Gregory that in case the sick person was in a condition to receive the Elements separately then this form was used The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee to eternal Life The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee to eternal Life which says he shews a distinct Sumption If he was in such weakness and extremity as to have them given mixt then it was said The Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Eternal Life which as well shews a Sumption of both the Elements though in a different manner according to the different state of the sick person The Communion of Infants is the next custom alledged by this Author Communion of Infants it was a very ancient and almost universal practice of the Church to give the Eucharist to little Children as soon as they were Baptized thinking it to be as necessary to their Salvation as Baptism and that they were as capable of the one as the other and therefore the Council of Trent which has condemned all those who say the Eucharist is necessary for Infants has herein determined against the general sence and practice of the Church and put no less men than St. Austin and Innocent a Pope of their own notwithstanding his Infallibility who were notoriously of this Opinion under an Anathema which how they can reconcile with their other principles of following Tradition and of the Churches Infallibility in all Ages I shall leave to them to consider and make out if they can But as to our present question when the Communion was thus given to Infants I utterly deny that it was onely in one kind I cannot indeed produce so many proofs that it was in both as in the Sick because there was not so much occasion in any History to make mention of the one as the other but that which was the very ground and foundation of this Practice of Communicating Infants and the reason why they thought it necessary to their Salvation namely those words of our Saviour John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you these do suppose an equal necessity to drink the Bloud as to eat the Flesh and to do both as well as one And hence St. Austine who denys as he says all Catholics do with him That Infants can have Life without partaking of the Eucharist expresses it in such words as suppose plainly their partaking of both kinds viz. * Parvulos sine cibo carnis Christi sanguinis potu vitam non habituros sine participatione corporis sanguinis Domini Ep. 106. Their distinct eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ as other Authors also do who mention this very thing in relation to Infants †Non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Hipogn l. 5. Corporis Dominici edulio ac sanguinis haustu satiatos Liber Catoh magni de Imag. c. 27. and Pope Paschal the Second who in the eleventh Century allows the mixing the two species for Infants by this means appoints them to take both and supposes it an original custom to do so and if we had nothing else yet the remaining custom in the Greek and Eastern and in all Churches that still continue the Communion of Infants to Communicate them in both kinds is as full an evidence of this as can be expected And de Meaux has not been able to offer any one example to the contrary but that poor one out of St. Cyprian which if it proves any thing it proves that the whole Christian Assembly received onely the Cup in their public and solemn Meetings as well as the Infant he mentions which he is not so hardy as to venture to say nor dare any one that understands any thing of St. Cyprian's time but the Story he would improve to his purpose is this ‖ Cyprian de Lausis p. 132. Edit Oxon. A Child who had been carried by its Nurse to an Idol Temple and had there tasted of a little Bread and Wine that was Sacrificed this was afterwards brought by its Mother who knew nothing of this matter to the Christian Assembly and there it discovered the strange misfortune had befallen to it For all the time of the Prayers it was in great trouble and uneasiness it cried and tost and was impatient as if it had been in a fit and an agony and seemed to confess that by its actions which it could not by words thus it continued whilst the Solemn Offices were performed and towards the end of them when the Deacon bringing the Cup about to all the rest at last came to that it turned away its face and kept its lips close and would not receive it but the Deacon poured in a little into its mouth against its will which it quickly brought up again not being able to retain what was so holy and sacred in its impure and polluted stomack This was a miraculous and extraordinary warning to others not to partake with any part of the Idol Worship or Offerings which they were in that time greatly tempted to and for this purpose St. Cyprian relates the thing of his own knowledge he being an eye-Witness of it But Monsieur de Meaux would have this serve to shew that the Child had the Cup onely given to it there being no mention of the Bread and therefore that it received but in one kind and consequently that it was the custom for Infants to receive but in one kind in St. Cyprian's time if so then it was the custom also for all Christians in their Religious Assemblies to receive onely in one kind for St. Cyprian mentions nothing at all of the Bread in this place given to the rest any more than to the Child and if de Meaux or any one that pretends to any thing of Learning will assert this That in St. Cyprian's time Christians in the public Communion received but one Species and that this Species was that of Wine I 'll willingly give them this instance of the Child and take them up upon the other where I am sure I have all the learned men that ever read St. Cyprian or understand any thing of Antiquity on my side But why does not St. Cyprian mention any thing of the Bread if that were then given to the Child or others Because he had no reason to do it in this short relation which was not to give an account of all that was then done by the Christians in their Religious Offices but onely of this accident which happened to the Child at that time it being his business in that Discourse to deter men from joyning in the Pagan Idolatry from the terrible Judgements of God upon several who had done this and after this remarkable instance of the Child he relates another of a man who had received the Bread in the Sacrament * Sacrificio à sacerdote celebrato partem cum caeteris ausus
so they may be offered to God and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death But this is no answer to the question for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice which it is not in a proper sence though it be not my business to shew that here but as it is a Sacrament Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament and why did he give both Species to his Apostles He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice for as such if it were so it was to be onely offered up to God but he gave both the Species to his Disciples and why did he do this if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was given by one and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God He does not receive them as a Sacrifice but as a Sacrament And why is the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the
presume he will not say they have the same right to it or interest in it that Christians have and yet I own they ought as much to have the Cup as they ought to turn Christians that is they ought to do both But yet first I think to become Christians and be Baptized before they have ordinarily a right either to Christ's Blood or to the Sacrament and it must seem very strange and grate very much upon all Christian ears to have it said that Turks and Infidels have a right to the Cup and Blood of Christ as well as Christians from this reason here of our Saviour to his Disciples concerning which it is I think very observable that to partake of the Sacrificial Blood and to drink that Sacramentally which was shed for the expiation of our Sins is a peculiar and extraordinary priviledge allowed to Christians The Jews were forbid all blood for this reason given by God himself ‖ Levit. 1◠10 11. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls The life of the Beast which was given and accepted by God for the life of the Offender that was forfeited by the Law was supposed to be in the Blood as 't is there added the life of the flesh is in the blood and therefore the Blood of the Sacrifice was poured out and so given to God at the Altar the peculiar vertue and atonement of Christs Sacrifice is attributed to his Blood We have redemption through his blood * Eph. 1.7 We are justified by his blood †Rom. 5.9 In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins ‖ Coloss 1.14 And without shedding of blood either under the Law or under the Gospel there was no remission to be had * Heb. 9.22 Now for Christians to partake and Communicate of that Blood in the Sacrament which was shed and sacrificed for them and by which they have atonement and expiation of Sins this is a peculiar favour and singular priviledge which Christ has vouchsafed to Christians and which he takes notice of at his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins The Author of the Treatise de caenâ Domini in the Works of St. Cyprian ‖ Nova est hujus Sacramenti doctrina scholae Evangelicae hoc primum Magisterium protulerunt doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina ut biberent sanguinem Christiani cujus esum legis antiquae auctoritas districtissimè interdicit Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet Evangelicum praecipit ut bibatur has remarked this as first brought in by Christ and as a new thing belonging to the Sacrament of the Gospel That Christians should drink Blood which the old Law did absolutely forbid but this says he the Gospel commands and St. Chrysostome †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. observes It is not now as it was formerly when the Priest ate of that which the People might not partake of but now one Body and one Cup is offered to all So it was it seems in his time and they had not then learnt the way of drinking the Blood by eating the Body which now they pretend to do in the Church of Rome we do say they partake of the Blood and the Body both together for the Blood is in the Body and necessarily joyned with it but besides that this depends upon that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon which this and a great many other things are built when it is yet too heavy and ruinous to bear its own weight yet this cannot here do the business for we are to drink the Blood and not to eat it that is we are to partake of it as separated from the Body as shed for us or else it is not a Sacramental partaking of it we are to receive Christ's Body as it was a Sacrifice for us but it was not a Sacrifice but as the Blood was poured out and separated from it and we cannot any other way partake of the Sacrificial Blood which is to be drunk by all Christians 5. It is a most groundless fancy and an Opinion perfectly precarious to suppose the Apostles were made Priests at our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament by those words Hoc facite and that they received the Cup onely as Priests None of the Ancients who write upon this Sacrament or upon these words of its Institution ever thought so nor did it ever enter into the head of any man till a few late School-men invented this new subtilty that they might have something to say against the clearest cause and to shift off if they could the plainest Evidence in the World and though they now generally take up with this Sophistical Evasion which Monsieur Boileau †Creavit instituit Sacerdotes his verbis hoc facite p. 189. insists upon yet some of the wisest men among them are ashamed of it Estius owns that this appears not at all solid nor agreable to ancient Interpreters * Nobis parum solidum videtur nec apud veteres interpretes Dist 12. §. 11. and confesses that Hoc facite belongs to the common People eating and drinking of this Sacrament and that St. Paul refers it to them ‖ Et Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illad facere etiam ad plebem refert edenter bibentem de hoc Sacramento quando ait hoc facite quotiescunque Suarez acknowledges it is not convincing †Hoc argumenti genus per se non convincere Disp 74. Tom. 3. And Alfonsus à Castro * Contra haeres Tit. Euch. p. 99. would not make use of it because he says it does not appear whether those words were spoken by Christ before or after he gave the Eucharist to the Apostles and he rather thinks after and that they took it not as Priests * Ib. He was aware of a difficulty if the Apostles took the Cup onely as Priests and by the right of Priests at the first Institution then it would be contrary to that to have any but Priests receive the Cup And then why is it ever given to the Laiety as it is sometimes by the Pope's favour and concession if it belong onely to Priests and the Priests onely have right to it from the first Institution because the Apostles received it only as Priests But so inconsistent are they to their own Principles that they do not give the Cup even to their Priests unless when they themselves Consecrate and Officiate None but the Minister Conficiens is to receive that though never so many other Priests be by so much at variance are they between this their pretence and their own practice and so do they fight even with their
words This is my Body Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present and when they are so what need is there of the other form This is my Blood to make the same thing present again which was truly present before It matters not at all in this case whether they be present by vertue of the consecration or by vertue of Concomitancy for if they be truly present once what need they be present again if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second why do they become the same thing twice or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient when upon the consecration of that it immediately becomes both Christ's Body and Blood and what reason is there for making the same Body and Blood over again by another consecration They might if they pleased say over the Bread alone Hoc est Corpus meum hoc est sanguis meus This is my Body and this is my Bloud for they believe it is so upon the saying those words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body And if it be so as soon as the words are pronounced they may as truly affirm it to be both as one What does it signifie to say they are both present by Concomitancy does not Concomitancy always go along with the Consecration is there any space between the Consecration and the Concomitancy is not the one as quick and sudden as the other and can it be said over the Species of Bread This is my Body before it can be as truly said This is my Blood why therefore may not they be both said together Nay it may be as truly said by vertue of this Doctrine not only This is my Body and Blood but this is my Soul and my Divinity for though they will not say it is made all those yet it becomes all those and truly is all those by this Concomitancy upon the Consecration and it may be said to be all those as soon as it is consecrated and at the same time that those words are spoke There being a distinct Consecration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Sacrament if Christ's Body and Bloud be really present there by vertue of the words of Consecration yet they ought to be as distinctly present as they are distinctly consecrated that is the Body present in the species of Bread and the Blood in the species of Wine for else they are not present according to the Consecration so that this Concomitancy by which they are present together does quite spoile the Consecration by which they are present asunder and so confounds the two Species as to make them become both the same thing after they are consecrated and renders the consecration of one of them to be without either use or sense 2. It makes the distinct Sumption of both the Species to be vain and unnecessary to any persons to the Priests or to any others to whom the Pope has sometimes granted them and even to the Apostles and all the first Christians who received both for if the one contains the very same thing with the other and gives the very same thing what need is there of having or of taking both that is of taking the very same thing twice over at the same time If one Species contain Jesus Christ whole and entire his Body Bloud Soul and Divinity and all these are given by one Species what can be desired more as de Meaux says Then Jesus Christ himself and what then can the other Species give but the same thing is Jesus Christ with whole Humanity and Divinity to be thus taken over and over and to be taken twice at the same time if he be why not several times more and if he were so this might be done by taking several times the same Species since one Species contains the same as both even the whole substance and the whole essential effect of the Sacrament and the very person of Jesus Christ himself This does so alter the nature of the Sacrament by which we have a continual nourishment conveyed to our Souls and receive the Grace and Spirit of Christ by fresh and daily recruits and in several measures and degrees every time we Communicate that it makes it not onely to no purpose for any person to take more than one Species at once but to take the Sacrament more than once all his whole life for what need he desire more who has received together with the humanity of Jesus Christ his Divinity also whole and entire †P. 314. and if he has received that once there is no reason for receiving it again for this as it renders the Grace and Substance of the Sacrament Indivisible as de Meaux often pleades so it renders it Infinite to which nothing can be ever added by receiving it never so often and if we thus make this Sacrament to give the very Body and Bloud of Christ and so the whole and entire Person of Christ and his whole Humanity and his whole Divinity instead of giving the spiritual Graces and Vertues of Christ's Body and Bloud we then make every Communicant to receive all that by one single Communion which he can ever receive by never so many thousands and we make all persons to receive this alike however different the preparations and dispositions of their minds are and even the most wicked and vile wretches must receive not onely Christ's Body and Blood but even his Soul and his Divinity and his whole and entire Person for though the spiritual graces and vertues may be given in different measures and degrees and in different proportions according to the capacity of the receiver yet the Humanity and Divinity of Christ which is whole and entire in each Species never can Thirdly If Christ's Body and Bloud were thus always joyned together in the Sacrament and were both contained in one Species yet this would not be a true Sacramental reception of them for to make that they ought to be taken as separate and divided from one another his Body from his Blood and his Bloud from his Body and not as conjoyned or mixt together this was the way and manner which Christ himself appointed and this is the onely way by which we can be said to eat his Body and to drink his Blood and as they own they ought to be thus consecrated so they ought also to be thus received for I cannot understand why they might not be as well consecrated together as received together and why it would not be as true a Sacrament with such a Consecration as with such a Sumption nay I think the Consecration this way would have more sense in it than
separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and slain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with all the wounds he received in his body the total effusion of his blood ‖ Ib. Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded and his bloud as thus poured out in this mystical Table and why must Concomitancy joyn those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided Christ's body and bloud we say ought to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration Is Christ then divided P. 310. is his body then despoiled of bloud and blood actually separated from the body ought Christ to die often and often to shed his blood A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it Why do they then make this separation of his body and bloud when they consecrate it if that be onely mystical and representative so is it in our reception much better for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and bloud as they do to consecrate them but onely his mystical body and bloud which is always to conserve this figure of Death and the character of a Victim not onely when it is consecrated but when it is eaten and drunk which it cannot otherwise be 'T is this errour of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildred and entangled themselves in this matter and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament they have run themselves into endless difficulties and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given without being thus explained Surely so wise a Law-Giver as our blessed Saviour would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easie to be understood by them it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself and as they are necessary to be observed by us that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by This practice must begin some where and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it antecedent to their own practice There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law and not the Law the Rule of Practice and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away if they are left wholly to the mercy of men to explain them For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meaux's must not be admitted without some caution and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law it self and from the divine Institution of them as I have all along shewn in this Treatise It would have been a great reflection upon the Church if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ though so plain and express a Law ought neither to loose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ as Communion in one kind and I have therefore fully shewn that its Practice has always agreed with this Law in opposition to de Meaux who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to and founded upon the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ ought to take place and is antecedent both to the Churches Practice and the Churches Authority As to Tradition which was the main thing which de Meaux appealed to I have joyned issue with him in that point and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that but there is another more considerable plea which is prior to Tradition and which as de Meaux owns †P. 201. Is the necessary ground work of it and that is Scripture or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture which is so plain and manifest that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case onely I would set it in its right place and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition but Tradition upon the Law of Christ and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases with this reasonable Proviso That it does not interprete us out of a plain Law nor make void any Command of God that may be known
reverence it as Boileau falsly says o Eucharistiam pro praesente numine semper habuisse Veteres the Ancients did as a present Numen and Deity This Feast was appointed by Pope Vrban the 4th about the middle of the twelfth Century and again by Clement the fifth in the beginning of the 13th as is owned by themselves upon the occasion of a Vision to one Juliana who saw a crack in the Moon that signified it seems a great defect in the Church for want of this Solemnity such was the rise of this great Festival p Bzovii Annal. in Contin Baron Anno Dom. 1230. and so late was its Institution in the Roman Church in which alone and in no other Christian Church of the World it is observed to this day And that the whole practice of the Adoration to the Host is Novel and unknown to the primitive Church and to the Ancient Writers I shall endeavour to make evident against that bold and impudent Canon of the Council of Trent which is the first Council that commanded it in these words q Si quis dixerit non esse hoc Sacramentum peculiari festivia celebritate venerandum neque in processionibus secundum laudabilem Universalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum consuetudinem solenniter circumgestandum vel non publice ut adoretur populo proponendum ejus Adoratores esse Idololatras anathema sit Concil Trident. Can. 6. Sess 13. If any one shall say that the Sacrament is not to be worshipt by a peculiar Festival nor to be solemnly carried about in Processions according to the laudable and universal manner and custom of the Holy Church nor to be publickly proposed to the People that it may be adored by them and that the Worshippers of it are Idolaters let him be accursed To confront this insolent pretence of theirs that it was an universal custom of the Church thus to carry the Sacrament in Processions the ingenuous confession of their own Cassander is sufficient The custom says he r Consuetudo qua panis Eucharistiae in publica pompa conspicuus circumfertur ac passim omnium oculis ingeritur praeter veterum morem ac mentem haud ita longo tempore inducta recepta videtur Illi enim hoc mysterium in tanta religione ac veneratione habuerunt ut non modo ad ejus perceptionem sed ne inspectionem quidem admitterent nisi fideles quos Christi membra tanta participatione dignos esse existimarent quare ante Consecrationem Catechumeni Energumeni paenitentes denique non Communicantes Diaconi voce Ostiariorum Ministerio secludebantur Cassand Consult of carrying about the Sacramental Bread in publick pomp to be seen and exposed to all eyes is contrary to the mind and custom of the Ancients and seems to be lately brought in and received for they had this mystery in such religious Veneration that they would not admit any not only to the partaking but not to the sight of it but the Faithful whom they accounted members of Christ and worthy to partake of such a Mystery Wherefore all those who were but Catechumens or were Energumeni or Penitents and not Communicants were always put out and dismist at the Celebration of it Whether they be Idolaters for adoring the Sacrament I have considered already and their practice joined with their Doctrine makes it more evident I shall now prove that this Adoration of theirs was neither commanded nor used by Christ or the Apostles nor by the Primitive Church nor is truly meant and designed by any of those Authorities of the Fathers which they produce for it and upon a general view of the whole matter That it is a very absurd and ridiculous thing that tends most shamefully to reproach and expose Christianity 1. That it was not used or commanded by Christ or the Apostles is plain from the account that all the Evangelists give us of Christs celebrating this Sacrament with his Apostles where is only mention of their taking and eating the Bread and drinking the Wine after it was blessed by him but not the least tittle of their adoring it so far from it that they were not then in a posture of Adoration which they should have been in if they had inwardly adored it which makes this not only a Negative Argument as Boileau ſ De Adorat Euch. l. 2. c. 1. would have it but a positive one To take off this argument from the no mention of any such command or practice of Adoration to the Sacrament in the Gospel he says Neither is the Adoration of Christ prescribed in express words t Nullo exiis loco conceptis verbis praescriptam fuisse Adorationem sc Christi p. 27. nor that of the Holy Ghost either commanded or performed u Nullibi praeceptam ejus Adorationem aut confestim peractam conceptis intelligamus p. 98. But I hope all those places of Scripture that so fully tell us that both Christ and the Holy Ghost are God do sufficiently command us to worship them by bidding us worship God and if it had told us that the Sacrament is as much God as they it had then commanded us to adore it There are sufficient instances of Christs being adored when he appeared upon Earth and had the other Divine Persons assumed a bodily Shape those who had seen and known it would have particularly adored it and so would the Apostles no doubt have done the Sacrament if they had thought that when it was before them an object of worship St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. c. when he wrote to the Corinthians of their very great Irreverence in receiving the Lords Supper had very good occasion to have put them in mind of adoring it had that been their Duty this then would have been a proper means to have brought them to the highest reverence of it but he never intimates any thing of worshipping it when he delivers to them the full account of its institution and its design nor never reproves them among all their other unworthy abuses of it for their not adoring it and 't is a very strange fetch in Boileau w Ib. p. 103. l. 2. that he would draw St. Pauls command of examining our selves before we eat to mean our adoring when or what we eat and that not discerning the Lords body and being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ is the not worshipping the Sacrament which he never so much as touches upon among all their other faults Are there not many other ways of abusing the Sacrament besides the not worshipping it this is like his first Argument out of Ignatius his Epistles x l. 1. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Smyr at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere debere praeter Solum Deum that because he says the Sacrament ought to be loved therefore he meant that it ought to be adored At which rate I should be afraid to love this
of this for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins JESUS took bread and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it And he said unto them This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many And 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 testament in my blood which is shed for you The LORD JESUS the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new testament in my blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me From all these it evidently appears that our Saviour appoints the Cup as well as the Bread and commands that to be drunk as much as the other to be eat And two of the Evangelists remark that particularly of the Cup which they do not of the Bread that they all drank of it and that Christ said expresly to them Drink ye all of it As if the infinite Wisdom of God which foresaw all future events and all the after-errours that should arise about this Sacrament had had some especial regard to this very thing and designed to prevent the abuse and mistake of those who would not have all Christians drink of this Cup as well as eat of the Bread. What other reason there should be of those particular and remarkable words in St. Mathew and St. Mark relating to the Cup more than to the Bread I believe it will be hard to find out for Christ gave them the Bread just as he did the Cup and there was no more danger that any of them at that time should omit drinking the one any more than eating the other nor did there need any greater caution that we know of or more particular command in reference to themselves for the one more than the other and yet no doubt there was some great and peculiar reason for St. Matthew and St. Mark 's adding of those words of which there can be no such probable account given as their having a respect and relation to after Ages as many other things in the Scripture have which was written for the use not onely of the present but all times of the Church and if these were spoken to the Apostles onely as Priests as the Roman Sophisters pretend though without any ground as we shall shew by and by there cannot then be given any reason for them as yet for there is no such corruption yet got into any part of the Christian Church as to forbid the Priests to drink of the Cup and therefore it cannot be said that this remark or precaution was upon their account unless the Romanists will think fit to take it to themselves upon the account of their not allowing their very Priests to Communicate of the Cup unless when they Minister and Consecrate and so will have it regard onely that other abuse of theirs which is unjustifiable even upon their own grounds to wit That the assistent Priests are not to receive it though Christ by their own confession said to the Priests who were present Drink ye all of it Which is the best way that I know for them to come off of those words by their own Principles For to avoid the force of those words and to elude the plain Command and Institution of our Saviour about the Cup 's being given to all Christians they say The Apostles received it onely in the capacity of Priests and that our Saviour's Command Drink ye all of it belongs onely to Priests and was given to the Apostles meerly as such nay Monsieur Boileau says ‖ Igitur haec verba S. Matthei bibete ex hoc omnes haec S. Marci biberant ex illio omnes neminem hominem praeter duodecim Apostolos spectant aut attinent Boileau de pracepto divino Commun Sub utrâque specie p. 188. that those words in St. Matthew Drink ye all of it and in St. Mark they all drank of it Respect no man whatsoever nor belong to no other man but to the twelve Apostles and Monsieur de Meaux tells us P. 237. that these words were addressed to the Apostles onely who were present and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunk of it Then it seems none but the Apostles themselves no other Priests have a right or a command to drink of the Cup but onely the Apostles And this they might say if they pleased upon as good grounds and defend with as much reason as that the Apostles onely drank of it as Priests but I suppose they do not intend to improve this notion so far but mean onely the same with their Brethren who say that those words concern the Apostles not onely in their own persons but as Priests and as bearing the persons of all Christian Priests in which capacity alone they received the Cup and were commanded by our Saviour to drink of it whereas they received the Bread as Lay-men and as representing the whole body of private and ordinary Christians What a sudden change is here in the Apostles they who sat down as Lay-men and as Lay-men took the Bread just before have their capacity altered in a trice and are made Priests in a moment Yes say they so they were at that very time they were made Priests whilst they were sitting at Table with Christ and Celebrating this his last Supper the first and only ordination that ever was either in the Jewish or Christian Church in the time of eating and siting at Table And they may set up I dare say for the first Authors among all the Christian Writers that ever were of this Opinion that is now held by them That Christ at his last Supper appointed not onely one but two Sacraments that of Orders as well as that of the Eucharist and the first without any proper Solemnity for such a purpose without any outward Action or any Words one would think importing any such thing But they were made Priests say they by vertue of those words Hoc facite Do this which Christ spake to them after he had given them the Bread. This is a very short and a quick form of Ordination and had it been known to be one sooner for 't is a very late discovery I suppose the Roman Church would have kept to that in the Ordaining Priests as they do to Hoc est Corpus in Consecrating the Sacramental Bread But this
the Bread and Wine St. Paul who wrote to the Laiety would no doubt have taken notice of it and told them their respective duties but he delivers the Institution to them just as Christ did to his Apostles says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup but on the contrary adds that command to it which is in none of the Evangolists Do this in remembrance of me Gives not the least intimation that this was given to the Apostles as Priests or that they were made Priests then but what is observable does not so much as mention the Apostles or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution and to whom the words Do this were spoken So that so far as appears from him they might be spoken to other Disciples to ordinary Laics nay to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament as well as the Apostles and so must have been made Priests by those words Hoc facite as well as they After the recital of the Institution in which he observes no difference between the Priests and Laics he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup they shewed forth the Lord's death till he come So that they who were to shew forth Christ's death as well as the Priests were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup and indeed one of them does not shew forth his death so well as both for it does not shew his Blood separated from his Body He goes on to shew 'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking for he all along joyns both those Acts as a phrase signifying the Communion and he expresly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter But in some Copies say they instead of and he uses the particle or in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drinking without doing both which is such a shift and cavil as nothing would make a man catch at but such a desperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it If the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were used in that place instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet he has but little skil either in Greek or Latine Authors who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both to use that disjunctive for a copulative as to Abraham or his seed for to Abraham and his seed ‖ Ro. 4.13 Of which it were easie to give innumerable instances both in the Bible and profane History The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses and all along in this Chapter and having joyned eating and drinking cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive and to separate them but after all there are Copies of as great Credit and Authority for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles as to make it worth our while to examine them for if the Apostles did disjoyn them it was onely to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking which though they both go together yet are both very great Sins and I see no manner of consequence that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily that therefore he should onely eat and not drink at all or that the Apostles supposed it lawful to eat without drinking or drink without eating But the Apostolical practice and the Institution of our Saviour for Communion in both kinds though it be very plain and clear in Scripture and being founded upon so full a Command and a Divine Institution I know no Power in the Church to alter it or vary from it yet it will be further confirmed and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church and of the purest Ages after the Apostles and by the general consent of Antiquity for a thousand years and more after Christ in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful who came to the public Worship and to the Communion in both kinds without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety as to this matter which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author till after the Twelfth Century in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in struck men with such horror and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols which they believed to be turned into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins and now by a miraculous way was conveyed into the Chalice Hence at first they used Pipes and Quils to suck it out of the Cup and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine and afterwards the same superstition increasing they came to leave off and abstaine wholly from drinking the Cup which was reserved onely to the more sacred lips of the Priests who were willing to be hereby distinguisht from the more unworthy and prophane Laiety The Council of Constance first made this a Law in the Year 1415 which was before a new and superstitious custom used only in some few places and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latine Communion for it never was in any other nor is to this day of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas who lived in the Thirteenth Age and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time * In aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicetsanguine reliqui vero Corpore Comment in Johan c. 6. v. 53. In some Churches it is observed that onely the Priest Communicates of the blood and others of the Body †In quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur sum p. 3. q. 80. In quibusdam in Aliquibus Ecclesiis shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds and never varied from what Christ and his Apostles had commanded and delivered to them as the Church of Rome now does I shall fully prove that so according to Vincentius Lirinensis his rule against all manner of Heresies the truth may be establisht First ‖ Primo scilicet divinae legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione by the authority of a divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church which
tremendous Mysteries and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Petr in Biblioth Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body and his most precious Bloud That under the name of St. James after the Prayer of the Priest that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lytur Jacob. Ib. which word all supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates represents the Deacons after the communion of the Clergy as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and after they had received of both the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of his Blood * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them the immaculate Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Marcl Ib. and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith Sobriety ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and Christian Vertues Which had bin very improper if none but himself had bin to partake of them So that whatever Antiquity and whatever Authority may be allowed to those Lyturgies who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind And those Churches who used these Lyturgies and so probably ascribed these Names to them as Hierusalem that of St. James Alexandria that of St. Mark these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies But to come to the more Authentic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom which are now used in the Greek Churches though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations there is a manifest proof in both of them for the Communion in both kinds In the former the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants that we all who partake of one Bread and one Cup may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ to judgement or condemnation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Easil so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone nor was alone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ in another Prayer he mentions the people expresly and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe by his great power to give unto them his pure Bloud and by them that is by the Priests to all the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And as the Priest thus prays for the People and for others before the Communion so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words We give thee thanks O Lord our God for the participation of thy holy pure and heavenly Mysteries which thou hast given us to the benefit sanctification and health both of our Souls and Bodies Do thou O Lord of all things grant unto us that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Chrysost Savil. Edit Tom. 6. which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow and that which is in the Cup his Blood †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. that so they may become to those who partake of them for the cleansing of the Soul the remission of Sins ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and the like And having used that Prayer Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood and by us to all the people He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine and uses particular expressions at the giving of each As this hath touched thy Lips and will take away thy Sins and purge away thy Wickedness * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God and in Charity †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And though there is no particular description of their Communion as there is of the Deacons yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same and had it been different no doubt there would have been an account of it but after all the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving in the name of all Blessing God that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 1003. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Cassander in his Lyturgies tells us * Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost Basilii Lyturgiis convenit Lyturg. per G. Cassand That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two both in the prayers and the orders of the performance and in this the people as he informs us pray towards the conclusion That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood †Populus sub finem benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus Benedictus sit qui aedit sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum pretiosum sanguinem suum Ib. and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Bloud And again Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins which they call Missals they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage and which contain the Communion in both kinds as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum publisht at Rome by Thomasius where the Gelasian Form that is older than the Gregorian speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders and with all the People ‖ Post haec Communicat sacerdos cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo P.
199. without any difference and all along mentions both the Symbols by the words Sacramenta Mysteria Dona in the plural number and concludes with this Prayer That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace * Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur p. 198. The three other are lately published by Mabillon and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church before that Nation had received the Roman Office in all which also there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds in the old Gothic one after the Lord's Prayer follows this †Libera nos à malo Domine Christe Jesu Corpus tuum pro nobis crucisixum edimus sanguinem sanctum tuum bibimus fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem sanguis sanctas tuus in remissionem peccatorum hìc in aeternùm Missale Gothico-Gallicanum apud Mabillon de Lyturg. Gallic p. 300. Deliver us from evil O Lord Jesus Christ we have eaten thy Body crucified for us we have drunk thy holy Blood which was shed for us Let thy sacred Body be unto us for Salvation and thy sacred Blood for the remission of Sins here and for ever And in the Missa Dominicalis after the Communion there is this Prayer Thy body O Lord which we have taken and thy Cup which we have drunk let it stick in our entrails ‖ Corpus tuum Domine quod accepimus calicem tuum quem potavimus haereat visceribus nostris Ib. p. 297. An expression used now in the Canon Missae In the Missale Francorum which is but short the Sacramenta and Mysteria and Sacrosancta Mysteria are used in the plural which may denote the two parts of the Sacrament but in the old Gallican Missal it is as plain as can be in the Collect after the Eucharist We have taken from the holy Altars the body and blood of Christ our Lord and our God Let us pray that we being always filled with Faith may hunger and thirst after Righteousness * Sumsimus ex sacris altaribus Christi Domini Dei nostri corpus sanguinem oremus ut semper nobis fide plenis esurire detur ac sitire justitiam Ib. p. 331. And in another Collect after the Communion upon Easter day We beseech thee O Lord that this wholsome food and sacred drink may bring up thy Servants †Quaesumus Domine famulos tuos salutaris cibus sacer potus instituat Ib. p. 366. There are several old Missals produced by Menardus at the end of his Notes on Gregory's Sacramentary which are supposed to be written about the Tenth and the Eleventh Century and though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation creeping in in those dark and ignorant times made them begin to have a superstitious fear of spilling the Wine and so brought them in order to prevent that to mix the two Elements together yet they never gave the one without the other as appears in all those Masses The Sacramentary of St. Gregory is alone a sufficient Authority for Communion in both kinds in which the Priest who Celebrates prays that as many as shall take the sacred Body and Blood of thy Son may be filled with all heavenly blessings ‖ Quotquot ex hâc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti repleamur Gregor Sacram. and we who take the Communion of this holy Bread and Cup are made one body of Christ * Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem hujus sancti panis calicis unum Christi corpus efficimur Ib. So that the Body and Blood of Christ were plainly to be taken by more than himself and were so by all the Faithful who were thereby to be made the Body of Christ so we are fed with his flesh we are strengthned by his bloud †Cajus cane pascimur reboramur sanguine Ib. Thou hast refreshed us with the body and bloud of thy Son ‖ Corpore sanguine filii tui nos resecisti Ib. and we beseech thee that we may be numbred amongst his members whose body and bloud we do Communicate * Quaesumus ut inter ejus membra numeremur cujus corpori communicamus sanguini Ib. I have before considered the Ordo Romanus as an ancient Ritual of the Latine Church and both that and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory which are the most ancient Writings at least next to Gelasius that give us an account of these things in the Roman Church do bear witness to the custom of giving the Cup in the Communion as well as the Bread which Cassander also observes †Quem morem sanguinis Domiai porrigendi antiqua Sacramentaria B. Gregorii libellus Ordinis Romani apertè testantur Cassand Consult de commun sub utrâ que who had as great skill as any man in these matters but yet had not seen the Gelasian Sacramentary since published out of the Queen of Sweden's Library which is a further confirmation of this 3. As to the Testimony of the Fathers or ancient Writers some of those have been already given upon the two former heads I shall add several others to them who bear witness to the Communion in both kinds Ignatius in one of his Epistles says One Bread is broken to all one Cup is distributed to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph And here I cannot but admire the Confidence and Folly of Monsieur Boileau * De solitario pane mentionem facit Ignatius Boileau de praecept Divin Commun sub utráque p. 216. who brings this very passage One Bread is broken for them all as a proof that it was onely the Bread that was given and leaves out what is immediately added One Cup is distributed to all which not onely confutes but shames him †Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus says The flesh is fed by the body and bloud of Christ and that of the Cup and the Bread the substance of our flesh is increased and consists ‖ Quando ergo mixtus calix fraclus panis percipit verbum Det fit Eucht istia sangutnis corporis Christi x quibus augetur consistit carnti nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donatio is Dei. qui est vitae aeterna quae sanguine corpere Christi nutritur membrum ejus Id. l. 5. c. 2. And from hence he there proves the Resurrection of the Body against those Hereticks that denied it because the body is nourished by the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him He must mean this of
the Bodies of all Christians unless the Resurrection of the Body belong onely to the Priests as well as the Cup. Tertullian upon the Resurrection says the same with Irenaeus Our flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ * Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur Tertul. de Resur carnis And in his Book to his Wife he speaks of her taking the Cup in two several places †Dâ—â—câ—jus manu desiderabit dè cujus poculo participabit Id. ad uxor l. 2. c. 6. De cibo de poculo invadere desiderare in mente habere Id. c. 4. Upon one of which a very learned Critic of the Roman Church who owns those places to belong to the Communion has made this observation to our hands At that time the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated in both Species ‖ Sub utrâque specie illo tempore convivium Domini cerebratur quod tantâ aviditate arripiebatur ut illud invadere desiderare in mente habere De la Cerda Not. in locum p. 634. Even to Women it seems who I suppose were no Priests Origen upon the Book of Numbers says We drink the bloud of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist as well as Spiritually by believing his Doctrine * Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se cum sermenes ejus recipimus Quis est iste populus qui in usa habet sanguinem bibere Origent homil 16. in Num. When he had before asked What people drink of Bloud St. Cyprian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters as the Souldiers of Christ Considering that for this very purpose †Gravior nunc ferocior pugna immicet ad quam parare debent milites Christi considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bibere ut possint ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam Edit Oxon. they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Bloud that so they may also shed their bloud for Christ. And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lapsed upon this very account to arm and fortifie them for farther tryals and persecutions How can we teach or provoke them to shed their bloud for the confession of Christ if we deny them the Bloud of Christ ‖ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrit poculum idoneos facimus si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communionis admittimus Ep. 57. ad Cornel. Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord in the Church by the right of Communion The excellent Epistle * Ep. 63. Caecilio fratri of that Holy Martyr against those who out of a principle of abstaining wholly from Wine or lest they should by the smell of Wine which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacrifices Simili modo calicem quod si à Domino praecipitur ab Apostoloejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divine Magisterio non recedamus Ib. Quod nos obandire facere oportet quod Christus fecit faciendum esse mandavit Ib. discover themselves to be Christians used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine is so full a demonstration that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sacrament and that Christ's Institution and Command could not otherwise be observed that there needs no other Arguments but what that great Man there uses to shew the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine Christ Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quod alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prier fecerit Ib. Quomodo autem de creaturâ vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno patris bibemus si in sacraficio Dei Patris Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus Ib. says he gave the Cup and we are to do that which Christ did and ought by no means to depart from what was commanded by Christ and delivered by the Apostles upon any custom or pretence whatsoever How shall we drink says he of the fruit of the Vine with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father if we do not now offer the Wine in the Sacrifice and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians is plain from that fear which some had lest by their drinking it in the morning they should smell of it * Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi Ib. p. 155. and so discover themselves to the Heathens It was then it seems a mark to know Christians by That they did smell of the bloud of Christ which if they had done as the Papists now do they need not have been afraid of But to proceed to others who though they speak less of this then St. Cyprian yet speak plainly of Christians taking the Bloud as well as the Body Athanasius speaking of the Cup says It belongs to the Priests of right to give this to the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apolog 2. St. Basil in one of his Epistles says It is good and profitable to Communicate every day of the Body and Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Caesar And speaking of the peculiar Vertues of Christians asks What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Moral denoting that to belong to all Christians St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner speaks of Christians as being all Died and Purpled with the Bloud of Christ †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacerdot l. 3. And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites As thou eatest the Body of Christ so did they Manna as thou drinkest the Bloud of Christ so did they Water out of the Rock ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor. And in another place he expresly observes what I have taken notice of before That 't is not now as under the Jewish Law where the Priest partook of several things from the Altar which the People did not There is no difference between the Priest and the People when we come to receive the Holy Mysteries for one Body and one Cup is offered to all †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. St Hierom says The Priests serve the Eucharist and divide the Bloud of the Lord among the People * Sacerdotes Eucharisticae serviunt sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt Hieron in Sophon c. 2. And upon occasion speaks of some loose and vitious Women who yet would not abstain from the bloud of Christ ‖ Ebâ—â—â—tati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt Absit ut ego me à Christi sanguine abstineam Id Ep. ad Eustoch So that this it is plain was taken by the Women St. Austin to the newly Baptized Christians says That in all their tryals and their time of being Catechumens they did approve themselves that they might eat the Lord's Body and drink the Cup * Vt cum seipsos probaverint tunc de mensâ Domini manducent de calice bibant August de fide Oper And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews because it was offer'd in Sacrifice but from taking the Bloud of the Sacrifice of our Lord no one says he is not onely forbidden but all are exhorted to drink of it who will have Life †Ab hujus sacrificii sanguine in alimeatum sumendo non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam Id. in Levit. qu. 57. I might easily bring down the like clear authorities of ancient Writers much lower even to the times of the very Schoolmen who are the first that ever mention any thing about the Communion in one kind But that I may not over-load my self or my Reader I shall onely offer one or two more of much later date but yet more considerable to our Adversaries at least because they believed Transubstantiation but had not it seems improved it into that consequence which Superstition afterwards did of Communicating in one kind Paschasius Ratbertus Abbot of Corbey was the very Parent of Transubstantiation and the first founder of that Doctrine in the Ninth Century yet in the same Book in which he broaches that new Opinion he fully and plainly asserts the old Practice of the Communion in both kinds The Priest says he consecrates by the power of Christ and performs the part of Christ between God and the People he offers their Prayers and Oblations to God and what he hath obtained of God he renders to them by the body and bloud of Christ which he distributes to every one of them ‖ Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum populum agere videtur infert per manûs Angeli vota populi ad Deum refert Vota quidem offert munera refert autem imperata per Corpus sanguinem distribuit singnlis Paschas de Corpore sanguine Domini c. 12. Those Singuli must be the People whose Prayers the Priest offered and to whom he distributed the Bloud as well as the Body of Christ and to shew further that the Bloud was given in the Sacrament not to the Priest onely but to the People he most expresly says That when Christ gives the Sacrament by the hands of the Ministers he says also by them Take and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as all the rest that believe This is the cup of my bloud of the new and everlasting testament * Et ideo hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens Accipite bibete ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui credeates hic est calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni testamenti Ib. c. 15. Then which words there could nothing have been said that does more directly destroy the late pretence of our Adversaries of the Cup 's being given and belonging onely to the Priests or Ministers and not to all the Faithful or the Reliqui Credentes But he still goes further as to this matter and makes the partaking of the Bloud to be necessary to Salvation in another Chapter It is manifest says he †Constat igitur liquet omnibus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine cibo potu non vivitur sic itaque ad illam aeternam non pervenitur nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur Ib. c. 19. that in this mortal life we cannot live without meat and drink so therefore likewise can we not come to eternal life unless we are spiritually nourisht with those two unto Immortality and speaks of the Cup in the very next words To him I shall add Algerus a very zealous defender of Paschasius his Doctrine of Transubstantiation and as heartily agreeing with him in the practice and necessity of Communicating in both kinds Because says he we live by meat and drink that we can want neither therefore Christ would have them both in his Sacrament ‖ Vnde etiam quia potu clod ita vivimus ut alterntro carere nequeumus ntrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit Algerus de Sacramento l. 2. c. 5. And as he redeemed both our body and our soul by his body and blood so he argues * Nos qui corpore animâ perieramus corpus per corpus animam per animam Christus redimens simul corpus sanguis sumitur à fidelibus ut sumpto corpore animâ Christi totus homo vivificetur Ib. c. 8. we ought to partake both of his body and of his blood that our whole man may be quickned by both Then he quotes St. Austin and Gelasius for the taking of both Species †Vnde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur Item Gelasius Majorico Joanni Episcopis Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantùm corporis portione à calice sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab Integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Ib. c. 8. From whence as St. Austin says neither the flesh is rightly Communicated without the blood nor the blood without the flesh So also Gelasius to Majoricus and John Bishops We find that some taking onely the part of the body abstain from the Cup of the holy bloud who ought unquestionably either to take the whole Sacrament or to be kept wholly from it because the division of one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge He that had this Belief and these Arguments for it could not but be a great enemy to the Mutilated and Sacrilegious Communion in one kind however great a friend he was to Transustantiation and his authority and his words are the more remarkable because he lived in the Twelfth Century which makes him as a great many others then were which I could produce an undeniable Evidence that that corruption was not brought into the Latine Church till the next Age against which we have
kind will be quite taken off and destroyed but because this is the great Plea and the fundamental reasoning which he every-where uses in his Book I shall therefore fully consider it under these two Questions 1. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit do not belong to one Species or be not given by one Species which is by both 2. Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament I. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit be not given by one Species as by both This de Meaux every-where asserts and 't is the foundation he all along goes upon but is it not strange presumption when God has been pleased to appoint such a Religious Rite and Sacramental Action to be performed in such a manner with a promise of such graces and benefits to those who perform it aright to think he will grant the same benefits to those who perform it otherwise than he has appointed and to venture to make a change and alteration from what he positively ordered and yet think to partake of the same benefits another way without any such outward means and without any Sacraments at all for they are wholly in his own free disposal and he is not tied to any outward means nor to such particular means as the Sacraments are but since he has thought fit to make them the ordinary means of conveying those benefits to us we cannot ordinarily hope for the one without the other thus we cannot expect the vertue and benefit of Baptism without the outward ceremony of washing and without observing that in such a way as Christ has appointed i. e. washing with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost neither can we receive the inward grace and vertue of the Eucharist without taking that Sacrament as Christ hath appointed and commanded it for all Sacraments would loose their worth and value their esteem and reverence and would not be necessary to be observed according to the Divine Institution if without the observance of that we had any just grounds to hope for the vertue and benefits of them there is therefore all the reason in the World to fear that God to preserve the integrity of his own Institution and the force and authority of his own Laws will deny the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to those who wilfully violate and transgress the outward observance of it in such a way as he has appointed Has not Christ annexed the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to the outward Sign If he have and we do not receive the outward Sign as he has appointed how can we then hope to receive the inward Grace What is it that makes such an outward sign or ceremony as a Sacrament be a means of conveying such spiritual Grace and Vertue and exibiting such inward benefits to our minds It is not any physical power or natural vertue which they have in themselves it is not the washing with a little Water can cleanse the Soul or the eating a little Bread and drinking a little Wine can nourish and strengthen it but it is the Divine Power of Christ who by his Institution has given such a spiritual and inward vertue to such outward signs and visible actions and made these the means and instruments of conveying and exhibiting such grace and vertue and real benefits to us all the power and efficacy they have to do this is owing purely to the Divine Institution and wholly depends upon that if therefore we do not observe the Institution how can we expect the benefit that comes wholly from that and if Christ by the Institution has annexed the grace and vertue and benefit of the Sacrament to both kinds which he has plainly done by instituting of both how can we then hope to receive it by one contrary to the Institution and how can we be assured that we loose nothing and are deprived of nothing by taking one onely and that this is as good and sufficient as taking of both There is nothing appears from the will and pleasure of him that instituted both upon which the whole vertue of them does entirely depend from whence we can gather any such thing it rather appears from thence that both are necessary because both are instituted de Meaux therefore does not fetch it from thence but from the nature of the thing it self from the inseperableness of that grace which is given in the Sacrament and from the impossibility in the thing to have it otherwise Christ says he cannot seperate the vertue of the Sacrament nor effect that any other grace should accompany his Blood shed than that same in the ground and substance which accompanies his Body immolated †P. 182. But Christ can annex the vertue of the Sacrament to the whole Sacrament and not to any part of it and he can effect that the grace of his Body and Blould should accompany or belong to both the eating his Body and drinking his Blood and not to the doing one of these without the other contrary to his command and institution although the grace be inseparable so that the grace annexed to the Body be no other than that which is annexed to the Blood ‖ P. 3. yet this grace may not be given till both the Body and Blood are received as Bellarmine expresly says it may not in the case of the Priests taking both kinds till the whole sumption of both Species is performed and finished * Possit etiam dici Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam nisi totâ sumptione Eucharistiae absolatâ quia cum sumitur utraque species non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utraque species ideò Eucharistiam sub specie panis conferre quidem gratiam sed non ante sumptionem alterius speciei Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l. 4. c. 23. and if it may not be so in the case of the Priest why not also in all other Communicants unless Christ have made and declared it otherwise which he has not what will it then signifie if as de Meaux says It be impossible to separate in the application the effect of Christ's Bloud from that of his Body †P. 182. If the effect of these be not applied till they are both received and there be no application of the effect as we cannot be assured there is without the receiving of both But did Christ then says he suspend the effect which his Body was to produce until such time as the Apostles had received the Bloud in the first institution of this Sacrament and in the internal between their taking the Bread and the Cup I answer they did not receive the grace of the Sacrament till they had received the
the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing †P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened †P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and
themselves upon the Sabbath on which they were commanded so strictly to rest it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable and not any Tradition or any sentence of the Sanhedrim and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath does not reprove them for keeping it as it was commanded or otherwise than Tradition had explained it but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week this was not done by Tradition but by the Apostolical Authority and whatever obligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven it can neither be proved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now or I may adde if they were that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law. All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up are very short of proving that and though I have examined every one of them except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead which is both false and to no purpose yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down If any instance could be found by de Meaux or others of any Tradition or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution and to a plain Law of God they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ‖ Mar. 15.3 Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law so as to make it of none effect was truly ancient and authentic and derived to them from their fore-Fathers but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void and was contrary to a Divine Law. There is no Tradition nor no Church which has ever broke so plain a Law and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution as that which has set up Communion in One Kind the true reason why it did so was not Tradition no that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it but onely some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first the danger of spilling the Wine and the difficulty of getting it in some places and the undecency of Laymens dipping their Beards in it These were the mighty reasons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie as he calls it of Communicating in both Kinds †Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt or that men wore Beards or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance and therefore he takes very little notice of them and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine because he all along pleades for either of the Species and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament because both are commanded and both instituted and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament and so to the essence of it and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament because that is annext to both by the Institution and cannot warrantably be expected without both To conclude therefore Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament which is to represent the Death of Christ and his Blood separated from his Body a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them to wit His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us and which it is the peculiar priviledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of and lastly a robbing them of that Grace and Vertue and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part but to the whole of it and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life to be tainted and poysoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace and the Cement of Unity among all Christians and to make them all one Bread and one Body may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil be made a means to divide and separate them from each other and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve FINIS A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1. A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion 2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith being an Answer to Three Questions I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sence of Scripture II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession can teach the true
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near
were which was the thing our Saviour here designed The greatest part of the publick Jewish Worship was fixt to the Temple and to Jerusalem their Tithes and First-fruits and Firstlings and Festivals as well as their sacrifices and there may be divine Worship without sacrifice as well as with it and whatever the Worship be which our Saviour here says was to be spiritual it was not like the Jewish to be fixt to one place which is the true scope of those words to the Samaritan Woman in answer to her question v. 20. whether mount Gerizim or Jerusalem was the true place of Worship which was the great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans our Saviour determines for neither but puts an end to the question and says that now under the Gospel the Worship of God was not local and as to the manner of it that it was spiritual The second and principal Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass is from Christs institution and first celebration of the Eucharist with his Disciples and here indeed is the true place to find it if there be any such thing but I have already shown ‖ pag. 8 9 10. that Christ did neither then sacrifice himself nor command his Disciples to do so and have taken away that which is the very Foundation of the Mass-sacrifice and without which every thing else that can be said for it falls to the ground There are but two other and those very weak ones behind the one out of the 13th of the Acts where it is said of Saul and Barnabus and the prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch that they ministered unto the Lord but could not they minister and perform the divine office and service without sacrificing it must be first proved that that was part of the religious office before it can appear that it was mâ—â—nt here it is said they fasted and prayed in that probably their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministry consisted or as St. Chrysostom ‖ Homil. 37. in Act. and after him Oecumenius explain it in preaching but that they sacrificed there is not the least evidence The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to sacrifice but to perform any proper function and therefore it is attributed in the Scripture both to the Angels who are called ministring spirits †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.14 and to the Magistrates who are called the Ministers of God ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13.6 and yet sacrificing I suppose belongs to neither of them nor does their own vulgar Latin so Translate it here The last is out of the 1 Cor. 10. for Bellarmine gives up that out of the Hebrews 13. We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle though 't is as much to his purpose in my mind as any of the rest but some Catholick Writers he says do by altar mean there either the Cross or Christ himself †Quia non desunt ex Catholicis qui eo loco per altare intelligunt crucem aut ipsum Christum non urgeo ipsum locum Bellarm. de Mis c. 14. but if it were meant of the Eucharist that is but an Altar in an improper sense as the sacrifice offered on it is but improper and metaphorical as we shall prove but in the place to the Corinthians the Apostle Commands them not to eat of things offered to Idols for to eat of them was to partake of things sacrificed to Devils and so to have communion with Devils which was very unfit for those who were partakers of the Lords Table and therein truly communicated of the Body and Blood of Christ as those who are of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the Jewish Altar Now what is here of the sacrifice of the Mass or any way serviceable to it Why yes the Apostle compares the Table of the Lord with the Table of Devils and eating of the Lords supper with eating the Jewish and the Heathen sacrifices therefore the Christians ought to have an Altar as well as the Jews and what they fed on ought to be sacrificed as well as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Apostle says nothing of this nor makes any such comparison between them but only shows the unfitness of Christians eating of the Heathen sacrifices who partook of the Lords Table he does not call the Lords Table an Altar nor the Eucharist a sacrifice nor was there any danger that the Christians should go to eat in the Idol Temples but he would not have them eat of their sacrifices brought home and the whole comparison lyes here the eating the Lords Supper did make them true partakers of the Lords body and blood sacrificed upon the Cross as eating of the Jewish sacrifices did make the Jews partakers of the Jewish Altar and as eating of things offered to Idols was having fellowship with Devils so that they who partook of such holy food as Christians did should not communicate of such execrable and diabolical food as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If indeed Christians could not partake of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist unless they first made a proper sacrifice and oblation of them then the Apostles discourse would necessarily suppose and imply them to be thus offered as the Jewish and Heathen sacrifices were before they were eaten but since Christs body and blood being once offered upon the Cross is a sufficient sacrifice and oblation of them and the Eucharist is a religious and Sacramental Feast upon the sacrifice of Christ once offered this is sufficient for the Apostles scope and design in that place where there is no other comparison made between the Table of the Lord and the Table of Devils but that one makes us to be partakers of the body and blood of Christ and the other to have Fellowship with Devils and as to the Jewish Altar the Antithesis does not lye here as Bellarmine would have it between that and the Table of the Lord that both have proper sacrifices offered upon them which are eaten after they are sacrificed but the Cross of Christ rather is the Antithesis to the Jewish Altar on which sacrifices were really and properly slain which are not on the Christian Altar and the feeding and partaking of those sacrifices so offered whereby they were made partakers of the Altar this answers to the sacramental feeding upon Christs body and blood in the Christian Altar whereby we are made partakers of the Cross of Christ and have the vertue and merit of his sacrifice communicated to us Thus I have considered and fully answered whatever our Adversaries can bring out of Scripture for their sacrifice of the Mass I shall now offer some places of Scripture that are directly contrary to it and do perfectly overthrow it and though their cause must necessarily sink if the Scripture be not for it because without a Scriptural Foundation there can be
the same sacrifice and continuing daily to offer it shows that it was not sufficient nor did do the business at once offering as the frequent using the same medicine shows that it has not fully cured the wound nor yet perfectly done its work Secondly The sacrifice of the Mass they say is only to apply the vertue and merit of the sacrifice of the Cross for though the sacrifice of the Cross like a powerful medicament have sufficient vertue in it yet what does that signifie unless it be applyed to us which it is by the sacrifice of the Mass But is there not another way to apply that to us Is it not applied to us by Faith and by the common means of Christs own institution the Christian Sacraments and especially by the Worthy Receiving of the Lords Supper wherein as the Apostle says The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 We do hereby communicate and are made partakers of Christs Body as it was sacrificed for us that is of all the vertues and benefits of his sacrifice by being as the Apostle adds verse 17. Made partakers of that One bread that is surely by eating it sacramentally and religiously as Christ has appointed for it would sound very hard and be a very odd expression to say we are partakers of that one bread by the sacrificing or offering up of that bread when they will not own that the bread is sacrificed or if it were could we well be thereby partakers of it but 't is the eating of that bread which makes us partakers of it and 't is the eating Christs Body and drinking his Blood in the blessed Sacrament that communicates and applies the vertue of his sacrifice of the Cross to us and not the sacrificing of that again as the Apostle goes on verse 18. Are not they who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the Altar 't is eating and communicating that makes us partakers of Christs sacrifice We do then eat of the sacrifice and so partake of it as the Jews did of their sacrifices the communion is a feasting upon a true oblatum the body and blood of Christ as is excellently made out by a Learned man of our own we do not there sacrifice Christs body but only sacramentally eat of it as being already sacrificed and offered once for all by Christ himself upon the Cross It is not at all necessary that it should be sacrificed again by us to make us become partakers of it for cannot a sacrifice be applyed without being sacrificed again It seems a very strange and uncouth way to sacrifice the same thing over and over in order to applying the vertue of it as if the Jews when they had slain the Paschal Lamb must have slain another Lamb in order to the partaking the vertue of it no they were to eat of it for that purpose and so are we of Christs sacrifice and this is the way whereby we do communicate of it and have its full vertue applyed to us It was the weakness and insufficiency of their sacrifices that made them so often repeat them and sacrifice them anew but Christs sacrifice being perfect is to be but once offered though it be often to be eaten and partaken of by us which it may be without being again sacrificed Thirdly The Authour of this Epistle makes not the least mention of Christs sacrifice being offered again upon Earth or of its being repeated in the sacrifice of the Mass but after he himself had once offered it upon the Cross he immediately speaks of his presenting it to God in Heaven and there by vertue of it interceeding and mediating with him for us that by his own blood he entered into the holy place having obtained eternal Redemption for us chap. 9. ver 12. as the Jewish high priest on the great day of expiation after he had offered the sacrifice of atonement for the whole Congregation upon the Altar carried the blood of it into the Holy of Holies and there sprinkled it before the mercy-seat Levit. 16.15 This great Anniversary sacrifice for the whole Congregation was the great Type and Figure of Christs sacrifice for all mankind and the Holy of Holies was the Type of Heaven and the High Priest of Christ as is confessed by all Christ therefore our great High Priest to whom alone it belonged to offer this sacrifice of Atonement and Expiation for the whole World having done this upon the Cross he entred not into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true but into heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us chap 9. ver 24. To appear there as our Advocate and Mediator and by vertue of his own blood there presented to his Father to make a very powerful intercession for us Now from this discourse of the Apostle we have a full account of Christs sacrifice that it was to be once offered upon the cross and then to be carried into the Holy of Holies in Heaven and no more to be offered upon Earth for this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God chap. 10. ver 12. The Apostle speaks not one tittle nor gives the least hint or intimation of this sacrifice being offered again by others upon Earth this lyes cross to the whole tenour of his discourse and the similitude and agreement which he represents between the Jewish sacrifice of Atonement and Christs is quite altered and destroyed by it for besides the High Priests offering this sacrifice this makes every lesser Priest to be still offering the same sacrifice upon the Altar when the High Priest is entred with the blood of it into the Holy of Holies and though he cannot go in there upon which the vertue and the perfection of the sacrifice does in great measure depend yet still to offer the same sacrifice and besides it makes this sacrifice like to the Jewish where every priest standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which for the reason shewed they could never take away sins chap. 10. ver 12. in opposition to which he says this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God verse 13. that is Christs sacrifice was never to be repeated as the Jewish were for if it had been to be offered by others though not by Christ himself and the Christian Priests were to stand daily ministring and offering the same sacrifice both they and their sacrifice would have been the same upon this account with the Jewish and there had not been that difference between them which the Apostle does there plainly mean and declare Further it cannot but seem very strange that when this Divine Author does so largely and copiously and designedly treat of
destroyed by eating If it be they are true Cannibals or Capernaitical feeders that eat it I had thought that Christs body was not thus grosly to be broke by the Teeth or chewed by the jaws of the priest or Communicants so as to be destroyed by them The Gloss upon Berengarius his Recantation says this is a greater Heresie then his unless it be understood of the species and not of the body it self and they generally disown that Christs body is thus carnally eaten but only the Sacramental species but the species are not the sacrifice and therefore 't is not sufficient that they be destroyed but the sacrifice that is the body of Christ must be so Christs body as it is food is not a sacrifice but a Sacrament they make two distinct things of it as it is a sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament as it lies in the Pix or is carried to the sick it is food and a Sacrament but they will not allow it to be then a sacrifice and on Maunday Thursday it is eaten but not accounted a sacrifice †Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non censetur sacrificium Missae propriè celebrari licet vera hostia adsit frangatur consumatur Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 27. B. The Consumption then by eating belongs to it not as a sacrifice but a Sacrament and the body of Christ is not then consumed but only the species nay the body of Christ is not then consumed under the species for the real consumption belongs only to the species and not to the body of Christ which is no more truly consumed with them or under them then it is as sitting in heaven no more then a mans flesh is consumed when only his clothes or his mantle is tore tho he were in them What though it ceases to be really on the Altar and ceases to be a sensible food as he farther explains or rather intangles it Is Christs body ever a sensible food And is its ceasing to be upon the Altar a consumption of it Then Isaac was consumed when he was took off from the Altar on which Abraham had laid him and if his Father had been as subtle as our Roman Sophisters and Sacrificers he might only have covered him with the skin of the Ram and have consumed that as an external species by fire and so Isaac had been both sacrificed and consumed and destroyed too and yet have been as live as ever for all this Such absurdities do they run into when they will make their notion suit of a true sacrifice and that which is not one and a man of sense must yet destroy his sense one would think before he can talk at this rate They are most sadly nonplust and most extremely divided among themselves about the Essence of this their sacrifice of the Mass and wherein they should place the true sacrificial act whether in the Oblation of the Elements or in consecration of them whereby they suppose them turned into Christs Body and blood and so in the express Oblation of those to God or in the fraction and commistion of the consecrated Elements or in the manducation and consumption of them Suarez and Vasquez and others are for the last of all the Council of Trent seems to be for Oblation Bellarmine is for consecration whereby instead of Bread and Wine Christs Body and Blood are placed upon the Altar and ordered for consumption Melchior Canus is for all the four last and he tells us it is the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas †docuisse Thomam sacrificium ante fractionem hostiae esse peractum sumptionemque spectare propriè ad sacramentum oblationem verò ad sacrificium Can. Loc. Theol. l. 12. p. 833. that the sacrifice is performed before the fraction of the Elements and that the sumption of them belongs properly to the Sacrament the Oblation to the sacrifice so that they know not what to pitch upon to constitute it a sacrifice and if we examine them all we shall find no true proper sacrificial act in any of them the Oblation of the Elements before consecration can by no means make such a sacrifice as they design for that is but an offering of earthly things not of Christs body neither are they thereby changed or consumed and tho they are an offering they are not a proper sacrifice though in some sense they are a sacrifice and were accounted so by the Fathers as I have shown The Fraction of the Elements after they are consecrated which is done by the Priest not for distribution for they give them whole to the people but for another mystical reason this is not the formal Essence of the sacrifice for Christ they own did not break them in this manner at his last Supper when yet they will have him sacrifice and this is sometimes omitted by themselves neither is manducation for this is performed by the people as well as the priest when they communicate and sacrificing does not then belong to them nor is it ever their work but only the Priests and yet they then eat and consume the sacrament as well as the priest so that sacrificing cannot properly lye in this neither can it be proved that Christ did himself eat when he is supposed to sacrifice and besides both this fraction and manducation belongs only to the species they are the only proper subject of those actions but it is the Body and Blood of Christ that is sacrificed and not the species For this reason therefore consecration it self cannot well pass for the formal act of sacrificing for 't is the Bread is consecrated not Christs body 't is the bread only is changed by consecration that is supposed indeed to be destroyed when it is consecrated and if this be sacrificing it is sacrificing of nothing or at most 't is but sacrificing of bread which is a meaner sacrifice then many of the Jewish neither is this change of it visible and external but they will needs have the sacrificing action to be sensible and external or else the sacrifice will not be so and if it be only a spiritual and internal and mental offering up of Christs body and blood to God this is not proper sacrificing of it again but only by inward Faith and Devotion which we are very willing to allow But consecration must set Christs body upon the Altar and put it into the hands of the priest and then it must be visibly offered to God and visibly consumed and this is the true way of sacrificing it for Bellarmine takes in consumption as necessary together with consecration the oblation he owns is not verbal neither did Christ thus offer his Body and Blood at his last Supper but after he had blessed and brake the bread he gave it to his Disciples but placing this upon the Altar by the words of consecration is a real Oblation of it and then eating and consuming it there formally constitutes the sacrifice The
were in Authority as the Apostle commands and as we find they did at large in St. Cyril * Catech. Mystag 5. and the Apostolick Constitutions †l. 8. c. 12. and it was in the Sacrament they used their Litanies or general Supplications for all men and for all things as is evident beyond all dispute from those places where they prayed not only for the Church and the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and all the faithful but for the King or the Emperor where they lived for the City and all its inhabitants for the sick for the Captives and banished for all that Travelled by Sea or by Land and so for all things for the peace of the Church and for the quiet of the Empire and for all temporal mercies as well as spiritual for the fruits of the Earth and for the temperature of the Air and for all things they stood in need of Now they did not think the Eucharist did as a sacrifice impetrate all this or as a real instead of a verbal prayer as Bellarmine represents it to be * Ipsa enim oblatio tacita quaedam sed efficacissima est invocatio Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 8. B. but they made particular and express prayers for these in the Eucharist and did not think that was to supply the place of prayer or be a prayer in action or in dumb signs instead of words neither did the primitive Church ever say a Mass for to quench a fire or stay an Earthquake much less to cure the Murrain in Cattle or to recover a Sheep or a Cow or Horse when they were sick as is scandalously and shamefully done by those who ascribe such an impetratory power to it that it shall do the work in all cases 6. To make it a sacrifice truly propitiatory in its self and yet only applicatory of the vertue of another sacrifice is if not a contradiction yet a great absurdity for if it only apply the vertue and efficacy of another sacrifice viz. That of the Cross which is the only sacrifice of Redemption that made true expiation for sin how can this then be called truly propitiatory if only that other be propitiatory and this is but applicatory of that other A certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or infallible medicine for all Diseases is given and applyed to us by such a vehicle is the vehicle therefore that applies this the Medicine it self Or has that an infallible vertue because the Medicine that is applyed by it has such a vertue Is laying on a Plaister or applying it to the wound the same thing with the Plaister it self that was made up or compounded long before If the Mass-sacrifice be truly propitiatory it must be a sacrifice of Redemption if it be only Applicatory and not a sacrifice of Redemption in it self then 't is not truly propitiatory The Eucharist we all say doth apply to us the sacrifice of the Cross or the benefits of Christs death as it is a Sacrament but it is not therefore propitiatory as it is such nor is it any way necessary it should and as a sacrifice it cannot be applicatory for it must be offered to God and therefore as such it could not apply any thing to us for our giving it up or sacrificing it to God is quite another thing and very different from Gods giving or applying it to us God gives Christs body and blood to us in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament but as it is a sacrifice we must give it to him and that would be as strange a way of applying it to our selves as a Patients returning his Physick or making a present of it to the Doctor would be a new and strange method of taking it himself And that the Priests intention should apply this is still as strange for the Priests intention in the Mass is to consecrate and so to sacrifice and that is giving the thing to God and not applying it to others if he gives them the sacrament indeed to eat then he applyes the sacrifice of Christs body and blood to them but how he can do this when he does not give it them but only give it to God that is sacrifice it I do not understand The Jews had the vertue of their sacrifices applyed to them by eating of them or by having the blood sprinkled upon them or by some such Ceremony to make them partakers of them but that another sacrifice was offered or the same sacrifice reiterated in order to applying of them is a thing unknown and unheard of Christs sacrifice is applyed to us by the sacrament of Baptism and therefore that also is called a sacrifice as it both represents Christs death and confers to us the benefits of it thus Chrysostom expounds that place of Scripture there remains no more sacrifice for sin * Heb. 10.26 that is he can be no more baptized †Chrysostom Homil. 16. in Epist ad Hebr. and Bishop Canus says * hinc illi antiqui baptisma translatitiè hostiam nuncupârunt Can. loci commun l. 2. c. 12. the antients from hence called Baptism a sacrifice but figuratively and not properly and just thus indeed they called the Eucharist Bellarmine was so sensible that this would destroy the notion of the Eucharists being a proper sacrifice that he absolutely denies that * Nusquam Patres haptismum vocant sacrificium hostiam Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 15. the Fathers do ever call baptism a sacrifice but he is shamefully mistaken as appears from the confession of Bishop Canus and because I will not wholly depend upon that I will produce one or two plain Authorities for it out of St. Austin †Holocaustum Dominicae passionis eo tempore pro se quisque offert quo ejusdem Passionis fide dedicatur August in Exposit ad Roman Every one says he does offer for himself the sacrifice of Christs passion at that time when he is dedicated in the Faith of his passion And the sacrifice of our Lord is in a certain manner offered for every one then when in his name he is signed by Baptism * Holocaustum Domini tunc pro unoquoque offertur quodammodò cum ejus nomine baptizando signatur Ib. Baptism is then called a sacrifice as well as the Eucharist though it is only properly a Sacrament and the sacrifice of Christ is there plainly applyed to us without a sacrifice and so it may be as well in the Eucharist 7. They suppose it to be the same sacrifice with that of the Cross but not to have the same vertue and efficiency which as Bellarmin says seems very strange * mirum videtur cur valor sacrificii hujus sit finitus cum idem sit hoc sacrificium cum sacrificio crucis Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. F. for the Council of Trent declares it to be one and the same sacrifice with that of the Cross and one and the same offerer namely
and as serves only for their purpose If the sacrifice and oblation be the same it ought to be without doubt of the same infinite value with that upon the Cross and though it be very bold and precarious to guesse at Christs will without some declaration of it from himself yet I cannot see how it was possible that it should be Christs will to have it the same sacrifice and yet not have the same vertue which is as if a Physician should have an Universal Medicine that by once taking would certainly cure all Diseases whatever and yet should for some reasons so order the matter that the very same Medicine should if he pleased have only a limited vertue cure but one Disease at a time or only some lesser smaller illnesses and that even for those it must be often taken This would certainly bring a suspicion either upon his Medicine or himself and no body but would doubt either that it had not such a vertue in it at first or that it was not the same afterwards nor made truly by him as he pretended 8. They make the Priest in the Mass-sacrifice to do all in the name of Christ and to act as his Agent and Deputy and so they say 't is the same Priest who offers as well as the same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross and that he pronounces those words of Consecration This is my Body in Christs name not by an Historical reciting of them but as speaking authoritatively in the Person of Christ himself and that this makes the Sacrifice great and valuable as it is thus offered to God by Christ himself I ask then whether all the sacrificial Acts in the Mass are performed by Christ Does Christ consecrate his own Body for Consecration is the most principal part of the sacrificing Action if not the whole of it or if as some think the Consumption of the Sacrifice is the great thing that makes it perfect and consummate I ask whether Christ does then eat his own Body every Mass when it is eaten by the Priest If as Bellarmine owns the Consumption of the Sacrifice be absolutely necessary to make a sacrificial Oblation and the true Offerer be Christ himself as the Council of Trent says then Christ himself must consume the sacrifice that is he must eat his own body Bellarmine is really pincht with this difficulty and he hath so wisely managed the matter that as he brought himself into this streight so he knows not how to get out of it but he is forced to confess †Tamen ipse dici potest consumere sacramentum Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 27. That Christ may in some sense be said to consume the Sacrament i. e. himself for 't is Christs body and blood is the Sacrament and not the species at least not without those We always thought it a prodigious if not a horrid thing for another to consume Christs real body but now for Christ himself to be made to do this is to expose Christ shall I say or themselves or that cause which is driven to these Absurdities and which can never avoid them whilest it makes the Mass a true sacrifice and Christ himself the offerer of it 9. The Offering this Sacrifice to redeem souls out of Purgatory as it is made one of the greatest ends and uses of this Sacrifice of the Mass so is one of the greatest Errors and Abuses that belong to it for besides that it contains in it all the foregoing Errors and Absurdities of its being a proper Sacrifice and so benefitting those who do not at all receive it as a Sacrament and being properly propitiatory at least for lesser sins and for the temporal pains that they suppose due to greater sins after they are forgiven which is another cluster of Errors that grows likewise to this Doctrine though it belongs to another place to consider them I say besides all those Errors it takes in also the groundless and uncomfortable and erronious opinion of Purgatory whereby a great many departed Souls are supposed to be in a sad state of extream pain and torment till they are delivered from it by these Masses and sacrifices which are offered for them to that purpose And this is indeed the great advantage of them I mean to the Priests that offer them who hereby make Merchandize not only of the Souls of Men but of Christs Body and Blood and are made by this sacrifice a sort of Mony-changers in the Temple and instead of Doves sell Christ himself and the souls in Purgatory are redeemed out of it by such corruptible things as Silver and Gold which are to purchase Masses that is Christs body and bloud at a certain price This is a most horrible abuse of Christianity which exposes it to infinite scandal and reproach the selling of Masses and Indulgences is so visible a blot in Popery that though nothing has more enriched yet nothing has more shamed it then these have done both those have relation to Purgatory which is an unknown Countrey in the other World that hath given rise to those two profitable Trades and to all that spiritual Traffic that is carried on by it A Late excellent discourse has so fully considered that subject that I am no further to meddle with it here then as the sacrifice of the Mass is concerned in it Our Adversaries most plausible and specious pretence for both those Doctrines is taken from the antient custom of oblations for the Dead which cannot be denyed to be of great antiquity and general use even very near the beginnings of Christianity and to have had a long continuance in the Christian Church Tertullian mentions them as made on every Anniversary of their birth †Oblationes pro defunctis pronatalitiis annuâ die facimus Tertul. de Corona militis c. 3. i. e. on the day wherein they died to this World and were born into immortality St. Cyprian speaks of them as so generally used for all persons that it was made the punishment of him who should leave a Clergyman his Executor and so take him off from his sacred employment to secular Troubles and Affairs that (a) Ac siquis hoc fecisset non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebraretur Cyprian Epist l. 1. Edit Ox. no offering should be made for him neither should any sacrifice be celebrated for his departure (b) Episcopi antecessores nostri religiosè considerantes salubriter providentes censuerunt nequis frater excedens adtutelam vel curam Clericum nominaret c. Ib. Contra formam nuper in Concilio a Sacerdotibus datam and this was an Order he sayes made by former Bishops in Council and therefore he commands that Geminius Victor who had made Geminius Faustinus Tutor to his Will or his Executor (d) Non est quod pro dormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio aut deprecatio aliqua nomine ejus
of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all