please we will dispute the Point Whether the Church of Rome can be the only true Catholic Church which has so many ways departed from the Catholic Doctrine Phil. Your confidence Theophilus is no proof Theoph. I hope it shall appear to you and to the World that my Reasons and my Proofs have made me confident You may remember a second obvious Exception which I propos'd against the practice of the Church of Rome was her half Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Her denying the Cup unto the Laiety If you please we will now take it into Consideration Phil. Most willingly For I find a great noise and clamor is rais'd about it and the Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome is proclaim'd out of the Pulpit and the Press and from some appearances of Truth your severe Imputations and Calumnies pass for currant with the undiscerning multitude Theoph. These appearances of Truth as you are pleas'd to call them are no less then Demonstrations carrying so much Light and Evidence in them that even the undiscerning multitude in reading the Holy Scriptures are able at first sight to discover the incongruity of your Practice with the Rule how teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men you evidently transgress the commands of God Phil. This Artifice of yours and Industry to court the People into a prejudice against us is to me a Demonstration that you put no great confidence in the merits of your Cause Do not so peremtorily conclude before you have enter'd upon the Proof Theoph. I will prove your giving the Bread in the Holy Communion and not the Cup unto the People to be against the Institution of Christ the end of the Sacrament the practice of the Apostles and of the Church Catholic for twelve-hundred Years Phil. You have propos'd a good Method of Discourse and I desire you would follow it Theoph. First our Blessed Savior immediatly before his Passion instituted the Sacrament and gave it to the Disciples present in both kinds as three Evangelists record Matth. 26. 26. As they were eating Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body ver 27. He took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for remission of sins So we read in Mark 14. 22 23. and he expresly testifieth of the Cup That he gave it to them and they all drank of it Saint Luke after the same manner And adds moreover the command of Christ This do in remembrance of me Luke 22. 19. Phil. I pray observe how that command is given only when the Disciples receiv'd the Bread and not when they took the Cup. The Words are these He took Bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Test ament in my Blood which is shed for you ver 20. And a Tom. 3. Lib. 4. cap. 25. de Sacramento Eucharistâ— ut intelligeremus c. Bellarmin observes it as an instance of Gods wonderful Providence to make Heretics unexcusable And that we may understand it was the command of Christ that the Sacrament should be distributed to all under the species of Bread but not so under the species of Wine Theoph. S t Luke saith Likewise also the Cup Intimating the same Institution for one and for the other Phil. We are not much concern'd in your gloss upon the Text. Theoph. But you are in S t Pauls who declares That after the same manner he took the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood 1 Cor. 11. 25. the very Words of S t Luke And then expresly adds the words of command of our Lord Christ This do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Now what say you to the word of command given by Christ to do this in remembrance of him as well when he gave the Cup as when he distributed the Bread unto the Disciplos Phil. Bellarmin observes a difference b Ibid. Post panis consecrationem absolute penitur post calicem cum conditione This do in remembrance of me is put absolutely even in S t Pauls relation after the Consecration of the Bread but after the Cup it is repeated with a Condition â—his do as often as you drink it in remembrance of one not intimating that the Cup must of necessity be given or taken but if it be given or receiv'd it should be done in
of Prague no longer to neglect or be content without the Communion of the Cup without which they could not be saved and so multitudes were promted to receive in both kinds and importunate with the Council of Basil to have it allow'd Many Heretics as he saith rejoicing that they had found an Article grounded upon Scripture whereby either the ignorance or impiety of the Church of Rome might be discover'd I have given in this Story to shew of how great consequence in the judgment of the Bohemians this Text was to prove even the necessity of receiving the Sacrament in both kinds and therefore let me hear your Answer Phil. Bellarmin takes notice of all these Circumstances and gives three Answers to that Text Except ye eat the flesh c. His first Answer is this a Lib. 4. De Sacram Euch. c. 25. vim hujus praecepti in re quae sumitur non in modo sunendi consistere Sumuntur tam corpus quam sanguis sub qualibet specie The weight of this Precept doth lie in the receiving the flesh and blood of Christ and not in the manner of receiving it Now the body and blood of Christ are truly receiv'd in either kind whole Christ being communicated in the bread as also in the Cup and therefore the People are not depriv'd of the vertue of the Sacrament and shall live by it Theoph. The Text expresly speaks of drinking his Blood and that you cannot pretend to do by receiving and eating his Flesh only in the Sacrament altho his Blood and Soul be there also according to your Opinion by concomitancy Of which we shall say more hereafter Phil. If you stand so much upon the letter of the Text which seems to imply the receiving of Christs Flesh and Blood distinctly one by eating and the other by drinking then we answer ou another way That in Holy Scripture many times b In Script conjunctio accipitur pro disjunctiva the copulative is put for a disjunctive as when Peter said to the impotent Man at Solomons Porch Acts 3. 6. Silver and Gold have I none the meaning is he had neither Silver nor Gold for either would have suffic'd for an Alms. And if the Text be so Interpreted it will not hurt us Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man or drink his blood c. Theoph. This is to make of Gods Word a Nose of Wax to put the Holy Scripture out of Joint to help a broken Cause This way would serve a Jesuit in another case of Conscience Is any one scrupulous of rebelling against his Prince The Father will satisfie him with that of Solomon Fear God or honor the King if you do one you may omit the other But what God hath join'd let not Man put asunder saith our Blessed Savior Never turn a Copulative into a Disjunctive Phil. Well If these two Answers do not please Bellarmin will sit you with a third There are many Precepts in Holy Scripture which are given to all and yet are design'd to be observ'd only by some as that Blessing upon Mankind at first Encrease and multiply and yet all Men are not oblig'd to Marry and get Children And so this saying of our Savior If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man c. it is spoken to the Church Universal and yet if observ'd by some it sufficeth The Priest taking the Sacrament in both kinds shall convey Life thro Christ unto his whole Church Theoph. This Answer is not unlike the two former if twisted together all are not worth a rush they only publish to the World the Objection is unanswerable and so rather then they would be silent they would put their Ciphers together without one tittle of sense and reason to make them significant Phil. This is a quick way to answer an Argument or Reply by saying it is insignificant and so dismiss it Theoph. If I omit any thing that is material I desire no favor I know I shall hear of it with both Ears for those of your side are used to give no Quarter Mean while I will follow my intended course and shew in the next place how your half Communion is against the end of Christs Instituting the Sacrament Phil. Christ instituted these Holy Mysteries to confer Grace to the worthy Receivers to feed them with the Celestial Food of his pretious Body and Blood to convey unto their Souls remission of sins So much the words of Institution imply Take eat This is my Body which is given for you and drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which was shed for many for remission of sins Now all this is communicated as well under one kind as under both for whole Christ his Body and Blood and his Divinity is exhibited under the Species of Bread For Christ expresly saith It is my Body and if so it is his Blood and Life and Divine Nature also For Christ now liveth for ever and the Union between his Soul and Body is indissoluble wheresoever one is the other must be by a necessary concomitancy And then for the God-head of Christ since the great Mystery of his Incarnation that can never be separated from the humane Soul and Body which he assumed into one Person and subsistence with Himself So the Council of Trent hath determin'd a Sess 13 c. 3. Statim post Consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque sang una cum Divinit existere sub specie panis vini c. Immediatly after the Consecration the very Body and Blood of our Lord do exist under the Species of Bread and wine together with his Soul and Divinity The Body indeed subsists under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine by vertue of the words of Consecration but by virtue of a Natural Connexion whereby the parts of Christs humane Nature are since his Resurrection for ever inseparably united under the Species of Bread there is likewise the Blood of Christ and under the Species of Wine his Body and his Soul under both as also his Divinity by reason of the Hypostatical Vnion And therefore the Council concludes b Veriss est tantundem sub alterutra specie atque sub utraque contineri totus integer Christus That as much is contain'd under either Species as under both even whole Christ intirely Theoph. This is a new Model of Divinity which was about two hundred Years in fashioning and preparing by their sworn Servants the School-men for the Fathers of Trent to make use of to under-prop the declining State of the Church of Rome But I pray tell me Why did our Blessed Savior so distinctly say of the Bread This is my Body and of the Cup This is my Blood c. if in either kind both Body and Blood are included and receiv'd Phil. The Council as you have heard before answers this exactly a Ibid. Corpus
so much for the Autority of the Church you are not willing in this point to hear the constant Testimony of the Church Phil. Not so but we most cordially embrace it knowing that we derive full confirmation of our practice in one kind whatsoever you think of it from the usage and testimony of the Primitive Times Theoph. I will first shew you what they say for us and then do you produce your Evidences for your selves In the first Century we read divers Liturgies ascribed to some of the Apostles and Evangelists The Liturgy of S t James of S t Peter of S t Mark in them we find the Priests and Deacons and all the People give Thanks to God and the Lord Jesus Christ a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he hath vouchsaf'd unto them the favor to partake of his Body and Blood We read they speak of the Mysteries altogether in the plural Partaking of the pure Celestial life-giving and dreadful Mysieries We read how the Deacons after Consecration take the Patin and the Chalice to distribute the Bread and Wine unto the People Phil. You account those Liturgies spurious and not made by the Apostles and you take them for proofs against us Theoph. 'T is truth we cannot believe they were compil'd by the Apostles for then it would have bin presumption for after Ages not to conform to them but unto Liturgies of their own framing Your Ordo Romanus should have been exactly conform unto Peters Liturgy However they were set forth not many Ages after and pretend to the Apostolical Times and Practice and where they agree give some light to Posterity of their Customs and against you their Testimony holds good because you account them Legitimate Phil. It is sport for Children to fight with wooden Daggers Theoph. They are sharp enough to foil your pretentions unto Antiquity But this is but fencing about I will close with you instantly and produce unquestionable Testimonies of the Sacrament given unto the People in both kinds b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ignatius S t Johns Disciple in his Epistle to the Philaâ— delphians tells us It is one and the same Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and the same Blood which was shed for us One Bread broken for all and one Cup distributed to the whole Congregation a Apol 2. prope finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Justin Martyr in the next Century giving account of the Rites of their Christian Service and Communion he tells the Heathen Emperors to whom he makes his Apology for Christians The President of the Assembly or Priest giving thanks and all the People congratulating they who are called Deacons give to everyone present to partake of the Bread and Wine with Water bless'd and carry those Elements abroad to such as are not present And this nurishment is call'd the Eucharist In the end of the same Century b 2 do Lib. ad Vxorem c. 4. De cibo poculo invadere c. Tertullian exhorting his Wife after his death if at all only to marry in the Lord i. e. a Christian Otherwise saith he how will thy Husband if a Heathen suffer thee to go to that Feast which is so much defam'd to take the Bread and the Cup. And afterwards c Libro de lapsis De cujus manu desiderabit de cujus peculo particip Of whose hand wilt thou receive the Bread of whose Cup wilt thou drink Now Pamelius and de la Cerda in their Notes upon Tertullian acknowledg both these places to be spoken of the Eucharist and both kinds are expresly mention'd and receiv'd d Praesente ac teste meipso Cyprian follows his Master Tertullian and hath many passages to our purpose He gives an account of a strange accident whereof he was an Eye-witness That a yong Maid being at the Sacrament when the Deacon brought the Cup to her she turn'd away her face shutting her mouth and refusing to drink e Reluctanti licet de Sacramento Calicis infudit Sequitur singultu vomitus c. but the Deacon forced her to take down some of the Wine and presently she vomited The Holy Eucharist could not stay in her Mouth and Stomach which was defiled For we read before That when she was an Infant the Heathen took her from her Mother and by force put into her mouth f Panem mero mixtum de immolatione perceptum Bread mingled with Wine taken from the Idol Sacrifice And because of this Pollution thro a Divine dispensation in these severe Times followed that abhorrency of the Sacrament Now here is mention made of the Sacramental Cup but not of Bread delivered to the Damsel tho unwilling And from this and such like places we may as well prove they administred the Cup without the Bread as they from other places conclude the Bread was given without the Cup. Another notable Passage we have g Epistola 54. Cornelio papae fratri ques hertamur ad praelium non inermes c. in his Epistle to Cornelius the Pope his Brother in the Lord He writes his mind to him That in those difficult times of Persecution it was expedient to reconcile Penitents lapst the sooner to Church Communion and with more Indulgence That by the Blood of Christ receiv'd in the Sacrament they may be fortified against assaults and be encouraged to shed their Blood for the Testimony of the Gospel And immediatly after he saith h Quo modo prevocamus eos in confess nominis sang suum effundere c. How shall we exhort them to shed their Blood in the Confession of his Name if we deny them to partake of his Blood He adds immediatly after a Quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idences facimus si non eos prius ad bib in Ecclesia pocul Domini jure communicationis admittimus How shall we fit them to drink the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not before admit them to take the Cup of the Lord in the Church by right of Communication Observe the right of Communicating Phil. b Lib. 4. de Euch. c. 26. Jus Laicâ—r ad communicandum à Sacerdot c. Bellarmin shews how this Epistle of Cyprian is a full confutation of your Opinion That the Church cannot with-hold part of the Sacrament from the People seeing she hath power to exclude from the whole Sacrament For Cyprian writes to Cornelius for some Indulgence for those who were excluded Theoph. Do you believe his first Position That the Peoples right to the Sacrament is given by the Priest to them and by him may be taken from them Phil. Yes when they are Criminals it may be with-held from them by the power of the Priest and upon their repentance again be restored Theoph. So it is with the offending Clergy as well as with the People upon some great offence they may be suspended from the Sacrament and therefore why doth he say the
right of the People to the Sacrament c. and your answer supposeth an offence whereupon the right may be taken away But Bellarmin speaks absolutly Jus Laicorum c. The right the People have to the Sacrament is from the Priests concession I thought it had bin from Christs Institution and command And Bellarmins Inference is insufferable that as the Church and the â—ishops have power to keep Offenders from the Sacrament altogether so can they dispose of and give the Sacrament under one kind or both as they think fit And the absurdity appears herein Christ hath given power to his Church to Excommunicate Offenders but not to alter his Institution of the Sacrament If we had not found it written we could not believe a Man of Learning should make such Inferences absurd and irreligious Phil. If you like not this Answer you may his second Thoughts c Ib. Habuissent certe ex censuet illius temp ergo cum sit contr consuet introducta non habent amplius jus illud That if in Cyprians time the people had a right to demand the Cup they had it certainly from the custom of that time and therefore seeing now another Custom is introduc'd and a Law made for the Sacrament in one kind they have no claim or right to the other Theoph. 'T is horrible insolence in Bellarmin to assert That if the People had a right to claim the Cup certainly they deriv'd it from Custom and to take no notice at all of Christs Institution and the Apostles Tradition and Practice And that he should presume to ballance the custom of so many former Ages of the Church with a custom not many Ages introduc'd and withal not to allow one grain unto all we read of both kinds in the Holy Scripture to turn the Scale And why doth he take so great pains to answer the Testimonies which we bring out of the Fathers for the giving of the Sacrament in both kinds seeing he might cut all off with this stupendious Solution It was the custom of so many Ages to receive the Communion in both kinds it is our custom to receive the Communion in one kind But notwithstanding this compendious answer of your Doctor I will go on to prove the practice of the Church to give the Cup and then I will make the Inference a Hom. 6. in Numeros dicam vobis quis sit Pop. qui in usu habet sang bibere non solum Sacr. ritu c. Origen gives a full Testimony on our side I will shew you who are the People who are accustomed to drink Blood not only in the Sacrament but in hearing the word of God Phil. b Ib. In usu habet non praecepto Bellarmines answer to this Testimony is short and full They are accustomed but not commanded Theoph. c De Caena Domini Lex prohibet ejus sang Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur Cyprian shews the Precept as well as the use The Law saith he forbids to eat with the Blood but the Gospel commands that we should drink it Phil. d Praecipit ut bibatur at non ab omnibus Bellarmin answers The Gospel commands that the Blood of Christ should be drank but not by all Theoph. Christs words are Drink ye all of this And e Qu. 17. in Levit. ad bibendum sang omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam Augustin saith All are exhorted to drink this Blood who will have life In the fourth Century the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church are all for us f Epist 289. ad Patriciam Caesariam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basil the Great writing to a great Lady tells her It is good to Communicate every day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood g Regulâ— 80. c. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Again elsewhere he puts the Quest What is proper for a Christian And he gives the Answer To cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit and perfect Holiness in the fear of the Lord and so to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood h Oratione 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Greg. Nazianzen gives advice Without doubting eat the Body and drink the Blood if thou desirest Life i Homil. 18. in 2. ad Cornith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostom hath a memorable Passage to our purpose I can shew you saith he where the Priest differs not from the People when we enjoy the dreadful Mysteries for we are all alike vouchsaf'd them One Body and one Cup propos'd to all Phil. k Bellarmin shews how Chrysostom understands the thing that is Communicated and not the Signs and so all receive whole Christ altho under the Species of Bread Theoph. Seeing there is express mention made of one Cup offered to all you cannot understand thereby receiving Christs Blood only by Ib. Rom Sacramenti c. concomitancy with the Body of Christ under the Species of Bread And whereas Bellarmin faith Both the Priest and People did eat of the same Sacrifice under the Law and therefore the difference between us under the Gospel and them could not herein consist That as well the People as the Priest equally share in the Sacrament I answer that in the Peace-offering he that brought it had his part as the Priest his but they were different heterogenial parts the wave-breast and heave-shoulder were the Priests share Lev. 7. 34. whereof he that brought the Offering did not eat And so the Shew-bread belong'd to the Priest to eat and not to the People Now at the Lords Table there is a clear parity between Priest and People alike partaking of homogenial things eating the same Bread and drinking the same Cup. And this was Chrysostoms design to shew in these words a Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Not as under the Law the Priest eat some things and the People other and it was not lawful for the People to partake of those things which were assign'd to the Priest Phil. b Ib. Manifeste patet c. Bellarmin shews plainly the custom in Chrysostoms time to receive in one kind by a miraculous Instance related out of Sozomens History Lib. 8. Of an heretical Woman who would dissemble Catholic Communion and received the Bread in Chrysostoms Church but kept it by her and eat common Bread which her Maid brought with her and it became a stone in her mouth Now saith Bellarmin If she must also have receiv'd the Cup How could her first jugling about the Bread concele her Theoph. Such Legends as these prove little If truth she might think in the throng to escape the Cup or else set her lips to the Cup and drink nothing and so Bellarmins manifeste patet is manifeste latet in a sinking Cause he laieth hold of every Reed to support it Other Testimonies we have out of Chrysostom c Hom. 23. in I ad Cor. 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. comparing the Jews Sacraments and Mysteries with ours he saith As thou eatest the Lords Body so did the Jews eat Manna as thou drinkest the Blood of Christ so they water out of the Rock Another out of the 32 d Homily upon S t Matthew near the end exciting to love he saith We have all one Table spread before us we all drink of the same Liquor and not only so but out of the same Cup. Ambrose saith d Mi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If as often as Christs Blood is poured out in the Sacrament it is shed for remission of sins I must alwaies receive it that my sins may be always forgiven He seems to imply that if we stand in need of remission of sins we must take the Cup of Salvation e De Sacramentis l. 4. c. 6. Debeo illum semper accipere ut sensperper mihi pecc dimittantur Again speaking mystically of the Priests of the Gospel he saith The Priest by the word of God toucheth the rock and the waters flow and the Lords people drink f Ib. l 5. c. 1. Verbo Dei tangit petram fluit aqua bibit populus Dei thereof a Theodoreti hist. lib 5. c. 18. Quâ audaciâ poculum sang pretiosi ere tuo participabis c. Again his Speech to Theodosius the Emperor when he came to receive the Sacrament after that great slaughter of many thousands committed by his command at Thessalonica proves our Point With what confidence canst thou receive with thy mouth the Cup of Christs pretious Blood with such blood-guiltiness c. Phil. b Lib. 4. c. 26. Fatemur datam utramque speciem in aliq locis sed non Jure Divino Bellarmin answers to these Testimonies of the Fathers That in some places the Sacrament was administred to the People in both kinds but not by any Divineright Theoph. 'T is enough for us at present to prove the practice of the Church and that he confesseth c In Malach. c. 2. Sacerdotes Euch. conficiunt sang Domini populo distrib Jerome saith The Priests consecrate the Eucharist and distribute the Blood of Christ unto the People And to this Bellarmin confidently answers Nihil novi This is no news It is in truth no news to hear the Fathers witnessing that the Cup was given to the People Where do they say the Bread was given without the Cup Phil. You shall find we have sufficient proofs of that out of Antiquity Theoph. Such manifest Proofs as Bellarmin brought but now Legends and reservations and half proofs but I will suspend my judgment till you offer them and I go on to shew the Testimonies of every Age in this Point altho I may weary your patience and mine own d Decret part 2. causa 33. q. 3. c. 37. Dum frangitur hostia dum sang de calice in or a fidelium funditur Ib. c 36. Ibi vos estis in mensa c. Gratian hath collected several Passages out of S t Augustin and the Sentences of Prosper While the Host is broken and the Blood is poured out of the Cup into the mouths of the Faithful Again Ye are together with us at the Table and in the Cup we drink together because we live together This evidently shews both kinds distinctly and apart distributed to all the Communicants the Priest and People eating and drinking together at the Lords Table as all were partakers of the same Spiritual Life In the fifth Century we have a full proof before the fourth General Council of the Communion given in both kinds Samuel and other Priâ—sts put in Articles into the Council of Calcedon against Ibas Bishop of Edessa the 9 th Article was this That upon complaint he had neglected to punish some Officers e Bin. Tom. 3. Concil part 2. Conc. Chalced. Actione 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. who upon a great Festival had provided but little Wine and that not good for the Sacrament to be distributed unto the People so that at the time of administring the Cup they were constrain'd to send for more to the Tavern and when that sufficed not the Bishop gave a nod to those that administred the Bread to come up to the Altar and for bear giving the Body of Christ because there was not Wine enough to come after This ample Testimony proves the Cup was of necessity given to the People and that the Bread could not be given without the Cup for they who delivered the Bread were commanded to cease because for want of Wine others could not follow them with the Cup. And this the whole Council approv'd admitting the Charge against the Bishop never answering more Romano That the People might receive the Body without the Cup. This agrees well with that saying ascrib'd to S t Augustin a Alâ—erus l. 2. c. 8. De Sacramente nec carâ— sine sang nec sang sine carne jure communicatur by Algerus a Benedictine Monk Neither can the Flesh be of right distributed without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh Phil. b Lib. 4. c. 26. Ea sent non est Aug. at Paschasii Bellarmin saith It is not the saying of Augustin but of Paschasius Theoph. We will not dispute that But what saith he to the words themselves For Bellarmin acknowledgeth the Testimony of either to be good Phil. He saith They speak not of the signs but of the thing signified The Body and Blood of Christ and they are alwaies communicated together by a concomitancy Theoph. This is the usual shift but it helps him nothing For in this sense one cannot be given without the other But the words say c Non jure communicatur One without the other cannot of right be communicated implying that injuriously it might be Phil. Bellarmin applies those words non jure communicatur to the Persons receiving not to the things received d Non jure commun qui sentit unum accipi sine al 〈…〉 They ought not of right to communicate who think they can receive the Body of Christ without his Blood Theoph. This is an Application at random against the scope and the express construction of the words but you shall never find him without an Answer somthing he will say to amaze the People But I proceed About this time Pope Leo the first makes a Decree That some Manichees should be observed strictly who dissembling Church-Communion with Catholics would come to the Sacrament and receive the Bread but not the Wine because they esteemed Wine a Creature of the Devil e Vt vobis hujusmodi homines ex his manifestâ—tur indiciis Now by this mark he would have them discovered if they refused to receive the Cup and so cast out of the Church Not long after f Bin. Tom. 3. In not is advitam Gelasii Aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur c.
remembrance of the Lords Passion Theoph. These are pitiful shifts the words rather imply Christians should often drink of the Cup in remembrance of their Savior And the very next Verse confutes this conceit of Bellarmin wherein Paul puts the condition as often both to eating and drinking ver 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come And withal while you triumph in S t Lukes relation where the command of Do this is expres'd only when our Savior gave the Bread you do not consider that S t Matthew relates our Saviors charge when he gave the Cup Matth. 26 27. Drink ye all of this And S t Mark records Mark 14. 23. He gave the Cup to them and they all drank of it Phil. To whom did Christ give this command Drink ye all of this Theoph. To the Disciples who did eat the Passover with him and sup'd with him and after Supper he Instituted the Holy Sacrament and gave the command to observe it Phil. But these Disciples were the twelve Apostles as is manifest from S t. Lukes relation Luke 21. 14. When the hour was come to keep the Passover he sat down and the twelve Apostles with him Now we grant that the Apostles and the Bishops and Priests their Successors must receive in both kinds but not the People Bellarmin reasons thus a Ibid. Dedit selis Apostolis eo dixit s 〈…〉 Apostolis bibite ex hoc omnes He gave the Cup only to the Apostles and therefore only to them he said Drink ye all of this Theoph. By this subtilty you altogether exclude the People from being concern'd at all in Christs command to receive the Sacrament for to whom he said Take eat this is my Body to them he said Drink ye all of this 〈◊〉 that is as you say only to the Apostles Upon what account therefore do ye administer the Lords Body unto the People Phil. To this you have b Ibid. Etsi non dedit non prohibuit Bellarmins Answer Although he did not give the Sacrament unto the People he did not for bid it should be given to them Theoph. So neither hath he forbidden the Cup should be given to them But I pray hear what one of your own Benedictine Abbots Pâ—sâ—hafius in his Book De corpore Christi c. 15. as Bellarmin quotes him saith as a Comment upon those Words c 〈◊〉 ex hoc omnes tam ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this All as well Ministers as other Believers Hear what another of your own side saith upon the Text and Bellarmins Comment d Gerardus Loriâ—hius de Missa publica proroganda There be some false Catholics that fear not to stop the Reformation of the Church what they can These spare no Blast he mies least that other part of the Sacrament should be restor'd to the lay People for say they Christ spake Drink ye all of this only to the Apostles but the words of the Mass be these Take and eat you all of this Here I would know of them whether this was spoken only to the Apostles then must Lay-men abstain likewise from the element of Bread which to say is an Heresie yea a pestilent detestable Blast hemy It is therefore consequent saith he that both these words Eat ye Drink ye were spoken to the whole Church Phil. It seems the Doctors vary in their Opinions But the Truths of God and the Canons of the Church depend not upon the humors of Men and private Interpretation Theoph. You seem all along to take Bellarmin's Words for Truth his Answers for Oracles And do you now except against private Interpretation But what say you to that Argument wherein e Ibid. De hoc argumento Lutherus triumphaâ— Bellarmin observes Luther so much to triumph The Blood of the New Testament was shed for the People as well as for the Apostles and our Savior gives the Cup unto all for whom he shed his Blood nay and for that very cause bids them drink all of it Matth. 26. 27 28 For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is sâ—ed for many for remission of sins If Christs Blood was shed not only for the Apostles but for many for remission of sins the Cup ought to be given not only to them but to many others Who dares say saith Luther that Christs Blood was not shed for Laiks and therefore who should dare to with-hold the Blood of the New Testament from them Phil. As you have taken the Objection out of Bellarmin so you may his Answer a Ib. Si sanguis Domini dandus esset omnibus pro quibus susus esi dandus esset Turcis Judaeis Ethnicis c. That if the Blood of Christ must be given in the Sacrament to all those for whom it was shed then it must be given to all men Turks and Jews and Ethnics For his Blood was shed for all men as he proves from the Text 1 John 2. 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world Theoph. This is a Cavil The Sacraments are the Seals of the Church und appertain only to Church-Members and when Turks and Jews and Pagans shall be converted and receiv'd into the Church of Christ they shall partake of her Tresures I am amazed to see your Learned Champion make such irrational Replies but his baffled Cause will afford no better Phil. Do not conclude him foil'd before you have tried his strength Theoph. It is my design thro-out to examine his Objections and Answers and I have hitherto found them so inconsiderable that I am almost confident for the future Phil. Keep your confidence to your self and produce your Reasons Theoph. I have one Argument more to urge for the Communion to be receiv'd by all in both kinds from our Saviors words John 6. 53. Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you This Text the Bohemians most insisted upon in the Council of Basil when their Delegates there desired the Cup might be allow'd them And Aeneas Sylvius b Hist. Bohem. cap. 35. Literarum doctrinâ morum praestantiâ juxta clarus relates how Petrus Dresensis a School-master in Prague repaired to the Preacher of S t Michaels Church by name Jacoballus eminent for his Learning and Conversation asking him How interpreting the Holy Scripture to the People he had not so long taken notice of a grand Error which would ruine the Church in giving the Sacrament only in one kind whereas our Savior in S t John hath said expresly Vnless ye eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood c. Hereupon this Learned Preacher search'd the Fathers and finding the giving of the Cup unto the People approv'd especially by Dionysius and Cyprian he earnestly exhorted the People
existit sub specie panis sang sub specie vini vi verborum a 〈…〉 vi naturalis connexionis concomitantiae c. By the words of Consecration the Bread is chang'd only into the Body of Christ and so the Wine into his Blood but then by a natural connexion and concomitancy each kind includes the other The Body and Blood and Soul and God head of Christ are inseparable Theoph. But why did Christ Institute the Sacrament in both kinde if to receive in one kind be as beneficial to the Soul Phil. The Essence of the Sacrament b Lib. 4. de Euchar. c. 22. Species panis vini nâ—n tam essentiales quam integrales partes sunt as Bellarmin shews is communicated in one kind to wit the Body and Blood of Christ but as to the integrity both are necessary Theoph. You shall never find a School-man without a nice Distinction to salve the matter However hereby you acknowledg the Sacrament in one kind to be maim'd and imperfect wanting one of the integral parts But I will not intangle the Discourse with such Niceties You know our Blessed Savior expresseth one end of the Sacrament That in remembrance of him it should be given and received And Paul shews in what regard chiefly Christ is commemorated in the Sacrament as he was Crucified For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. Now you all grant that the representation of Christs death is made by both kinds in the Sacrament The Bread and Wine apart represents Christ Blood separated from his Body Breaking of Bread signifies how Christs Body was wounded and bruis'd and broken So Paul renders the words of Christs Institution 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken for you and therefore the Sacrament should be given in both kinds for a sensible representation of Christs death Phil. The Church holds the commemoration of Christs death exactly in the Sacrifice of the Mass and this belongs only to the Priest who of necessity must consecrate Bread and Wine and receive both for this very reason That he may so represent Christs death and offer up his Body and Blood in Sacrifice his Body as crucified and his Blood shed So a great Doctor of our Church c Lib. 6. Advers haereses Mem. Dominicae mortis agit Sacerdes in altari non pop quaprop Sacerd. quoties celebrat non consecrat unam si eciem sine alterâ c. Alphonsus de Casiro The Priest commemorates Christ death upon the Altar and not the People receiving the Sacrament And therefore saith he the Priest of necessity must consecrate both kinds and receive them because altho Christ is wholy contain'd in one kind yet by one he is not signified and represented for the Species of Bread only signifies and represents his Body and that of Wine his Blood c. Theoph. We will not examine this new Doctrine of Alphonsus and the Schools touching whole Christ in each Species c. but we will take his Concession That one kind doth not signifie or represent whole Christ and his Death and Passion and therefore such as are bound to remember and shew the death of Christ his Sacrifice upon the Cross and the Work of our Redemtion by his Blood shedding they must of necessity receive the Sacrament in both kinds apart Phil. What will you conclude thence seeing he hath told you that the Priest is concern'd and not the People to hold the remembrance of Christs death in the Sacrament which he daily performs in the Office of the Mass Theoph. But what care we what Alphonsus hath told us or any of your New Doctors seeing S t Paul affirms the contrary For writing to all the Saints of the Church of Corinth he expresly tells them As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come And doubtless as all Christians are concern'd to keep a thankful remembrance of Christ and of his Passion so we must do it as he hath appointed by receiving the Sacrament in both kinds for only so as you have heard his Death and Blood-shedding is represented to the Life The Elements apart shewing how his Blood was separated from his Body breaking of Bread shewing how his Body was bruis'd and broken In this respect we may believe S t Paul said to the Galathians That even before their eyes Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth crucified among them Gal. 3. 1. Phil. This suits Bellarmines Observation well that the People may see Christs Death represented in both kinds upon the Altar and one separate from the other and so hold the commemoration of his Passion altho they do not communicate in both kinds and he observes the Eye is the quicker sense to affect and raise our Meditation rather then the Touch or Tast Theoph. Notwithstanding the subtle Observation of your Doctors you shall give us leave to follow Christs direction to receive the Sacraments in both kinds in remembrance of him and we will believe the Apostle That by eating this Bread and drinking this Cup we shew the Lords death and not by seeing the Wafers and the Cup upon the Altar And withal the Sacrament is call'd the Lords Supper wherein he Feasts our Souls with his Flesh that is Meat indeed and with his Blood which is Drink indeed Now to complete a Feast there must be Meat and Drink Esculenta Poculenta And one of your Doctors saith a Franciscus à Victoria de Euch. qu 87. Non est perfecta refectio sub unica specie Vnder one kind of the Sacrament is no perfect refection Phil. These things hold in Natural Food and Refections but not in Spiritual Hunger and thirst in Grace are not distinct Appetites but have the same Objects as Blessed are they which do bunger and thrist after righteousness Matth. 5. 6. And we read how our Blessed Savior entertain'd the multitudes in the Wilderness with the Loaves without Wine or Water Theoph. Those are pretty subtleties for Jesuits but our Blessed Savior Instituting his Sacraments for all Believers as well Idiots as Learned design'd to confirm their Faith in Spiritual Truths by sensible Signs and therefore chose those two Elements of Bread and Wine to represent unto us that as these naturally nurish the Body so should his Body and Blood exhibited in the Sacrament in a Spiritual manner nurish the Soul And therefore you would do well to leave the Signs and the Sacrament complete and not deprive your ignorant People of such Helps Representations Your own School-men acknowledg the Sacrament to be maim'd and imperfect as to the Sacramental part and the signification without both kinds a Part. 3. qu. 80. Art 12. Exparte Sacramenti convenit quod utrum que sumi 〈…〉 in utroque perfectio c. Nullo modo debet corpus sumi sine sane Tho. Aquinus determines That in regard to
Divisie uninus ejusdem myst c. Pope Gelasius seconds the Decree We have heard saith he That some receiving the Body of Christ in the Sacrament forbear the Cup I know not upon what superstitious ground but let those either take the Sacrament intirely i. e. in both kinds or let them be excluded altogether And he gives a reason most observable The division of one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacrilege Phil. Bellarmin shews out of Gratian That this Order was made only for the Priests who are oblig'd to receive in both kinds Theoph. He might with more reason say It was made for the Turks who with the Manichees abhor Wine Can it be supposed That Manichees could be Priests of the Catholic Church and so be commanded to communicate in both kinds no it was made for their discoveries when they thrust in among the People and would appear as Catholics Phil. It appears by this Passage that the Church then gave the Sacrament without the Cup otherwise how could the Manichees hope to counterfeit Church Communion because refusing the Cup must needs betray them Theoph. By this we prove the contrary For how could they be discovered by refusing the Cup if it were not given to the People Phil. Those two Popes decree the Cup should be given at that time on purpose to discover these Heretics Theoph. No such thing The Decrees were made for stricter prohibition and observation perhaps some negligent Priests before might let them pass without the Cup or they might take down none of the Wine when the Cup was brought to them only put it to their Lips or the like But how do you answer Pope Gelasius his reason of the Decree and free your selves from grand Sacrilege One and the same Sacrament cannot be divided without grand Sacrilege Phil. I must confess in that place Bellarmin takes not any notice of that considerable passage of the Decree Theoph. Because it was unanswerable This is the first time I have found him silent and so I may the better proceed without interruption In the Year 589. in the third Council of Toledo we read how the pious King Reccaerdus held a Council of all the Bishops of Spain and Gallicia when Pelagius the second was Pope principally that the Goths in his Dominions might abjure the Arrian Heresie Among other things the King gives direction to the Bishops That after the Oriental Custom all the People should reherse the Articles of their Belief a Bin. Tom. 4. Pag. 501. Ei sic corda fide purif ad Christi corp sang percip exhibeant That so their hearts purified by Faith might receive the Body and Blood of Christ Phil. If they received in one kind they received the Body and Blood of Christ Theoph. Alas your Doctrine of concomitancy was never heard or thought of in those Pious Times In the next Council of Toledo Anno 633. when Honorius was Pope Sisimundus being King it is ordered in the 18 th Canon b Bin. p. 587. Conjunctio panis Calicis That after the Lords Prayer and the Bread and Cup join'd a blessing shall be pronounc'd upon the People and then the Sacrament received by all in their several places first the Priest and Deacon at the Altar the other Clergy in the Quire the People without the Quire You see therefore the Sacrament was given in both kinds to all the People by the Decree of these Councils in all the Dominions of Spain And because the Consecration of the Bread and Wine as we may conceive is call'd in the Canon Conjunctio panis calicis The conjunction of the Bread and the Cup. I might observe from this Expression they should not be separated In the Year 736. a Bin. Tom. 5. pag. 511. Epistola 2. ad Leonem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pope Gregory the second writing to Leo Isaurus the Emperor who was called Iconomachus for his zeal against Images he thews the Emperor the Church discipline towards Offenders such as had given scandal to the Church First we prescribe Watching and Fasting and when they are chastised with hunger and severe exercises the Priests give unto them the venerable Body of our Lord and make them to drink of his holy Blood This is a Testimony without Exception because of a Pope and it prevents the usual Answer of Concomitancy for it mentions the Body and Blood given asunder and it shews the practice of the Western Church This also is manifest by the Roman Order of the Mass there we read b Vid. Cassandri Liturgica When the Pope gives the Body the Arch-deacon confirms i. e. gives the Cup and when the Bishops or Priests communicate the Deacons follow and confirm And there is express mention made of the Sacrament c Descendet pontifex commun principes matres familias eorum c. given to Princes and their Ladies and to all the People The same we find and more in another Ritual call'd Ordo Ecclesiasticus Ecclesiae Romanae d In Epistolam 1 ad Cor. c. 10. Calix dicitur Communicatio sang quia omnes ex illo uno participant Haymo Bishop of Halberstate saies The Cup is call'd the Communication of his Blood because all do partake of that one Cup. e In 1 Epist ad Cor. c. 11. Theophylact Arch-Bishop of Balgaria saith This dreadful Cup is equally communicated to all f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Oecumenius upon the same Chapter The Lord exhibits equally to thee and to the poor man the Table and the Chalice of Christs pretious Body and Blood These in the 11 th Century In the next Algerus a Monk when Berengarius was question'd for his Opinion against the Real Presence g Vt panis dum dentibus teritur carnem Christi in pass attritam dum vinum in ora fidelium funditur sang de Christi latere fusum signaret and recanted This Learned Monk wrote three Books of the Sacrament and in the second Book cap. 8. he shews how the custom of communicating in both kinds held in the Church from Christ That the Bread being macerated with the Teeth might represent his Flesh torn in his Passion and the Wine pour'd into the mouths of the Faithful signifie his Blood-shedding c. with many such passages in that Chapter and so by good Autorities out of the several Ages of Christianity I have shew'd the practice of the Church to give the Communion in both kinds to the People Phil. Altho Bellarmin and other Doctors except against some and answer others of your Testimonies yet I have not interrupted you in most because those Answers unto some which I have brought already will suit the rest Theoph. You have an excellent Art to make one Almanack serve for every Meridian under Heaven You have one or two Catholic Distinctions to help at a dead lift Concomitancy is a great Pillar of your Church wheresoever the
custom two Popes Leo and Gelasius were wroth and determin'd positively against them Phil. I will not interrupt the Series of my Discourse by reflecting upon by-past Passages but proceed to shew how the Communion in one kind was in use in the Primitive Times and not condemn'd and so by consequence allow'd Many Customs of the Primitive Times infer the Body of our Lord was delivered to the People without the Cup. In the days of Persecution when they could not assemble often to communicate in public Assemblies it was usual to carry with them part of the consecrated Bread wrapping it up in clean Linnen and keeping it in their Houses until such time as they thought sit to eat it Of this Custom a Lib. 2. ad uxorem c. 5. Non s 〈…〉 maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gastes si sciverit non illum credet qui dicitur Tertullian gives a notable proof writing to his Wife That if she inclin'd to Marry after his death she should be careful to Marry a Christian not an Heathen otherwise he will not know what thou eatest in secret before all refection and if he know it to be Bread he will not believe it to be that which we call it viz. The Body of Christ b Lib. de Oratiene c. ult Aecepto c 〈…〉 Domini re 〈…〉 And in another place The Body of the Lord being receiv'd and reserv'd So a Quaedam arcam in qua Domini sanctum fuit indign manibus aperire tentavit igne inde assurg deterrita est Cyprian in his Book De Lapsis relates How a Woman endeavoring with wicked hands to open a Chest wherein the Holy Body of our Lord was lock'd up she was terrified with Fire issuing out of the Chest b Qui festinas ad spect Eucharistiam inter obscoena corp meretr tulit And in his Book De Spectaculis he speaks of one with indignation Who made such haste to the Heathenish Plaies and Sights that he carried about him the Holy Eucharist amidst the throng of whorish and obscene Persons c Lib. de Obitu frat Satyri c. 7. Ne vacuus mysterii c. Ambrose shewing the Piety of his Brother Satyrus tells us That being at Sea in a Storm ready to suffer ship-wrack he earnestly begg'd the Sacrament of one that was with him and wrap'd it up in a linnen Cloth and hang'd it about his neck and being cast away he was the first who escap'd alive to the shore Theoph. What would you prove from these Passages Phil. That they carried and kept by them the Body of the Lord and when occasion serv'd did eat it fasting at home and in all these Passages no mention is made of the Cup or of the Blood of Christ Theoph. But I can give several express instances of both kinds which the Faithful carried from Church with them to their Houses You have heard above how d Apol. 2. Prope finem Justin Martyr told you The Deacons give the Sacrament of Bread and Wine mingled with Water to those who are present and carry it unto such as were absent e Oratione 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. So Gregory Nazianzen shews of his Sister Gorgonia If any where saith he her hand had tresured up any of the Antitypes of the Holy Body and Blood f In Epistolâ ad Rusticum de Exuperio Nihil illo ditius c. And Jerome most distinctly speaking of one Exuperius saith No man can be richer then he who carries the Body of our Lord in a wicker Basket and the Blood in a Viol Glass Phil. But in most Instances mention is made only of Christs Body reserv'd and g Ligari fecit in Orario Satyrus in S t Ambrose caused it to be wrapt up in a Linnen Cloth and bound it about his Neck Orarium was a Linnen Cloth on purpose wherein to wrap up the Sacrament as Vice Comes shews h Lib. 2. de app missae c. 19. Orarium pannus quo caelestis Euch. involvebatur I hope you will not say he did wrap up Christs Blood in a Cloth Theoph. Yes he might wrap up the Holy Mysteries the Bread and the Wine put in a Vial-glass together And Ambrose his Expressions look towards the Wine of the Sacrament when he saith i Ib. Caeleste mysterium haustum arcano pectoris fusum in viscera He received the Heavenly Mystery swallowed up as in a draught in the secret Repository of his Heart and diffus'd into his Bowels Phil. Flesh when digested may be said properly to be diffus'd into the Bowels Theoph. But you know your Doctors allow not Christs Flesh to be digested and turned into Chyle and Nutriment Phil. These are Niceties I pray let me proceed without disturbance You know the Sacrament was usually sent unto the Sick to be received upon their Beds Tanquam viaticum morientium as Food for a long Journey given unto those who were passing from Earth to Heaven And this was only in one kind viz. The Lords Body Theoph. I reckon the sick Principly among such who being absent had the Sacrament sent to them and have shew'd out of Justin Martyr they had the Mysteries in both kinds What the Faithful receiv'd in the Church the same the Deacon carried to the Faithful in their Houses when by reason of Sickness or any other justifiable occasion they could not be present at the publick Solemnity However your Instances are only of the Communion in private Houses and the Mysteries reserv'd and if one kind only be express'd the other may be understood But have you any Testimony of the Church which expresly shews the Sacrament was given in the Church in one kind only whereas we have brought a cloud of Witnesses for the public Communicating in both kinds Phil. Yes many ancient Canons make express mention of the Laick Communion as distinct from that of the Clergy So that Priests and Deacons Criminals were censur'd to Communicate only as the People not as the Priests that is in one kind not in both So the Eliberitan Council Anno 305. in the 76. Canon speaking of any Deacon who shall receive Holy Orders being conscious of a great Sin he had before committed a Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 237. Si quis Diaconus c. Post quinquennium actâ poenit accipiat Laicam Communionem If he discovers not himself after five Years penance Let him be admitted to the Communion of Laicks So the Council of Sardica Can. 2 do concerning Bishops highly criminal Decrees They shall not be admitted unto the Communion of Laicks even on their Death-beds And so in many other Councils mention is made of the Communion of Lay-people Theoph. Yes we do acknowledg it But how do you prove that which you and Bellarmin design thereby That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to receive in one kind We know the Canons by that expression imply That Men in Holy Orders
the Sacrament both kinds are necessary for the perfection of the Sacrament consists in both and therefore by no means the Priest that consecrates must receive the Body of Christ without the Blood b Exparte sumentium req summa rea cautela But in regard to the Receivers reverence and caution must be had least any undecencies should happen whereof the greatest danger is in receiving the Cup least the Wine be spilt And so after the like sort Bonaventure Phil. c Ib. ad 3. In persona omnium sang ossert sumit Aquinas there tells you how the Priest offers and takes the Cup in the behalf of the People And so in the Priests communicating the Sacrament retains its perfection in the Peoples communicating in one kind it retains its reverence and due caution least any thing should happen irreverently Theoph. We shall hereafter consider your great Reasons why you with-hold the Cup from the Laity At present I will follow my design and shew that the practice both of the Apostles and of the Church for twelve hundred Years was to administer the Sacrament unto the People in both kinds as our Savior gave the Cup unto the Apostles S t Mark expresly saith They all drank of it Mark 14. 23. so they administred the Cup unto the Saints Phil. You have been already shew'd that they receiv'd the Sacrament at our Saviors hands as Apostles and Priests and so they had the Cup. Theoph. Not so for they Communicated then as Receivers and as the common People for our Blessed Savior was the Priest in that Administration This some of your own Doctors affirm for as when our Blessed Savior was Baptized by John he condescended to represent the Person of a Disciple and John was the Master in that Scene so when he gave the Sacrament to his Disciples he was the Priest and they as the People receiving in both kinds for a standing Rule and Example unto all Posterity Phil. a Vivendum Legibus non exemplis We must live by Laws and not by Example as the Lawyers wisely determine in all Cases Theoph. I had thought our Blessed Saviors Example had been a Law and Rule to Christians in such things as fall within the compass of their imitation Learn of me saith our Blessed Savior for I am meek and lowly of heart But moreover the Apostles then receiving the Sacrament in both kinds had express command hoc facite so to give the Sacrament unto others as he had don to them Phil. When you Comment upon a Text it shall not fail to speak your sense and do your work But what will you say if our Savior himself administred the Sacrament in one kind I hope this Practice and Example will satisfie you Theoph. Let me hear the Instance and I will give my Answer Phil. In Emaus he gave the Sacrament unto those two Disciples with whom he communed in the way And S t Luke observes Immediatly their eies were opened and they knew him Luke 24. 31. And it follows in that Chapter ver 35. He was known of them in breaking of Bread This wonderful effect shews it was the Sacrament and yet we read only of one kind which he consecrated and gave unto them The Text saith v. 30. He took Bread and blessed it and brake and gave unto them the Ceremonies exactly which our Savior usd in his consecration of the Sacrament Theoph. This will not prove what you desire That our Savior now gave the Sacrament to these two Disciples for these Circumstances of giving Thanks or Blessing or breaking of Bread were usual at ordinary Meals whereof we have a full proof in the Acts of the Apostles We read there cap. 27. how in a great Tempest the Soldiers and Marirers and Prisoners in all 276 Souls in the Ship had fasted fourteen days we may suppose so long they had made no setting Meals and Paul being assured from God of all their safety he exhorted them to be comforted and to take some meat for their health sake and when he had thus spoken he took Bread and gave thanks to God and when he had broken it he began to eat ver 35. Here you have the same Ceremonies of taking of Bread and blessing and breaking and yet doubtless it was a common refection sure the Apostle did not give the Sacrament to so many Infidels in the thip Phil. The Case is not the same neither the Expressions For in Luke the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He blessed the same which our Savior usd in the Institution of the Sacrament But in your Instance it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave thanks only said Grace before a Meal Theoph. Your Criticisin will help you little You know the Sacrament is call'd the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word which Paul used Phil. But those two at Emaus were Disciples and such a notable Miracle ensuing that their eies were open to know Christ at that instant in breaking of Bread this proves it was the Sacrament they receiv'd Theoph. That was an accidental Dispensation Our Blessed Savior upon their importunity turned with them into the Inn sat down to eat and immediatly before he vanish'd out of their sight he was pleas'd to discover himself unto them Phil. a L 3. de cons Evangelist c. 15. Facta est permissio usque ad Sacramentum panis ut unitate corp ejus participatâ removeri intellig impedimentum inimici ut Christus possit agnosci S t Augustin affirms it was the Sacrament and tells us That thro the power of the divel their eies were holden not to know Christ who was pleas'd to permit it until they came to the Sacrament of Bread that we should understand all impediments of the enemy against knowing of Christ shall be remov'd when we are united to his Body Theoph. In this Passage Augustin doth not clearly assert what you would have him but according to his usual Expressions elsewhere calling any mystical thing by the name of Sacrament he calls this Sacramentum panis because it had a mystical signification being accompanied with that notable Circumstance of the Disciples eies being open'd to know him And the allegorical or mystical signification is this That such as in the Church receive the Sacrament devoutly shall have their understandings open'd to know the Lord Christ more perfectly But I can demonstrate to the Doctors of your Church from their own Principles That our Blessed Savior did not give the Sacrament to his two Disciples at Emaus because he did not pronounce those words which make the Sacrament and change the Bread into his Body viz. This is my Body which you maintain to be the essential words of Consecration The others of blessing and breaking Bread and giving to them being but circumstances in comparison Again he did not consecrate in both kinds which your Doctors also account necessary to the Sacrament That the Priest should consecrate Bread and Wine and
Holy Scripture or Fathers speak of receiving Christs pretious Body and Blood for remission of Sins and the nurishment of our Souls you answer In one kind whole Christ is received and all his Benefits by a Concomitancy If we go further and prove the Elements were receiv'd distinctly by the People in the Apostles time and for so many Ages after You answer Vsu non praecepto they receiv'd it so by Custom and not by Precept Phil. Yes And upon this account we are not troubled with all your proofs of both kinds administred to the People so many Ages of the Church seeing afterwards that Custom generally ceas'd in the Western Church and the contrary Custom was introduc'd and confirm'd by three General Councils Constance Basil and Trent Theoph. 'T is truth in the 13 th Century giving the Cup unto the Laity began to grow out of use a Part. 3. Quaest 80. Art 12. Ex parte Sacramenti convenit ut utrumque sumutur c. Aquinas moves the Question Whether it be lawful to receive Christs Body without the Blood And concludes That in regard unto the Sacrament it self it was convenient that both kinds should be received because the perfection of the Sacrament consists in both but in regard unto the Receivers reverence and caution was required and that therefore in some Churches it was well observ'd not to give the Cup unto the People And yet before the same Aquinas had determin'd b Quaest 74. Art 1. Quantum ad effect in unoquoque sumentium Saeâ—â—mentum hoc vales ad tuicionem c. As to the effect of every Receiver the Sacrament secures both Body and Soul and therefore the Body of Christ is offer'd for the salvation of the Body and the Blood under the Species of Wine for the Soul Phil. He saith 't is offer'd to wit by the Priest but not communicated to the People Theoph. Put the Proposition together it is this Bread and Wine are the Materials of the Sacrament requir'd in regard of the benefit and effect in every Communicate for the preservation of his Body and Soul by the Body and Blood of Christ Well Aquinas he starts the Question Whether it was lawful to receive in one kind and determins the Point very tenderly But after this Angelical Doctor as they call him the School-men follow the Cry with full Mouth That there is no Precept to receive in both and no prohibition to receive in one kind That upon many Considerations it is expedient to with-hold the Cup from the Laity That the Church hath power to order things of this nature and That after the express determination of the Church in some General Councils it is even become necessary to with-hold the Cup and an Heresie to dispute against it Now to prepare the World for this new practice of receiving only in one kind that so it might be entertain'd in some places and get ground and afford some plea of a Custom in the Church the School-men started some preliminary Questions and concluded That whole Christ was received under each kind and he that received only the Body of Christ received likewise his Blood and Soul and Divinity by a concomitancy 2 sy That the whole intent of the Sacrament as to the People all the Essentials thereof were communicated under the Species of Bread with the Body of Christ. 3 sy That he who received in both kinds had no advantage of those who receiv'd only in one kind Altho we find this last Thesis not so generally admitted among themselves yet such as oppose must not be peremtory least the People should be sensible of some injury don them in being depriv'd of that benefit which should be exhibited more in both kinds then in one Phil. By your own relation you give us opportunity to observe how they proceeded upon good grounds and in a rational way to make good their Thesis and their practice of the Communion in one kind Theoph. It was necessary they should say somthing to endere the People unto a compliance designing to cheat them of one half of the Sacrament they would impose upon their credulity and tell them the other half which they receiv'd was as beneficial as the whole Phil. You are not ignorant how they shew many good Causes and Considerations for their with-holding the Cup and notwithstanding your pretensions and claim to the practice of the Church for so many Ages on your side our Doctors shew it was always free to communicate in one kind or in both and shew the early practice of the Church for this half Communion as you call it and I hope you will now give me leave to put in their Plea Theoph. Content And if you can ballance those Autorities which I have brought I will yield the Cause Phil. I am glad to see in you some hopes of Moderation and that you will be rul'd by Reason and Autority Theoph. Taking Christs Institution and the Holy Scripture along with us Phil. 'T is suppos'd there is no express Precept of Christ to determine the Church in all Ages to give the Communion in both kinds and where the Church is left free she may use her liberty and determin as occasion serves Theoph. You beg the Question and we have urg'd Christs Institution and Example in giving the Sacrament in both kinds and his Command to them to do likewise We have urg'd the Traditions of St. Paul the practice of the Apostolical Tunes Phil. You have urged and we have answered and let the impartial Reader judg between us but besides these Instances of the Sacrament in one kind out of the Holy Scripture Luke 24. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7. we have also Testimonies of the Primitive Church which speak on our side Theoph. We have prov'd our way abundantly by the practice of so many Ages do you so yours and then I will grant we are left free in this case every one to do as seemeth good in his eyes Phil. Not so neither when the Church hath restrain'd this liberty and forbid the Cup. Theoph. Whether your Church hath done better in the restraint then the Church for so many Ages before in allowing that Christian Liberty which you pretend for to receive in one or both kinds let the World judg but we deny any such liberty taken by the Church or allow'd by Christ to communicate in one or both kinds as the Church should please and we desire your proof Phil. First Bellarmin proves it lawful to communicate in one kind because the Church never condemn'd it Theoph. You should prove that they allow'd it But how should they condemn that which was not practic'd Could they divine a new Generation of Monks and Fryars should arise and perswade the People by subtlety and craft to lose their Spiritual Birth-right half the Legacy of Christ or rather the whole in a maim'd and undue Administration And moreover you have heard when the Manichees and other Heretics would have brought up this
committing scandalous Offences should be degraded and lie under the severities of Church Discipline and Penance proportionable to their demerrit and if at all they are restored to the Communion of the Church they should be as Lay-men and not restored to the Priests Office they should receive the Sacrament without the Quire with the common People b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Phil. a Lib. 4. c. 24. de Sacramento Euch. Nulla distinctio notari potest c. Bellarmin makes sport at this ridiculous Answer Saith he This punishment was somtimes so inflicted that persons offending should not be reconcil'd and admitted to this Laic Communion but in peril of Death nay not then neither as you have heard in the second Canon of the Council of Sardica Now to sick Men upon their Death-bed what distinction can there be of place or what preheminence can a Priest have more then a Lay-man and so Communio Laica no punishment Theoph. This is Wrangling not Disputing We say as b Epistola 52. Communicet ut Laicus non usurpet locum Sacerdotis Cyprian A Priest so offending let him become a Lay-man and in that quality admitted after repentance unto the Communion whether in the Church or in his House but let him not return unto the Priests Office One of your French Bishops Gabriel Albaspinus hath sufficiently confuted Bellarmin and all his Disciples in this Point shewing this Communio Laica implied the condition of a Lay-person and not any difference from a Priest in receiving the Sacrament only in one kind c Lib. 1. Observat c. 4. de Communione Laicâ Tempore Concil quibus de Laica Commun fit mentio c. For saith he in Cyprian ' s time and when these Canons fore-mentioned were made the Communion was given to the People in both kinds He brings many Instances to prove it Phil. d Ibid. constat ab annis plus octingentis usum in quibusd Ecclestis communiionis sub una specie in publico coetu fidelium Et constat Graecos nunquam hoc Latinis objecisse Bellarmin brings another Argument drawn from the consent and testimony of the later Ages of the Church That it is evident for more then 800 Years That in some Churches in the public Assemblies the use was to give the Sacrament in one kind And the Greek Church saith he never objected this as an Error to the Latin Church which is an Argument they accounted it lawful for otherwise they were willing and quick-sighted to discover all our faults Theoph. This shews Bellarmins confidence To assert stoutly and prove faintly How doth he make good the use of 800. Years Phil. The Councils of Constance and Basil say It had been in use for some long time as you have heard before And so Th. of Aquin. before this Council tells us That in some Churches it was well observed to with-hold the Cup from the People for the greater reverence and caution Theoph. These proofs fall short by more then half of 800 years Aquinas liv'd in the 13 th Century and then the Communion in one kind had got but little footing only in some Churches as he acknowledgeth the Councils followed in the 14 th Century We acknowledg the with-holding of the Cup from the People began after 1200 Years after Christianity in the Western Church but never in the Eastern Church Bellarmin offers at another proof of a longer date in Bernards time related in the History of his Life written by one of his Contemporaries one William an Abbot but those Books of his Life are so full of Legends that I would not choose to rake in such a Dung-hill They make Bernard to work as many Miracles as our Blessed Savior Phil. It is your securest way of answering our Autorities by slighting them But I have one considerable Argument more out of Bellarmin to prove the Antiquity of giving the Sacrament in one kind in the public Administration thereof out of the a Ordo Romanus Roman Ritual which is conceiv'd to have bin compos'd by Alcquine Tutor to Charles the Great above 800 years since Theoph. Out of which Ritual we have expresly proved the contrary already Phil. Hereby you may judg how slightly you examine things and Books for in the Ordo Romanus you will find That the Wine is consecrated in a little Chalice and the Pope drinks of it and afterwards the Arch-Deacon pours out some of the Consecrated Wine into a great Flagon or Cup of other Wine and Water and so it is Sanctified for the Peoples drinking but not Consecrated Theoph. This Passage proves the People did drink of the Cup but the Pope it seems must have some preheminence above them and for the distinction of the Wine Sanctified but not Consecrated I understand it not b Ordo Rom. vinum etiam non consecratum sed sang Domini commixtum c. The Ritual saith enough for the Cup which was given to the People The Wine not Consecrated but mix'd with the Blood of Christ out of the first Chalice is Sanctified to all effects And Bellarmin acknowledgeth it was call'd The Cup of the Lords Blood Phil. I come now to shew the Motives which induc'd the Church to with-hold the Cup. Theoph. I wish'd long since you would come to this Chapter for I did suppose your Proofs and Testimonies out of Antiquity would be insignificant but if there be sufficient reason for the practice it might excuse in part altho in truth no human Reason should prevail against Christs Institution in such things as are the Sacraments meerly of Instituted Worship Phil. Gerson the Famous Chancellor of Paris eminent for his Books full of Piety and Learning was present at the Council of Constance and hath written in defence thereof and of their Act in prohibiting the Cup unto the Clergy and he gives the reason of the prohibition First c Casâ—aliquo profundi potuit circumgestari sine periculo nequit out of great Reverence to Christs pretious Blood which if communicated to many might be easily spilt upon the Earth by the Deacons stumbling who should carry it to the People d Aliqui Latcorum barbas habent Aliqui Paralytici sunt It might stick upon their Beards and a Palsie hand might shake and spill it Theoph. These Inconveniencies are accidental and if involuntary God will not impure Sin to them As for the Lay-mens Beards the Priests are not such Shavelings but that they may be liable unto the same Objection And the Disciples of Christ at Supper with him are pictur'd with very grave Beards And withal these Inconveniencies may follow the Bread Consecrated It may stick in their Teeth and the crumbs may fall to the ground and you know your Doctors teach that whole Christ Divinity Soul and Body are contain'd in every minute Particle of the Host Out of such pretended Reverence me thinks you might be as solicitous That the Pretious Body and Blood of Christ should
not be receiv'd into the fuming Caldron of the Stomach and so keep the Sacrament from us all in your Patins and Chalices of pure Gold Phil. Another consideration is a Hyeme cito acescet Aestate putrescet That Wine will sooner grow sower and breed Worms if it be long kept as the Eucharist of Christs Body will not Theoph. Yes it will grow mouldy and vinew'd and besides the Mice may without care devour it But what needs this reservation of the Sacrament either in the Church or in our Houses Blessed be God we have Tranquility and Peace and if our Hearts did not draw back may Communicate often in the Church However you do not hold that Christs Blood under the Species of Wine can putrifie and what need you be so solicitous for the simple accidents of the Element of Wine Phil. Another thing is considerable b Fastidium bibentibus afferet Some persons may nauseate Wine and the common People are not us'd to drink Wine and so it may cause vomiting Theoph. Such an Instance seldom happening cannot prescribe against a general Rule of practice If the Stomach thro an occult quality should loath either Bread or Wine God would dispense with such a Man and likewise the Church And altho the common People do not drink Wine usually yet Experience shews that little Wine they take in the Sacrament never disturbs them Suppose I should tell them as you do It is Christs Flesh and Christs Blood really materially this would cause an abhorrency and loathing Men have not such Ganibal Stomachs easily to digest such Doctrines Phil. I pray forbear your Drollery and let me proceed In some remote c In quibusd 〈…〉 I le 〈◊〉 Countries near the Pole Wine cannot be had without great difficulty And shall they therefore forbear the Sacrament Theoph. Unto these Countries the Seas are open and Merchants Trade and Men should take care and be at some charge to fulfil an Ordinance of Christ for the great benefit of their Souls So in many Countries there is no Corn to make Bread but what convei'd from other places And now tell me seriously Are not these pitiful Shifts and shallow Considerations Reasons flowing from a Mans Invention rather then Judgment Shall these things ballance the Institution of Christ and the Apostles practice and of the Church for so many Ages the end and signification of the Sacrament as we have manifested at large If ye had weightier Motives most of your Doctors would not produce such as these and herein you do ingeniously declare That the wit of Man with all the advantages of Human Learning cannot speak a word of sense to justifie your unreasonable Practice against the Ordinance of Christ Phil. You make too much haste I have reserv'd the best Arguments to the last Is there not reason the Clergy should have some preheminence above the People in these great Mysteries a Alias dignitas Sacerdot I 〈…〉 um pa◠esset The dignity of the Clergy requires this difference Theoph. Their dignity appears in those things which Christ hath left to their Ministration in teaching and ruling the People distributing unto Christs Flock the Divine Food of his Word and Sacraments But the Lords Supper is common to all Gods children who are invited to feed at their Fathers table upon the same Provisions they all want spiritual Food and Nurishment for their Souls and Bodies and are all Invited to come and take the Waters of Life freely and they are Inhuman and Accursed who would forbid the Lords People to draw Water out of the Well of Salvation to cheer their Hearts with this Wine of Consolation Besides it hath bin declared before unto you out of Chrysostom and Theophilact That in the Sacraments of the Church under the Gospel the Priests and People are equally concern'd Phil. The last and weightiest Consideration is this That seeing the Church representative in three General Councils hath forbid the Cup unto the People It proceeds in them from a turbulent and Schismatical Spirit to be so clamorous and importunate to have it restor'd against the Canons of the Church I will produce the Canon of the Council of Constance which first determin'd the Sacrament unto one kind b Cana Koirn The Sacred General Council of Constance lawfully Assembled in the Power of the Holy Ghost Declares Determins and Defines That altho Christ Instituted the Sacrament after Supper and gave it to his Disciples in both kinds notwithstanding this the Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after Supper nor be received by the Faithful not Fasting And likewise altho in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was received in both kinds yet to avoid some Perils and Scandals the Custom is rationally introduc'd That the Priest Consecrating should receive in both kinds but the People only in the Species of Bread You see the Council fully approves the custom and confirms it and therefore past the severe Censure following That no Priest under pain of Excommunication c Bin. part 2. Tom. 7. Sessione 1◠Concil Constant Concil Sacrum generale Constans in Spiritu sancto legit congregattum declarat c. shall Communicate the People under both kinds And declares That such as pertinaciously affirm it to be unlawful or sacrilegious to give the Sacrament in one kind shall be proceeded against as Heretics You consider not therefore what danger you incur by arguing so peremtorily against this Point Theoph. We are not solicitous for the danger in the cause of Christ and defence of Truth and we know where your Church wants reason to justifie her practice she hath the argument of the Club with severity above mesure to maintain it But let us reason calmly in the Point What Motive induc'd the Council to make such a Decree notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the practice of the Primitive Church Phil. Your Party generally design to load the Council with the envy of that Expression Non obstante but you may observe the Council therein only had respect unto our Saviors giving the Sacrament after Supper notwithstanding which the Church appoints it to be receiv'd in the Morning and fasting Theoph. This was not the matter then in question and needed no confirmation for in the Primitive Times the Sacrament was given in the Morning and to such as were able to forbear it was given fasting But the great concern was the Communion in both kinds acknowledged to be Christs Institution and that he gave it to his Disciples in both kinds and then immediatl◠follows Hoc non obstante c. And therefore shift it off as well as you can the words of the Council decrees for the Communion in one kind notwithstanding Christs Institution and Example and the practice of the Primitive Church But however answer my question What induc'd the Council to decree it Phil. The Motive is express'd b Cum firmissime sit credendum nullatenus dubitandum c. Because we must
not doubt but stedfastly believe That whole Christ his Body and Blood is contain'd under either Species of the Sacrament And therefore such a custom of giving the Sacrament in one kind introduc'd by the Church and the Holy Fathers and observ'd for a most long time let it be taken for a Law Theoph. The first part is warily penn'd c Tam sub Specie panis quam sub specie vini veraciter contineri We must stedfastly believe that whole Christ is verily contain'd as well under one Species as the other So it may be if it be in neither and so we hold Christ is contain'd in neither singly but he is signified and Sacramentally represented and really and spiritually exhibited by the Sacrament in both kinds unto the Faithful Receiver His Body that was broken for us is signified by breaking of Bread and his Blood shed by the Wine poured out of the Cup and separated from the Bread in the Sacrament and therefore at present we will dismiss this School nicety and by the Councils leave not take it for granted That whole Christ Body and Soul is in either Species Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena Excommunicat communicet Populum sub utraque Specie But the principal motive follows Seeing such a custom of giving the Sacrament in one kind hath been introduc'd and most long observ'd by the Church and Fathers we Decree it shall be taken for a Law which shall not be changed or reprobated without the Autority of the Church b Bin. Tom. 8. Concil Basil Sess 30. Sub qualibet Specie est integer totus Christus landab quoque consuet commun Laices c. The Council of Basil makes and confirms the same Decree upon the same Motives Whole and intire Christ is under either kind and the laudable custom of Communicating the Laity under one kind induc'd by Church and Fathers and hither to most long observ'd and approv'd by Doctors skilful in Gods Law and in the Holy Scripture and in Church Canons long since Let it be a Law c. Phil. Yes The Custom and Practice of the Church should prevail with sober Men not given to Faction especially when confirm'd by General Conncils Theoph. Why should not then the Custom and Practice of the Church which we have prov'd for so many Ages prevail for administring the Sacrament in both kinds especially being exactly conformable unto Christs Institution and Command and Apostolical Tradition Phil. Stay there We absolutely deny any command of Christ or of his Apostles or of the Church representative in a General Council to administer the Sacrament in both kinds and we shew two Councils forbidding it Theoph. You deny but the Scriptures affirm And the reason why no General Council determin'd the Sacrament to be in both kinds was because the Institution of Christ and the Tradition of the Apostles and the practice of the whole Church was so full and express for it It was never put to the Question as I can find until the 13 th Century and from that time when the School-men began to swarm most of them being sworn Champions of the See of Rome The laudable Custom as the Council speaks approv'd by Holy Fathers viz. Monks and Friers crept insensibly into the Church And this must be made a ground of Canons to establish the Communion in one kind and forbid the Cup and declare a Curse upon all those that shall dispute it And now when I shall declare the reason I hope your goodness will excuse that great trouble to my self and you in those numerous Quotations and Testimonies I have brought to prove the practice of the Church for 1200 Years in giving the Sacrament unto the People in both kinds It was chiefly upon this design to manifest the gross absurdity of those two Councils Constance and Basil who as you have heard do ground their Decree for one kind upon the laudable custom of the Church taken up not above 100 Years before against the Institution of Christ and the conformable practice of the Church for 1200 Years And withal to manifest their impudence in calling that a custom rationally introduc'd when such a Diutissime obs trifling Motives are brought to establish it And in saying it was diutissime observata for a long time observ'd when they cannot shew one clear Instance save in the Age immediatly before That the Sacrament was administred in public in one kind in any Christian Church Phil. It doth not become your Prudence and Moderation so to undervalue General Councils Theoph. Alass Those two pitiful Councils of Constance and Easil you may call them Oecumenical but you give no more Autority to them then you think fit As far as their Decrees suit the Genius of the Court of Rome they are confirm'd and no farther a Part. 2. Tom. 7. pag. 1134. Exparte Approbatum in iis quae consra Wicclesum c. Binius in his Notes upon the Council of Constance tells us It was approv'd in part in those Decrees against Wicliff Husse and Jerome of Prague But in the determination of the Autority of a General Council above the Pope it was abrogated by two General Councils of Florence and the Lateran b Bin. Tom. 8. Sâ—ss 34. Câ—nâ— Basil Tan suum Simâ—niacum perjurum incorig Scismaticum fide devium injurium bonarum Ecclesiâ—e pâ—â—ditorâ—m So the Council of Basil deposing Eugenius the 4 th from his Papacy As a Simoniacal and perâ— jur'd Man an incorrigible Schismatic erring from the Faith injurious and betraying the Goods of the Church And choosing Amadeus Duke of Savoy Pope called Felix the fifth and Declaring That a Council is above the Pope and hath its Power immediatly from Christ Alas for these things this poor Council is hist off the Stage of the World c Sess 11. Bin in notis in Concil â—asil p. 526. Conciliabulum Schismat c. And in the Lateran General Council under Leo the 10 th It is call'd a Schismatical and Seditious Conventicle and altogether of no Autority And yet these are the Councils upon whose Aurority you so much depend to establish your half Communion and pronounce us all Heretical and Contumacious for not submitting our Reason and our Consciences thereunto even against the Scripture and against the Fathers of the Church Phil. But the General Council of Trent hath no Exception being held 18 years and confirm'd by Pope Pius the fourth and subscrib'd by his Cardinals as appears by the Bull of Confirmation See the Council of Trent set forth in Latin by John Gallemart D. D. and Professor at Douey Theoph. Of the Council of Trent read the History of Father Paul a Frier at Venice a Man of Learning Judgment and Piety beyond compare and there you will find what just cause the World â—ath to decline the Autority and Decrees of that Cabal That great Ecclesiastical Body whose Soul and Spirit was at Rome receiving day by day Orders and Directions and
Stories and Fables whereof the Reader may give himself an account in reading the History of that Council given by Binius in his 5 th Tome and there they pretend to shew how the former Council of Constantinople did impose upon many of the Bishops then present by corrupting Books and Testimonies and forcing their Votes to concur with them and this by the confession forsooth of those who had recanted and now sate in this Council to condemn and pronounce the other Accursed In the sixth Session they come close to the Point and examine the definition of that Conventicle as they are pleased to call it against Images but not in the usual way of Councils by debating particulars among them but referring all to a malapert Deacon one Epiphanius The Representative of the Arch-Bishop of Sardinia and he answers every Paragraph with Exclamation and Railing as the impartial Reader may observe To give one Instance the Council of Constantinople instead of the Picture of Christ sends us to the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper in commemoration of Christ and his Passion and calls the Eucharist Christ Image wherein he was best represented to his Church Here the Deacon wonderfully insults and triumphs over them and calls this fancy of theirs a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An extreme apoplectical Madness He declares unto all the World That never any of the Apostles or Fathers of the Church before them call'd the Holy Sacrament an Image Now when we shall consider that the use of Images and Pictures is chiefly for representation and that in the Sacrament Christs death is represented and himself commemorated this Assertion of the former Council might have well pass'd without such an outragious Censure and yet withal to see how confident men will soon be over-taken in their presumtions we read in Baronius that great Darling of the Church of Rome an account given of one Stephanus a Confessor and Martyr for Images who expostulating with Leo Isaurus for his Image-breaking b Bar. Tom. 9. Anno 765. num 9. Audi corp sang Christi Antitypa proscrib ab Ecclesiâ ut quae Imag. veram fig. tenent quae adoramus c. bids him likewise if he thought good proscribe the Antitypes of Christs Body and Blood which contain'd the true Image and Figure of Christ and were also worshipped That which was memorable in Stephanus to call the Eucharist The Image of Christ in the Council of Constantinople was abominable so partial are Men who swerve from Truth they have Mens Persons and Arguments in admiration or contemt meerly for the advantage of their Cause however the insolent Deacon was no tell-troth in saying The Council had no president for their Assertion when Stephanus one of his Martyrs for Images had before asserted the same Now the Council of Constantinople which this Deacon under the Patronage of the Council of Nice fain would baffle into a Conventicle as far as we can discern by their Definition which their Adversaries have set forth only to be confuted we given them thanks for it this Council I say designs in the Definition to lead Men from sensible things unto Spiritual shewing that in this World we must walk by Faith not by sight and if we have known Christ after the Flesh from henceforth to know him so no more That Christians thoughts should not be drawn outward and distracted with visible representations from Spiritual intendments They quote a saying of Gregory Nazianzen c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is an injury to have our Faith in colours not in the Heart And he adds That Picture which is engraven in the depth of the Heart is amiable to me Pictures made in colours will wash away They quote Chrysostom saying d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We enjoy the presence of the Saints in glory by their Writings having the Images not of their Bodies but of their Souls for those things which were done by them are the representations of their noble mind They quote a saying of Amphilochius Bishop of Ieonium e We take no care to represent in Tables the fleshly visage of the Saints by colours but to imitate their virtuous conversation We 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. have no need of Pictures They shew how Eusebius Pamphilus when Consiantia Augusta desired him to send an Image of Christ to her disswaded her from it What Image saith he would you have of his God-bead that 's impossible no man hath seen God at any time of his Man-hood We believe the humane Nature of Christ to be glorified and mortality swallowed up in life and how shall we express his Glorious Body with liveless colours and shadows The Disciples being in the Mount could not behold his transfigur'd Body whilst he was in the Flesh much less can we now represent or behâ—ld him after his Ascension into the highest Heavens Other Testimonies they bring but the Deacon excepts against them as spurious but these he allows as legitimate and sets himself to answer them but with very little satisfaction to the Reader Now I pray judg whether these are not more significant Testimonies against Images then the Council of Nice or any others yet have produc'd for them Now the determination of the Council of Constantinople after their confession of Faith upon the whole matter is this a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We unanimously determin That every Image of whatsoever matter or colour made by the wicked Art of Painters or Carvers be cast out of Christian Churches as alien and abominable And in the next words they condemn the Art of Carving or Painting as an ungodly and wicked Profession and forbid every one to keep a Picture in his House The Definition of the Council of Nice follows in the seventh Action After profession of the Faith of the six general Councils before them and Anathema's denounc'd against Heresies and Heretics they declare to hold uncorrupt all Traditions of the Church written and unwritten b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. whereof they say One Tradition is the making of Images suited to the History of the Gospel for confirmation of the Faith of Christs taking flesh and therefore say they With all diligence and exactness we define That Images of the Life-giving Cross and of Christ and of the Virgin Mary and of the blessed Angels and all the Saints shall be set up in Churches and Houses and High-ways and wrought in Copes and Vestments because the oftner these Images are seen the more they bring into remembrance and imitation such as are represented by them c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We also Decree To give Honor Salvation and Adoration to these Images not that true worship of Latria which belongs only to the Divine Nature but as to the Image of the Cross and to the Holy Gospels and that the Oblations of Incense and Tapers should be made for their honor And in the