act of Divine Faith whose material Object is the Incarnation of the Divine Word The formal Object is Gods asserting of it Whence it ensues that though Faith have a greater certainty then Science yet it is destitute of Evidence as well in attestato as in attestante that is can neither demonstrate by Human Reason the Revelation it self nor the Mystery revealed We all agree that those words Hoc est corpus menm were spoken by Christ himself But we differ in giving the true sense and meaning of them The surest Rule that may guide us herein is to consult the Belief of the Primitive Church they certainly received from the Apostles the true Interpretation of them For it would derogate from Christ's goodness and providence to imprint an erroneous belief upon the first Professors of Christianity What then remains but that we consult Antiquity and inquire what their beliefe was of this Mystery And when this appears it would be a vain attempt of any one after a long continued series of Centuries to start a new Interpretation of those words for that must needs be an Erroneous Innovation and Adulterated Doctrine as repugnant to the general belief of all Christians from Christ's time I should swerve from my intended brevity should I here cite the several Texts of the antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church in opposition to the Real Presence for speaking of the Eucharist they frequently call it the Sacrement of the Body and Blood of Christ and St. Augustine tells us Aug. de Civit Dei L. 10. C. 5. That a Sacrament signifies a Sacred Sign which cannot be the thing signified They also call it the Resemblance the Similitude the Type the Antitype the Symbole the Sign the Image the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently not the Body it self Consonant to these expressions of the Fathers was the Universal Belief of the Church none positively affirming for above 800 years after Christ that the Body of our Saviour was really contained in the Sacrament Though in the year 637 A Monk of Mount Sinai one Anastasius among other Contemplations which he had in his Cell would needs disapprove of the former way of speaking which had been ever used till his time and so rejected the expression of Figure and Antitype but used no attempt to settle any point of Doctrine repugnant to the belief of Antiquity Yet what Anastasius began by way of altering the Tearms another Monk of Corbie in France one Paschasius Ratbert compleating by his Doctrine Taught That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which he declares in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he Composed in the Ninth Century after Christ in the year 818. And for this we have Bellarmines own Testimony Bellarm. de Script Eccles who acknowledgeth that Paschasius was the first Author that ever Wrote a serious Treatise of the Truth of the Body and Blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist This Doctrine being then new never any before attempting to assert it by any set Treatise it found great opposition so that most of the Learnedest Men in those times employed their endeavors severally to oppose it and cry it down which Paschasius himself acknowledgeth for being moved by his intimate Friend Frudegard Paschasias Epist ad Frudegard Pag. 623. about this Doctrine he Answers him You question me about a difficulty whereof many People do doubt to wit of the Real Presence so in his Letter to Frudegard And in his Commentary upon the 26th of St. Mark Idem in 26 Matth. L. 12. pag. 1094. he says I have Treated of these Mysteries more amply and expresly because I have been informed that I have been Censured by many as if in the Book which I Wrote of the Sacrament and Published I had attributed to the words of Christ more then the truth of the words would permit This being a thing so well known in History I shall not here inlarge upon it but only reflect upon the Doctrine of one of our own Nation which is venerable Bede Bede in Luc. C. 22. Idem in Ps 3. Idem hom de Sanc. in Epiph. Idem in Ps 133. To. 8. Idem de Tahern L. 2. C. 2. asibi who in several places of his Works declares his Opinion against the Real Presence for he tells us That our Saviour hath given us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that our Saviour gave to his Disciples in the Last Supper the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable Sactification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour changed the Sacrifices of the Legalia into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine And that in lieu of celebrating the Passion of our Saviour in the Flesh and the Blood of Victims as the Antients did we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine These and the like expressions which are frequent in the Works of this Author do manifestly declare that in those times none held the Real Presence but all believed the Eucharist to be a Figure or a Sacrament that is a Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ Hence there arose in the Church a high debate about this new Doctrine Paschasius got some Abetters of his Opinion but the greatest number and the most considerable vehemently opposed it as a Novelty others stood indifferent expecting the issue others again held a third Opinion which in substance was Consubstantiation for they Asserted The Body of Christ in the Eucharist to be united to the substance of Bread The contest about these several Opinions grew fervent some adhering to the one part others to the other and this mutual Contest lasted all the Ninth Century Whereupon that Great Emperor Charles Surnamed the Balde who was then Emperor of Germany and King of France finding his Subjects dissected into opposite Parties and contending against each other with so much rancor and animosity resolved to Consult the Learnedst Men he had in his Dominions upon the Question which was the ground of the debate Pursuant to this Resolution he calls to him one John Scot whose right Name was Erigene by Nation an Irish-man or a Scotchman I am not certain which This was a person of profound Learning and eminent Vertue and therefore highly esteemed by the Emperor and was vulgarly called The Holy Philosopher Another which the Emperor designed for his intended purpose was one Bertram but by the Writers of his time was called Retram which was his true Name He was a Monk and Priest of the Church of Rome of the Monastery of Corbie and afterwards for his Fame and rare Parts was created Abbot of Orbais who Wrote several Books and among others one of Predestination against Paschasius whom he Learnedly impugnes and censures him of
c. What other thing is superficially looked upon but the substance of Wine VVhere he affirms the substance of Bread and VVine to remain in the Sacrament after Consesecration To this he subjoyns For notwithstanding that after the Mystical Consecration Bread is not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ yet after that which is seen neither is any kind of Flesh known in the Bread nor in the Wine any drop of Blood Before he told us that the Bread and VVine remained in the Sacrament after Consecration as they were before now he tells us That after Consecration there is not any kind of Flesh nor one drop of Blood though the Bread be not called Bread nor the Wine Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ where he granteth the denomination of the Body and Blood of Christ but denyeth the verity and substance thereof for he acknowledgeth nothing but the Bread and VVine though they be not called so This in substance he often repeateth for after the verity saith he the kind of creature which was before is known still to remain VVhat more conspicuous Then addressing his Discourse to his Adversaries he tells them That under the veile of Corporeal Bread and Wine is the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ. So that the Bread and VVine remain Corporeally but the Body and Blood of Christ Spiritually by their vertue of Sanctification And then presently compares this Sacrament to Holy Baptisme wherein the natural Element of VVater which of it self hath only power to wash and cleanse the Body yet by Christ's Institution is impowered to cleanse and sanctifie the Soul and yet still remains the Natural Element of VVater subject to corruption and then applyes the VVater in Baptisme to the Bread and VVine in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Hence he proceeds to another similitude telling them That the Fathers of the Old Testament were Baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea which produced a Spiritual effect and yet suffered no Mutation This again he parallelleth to the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Then he tells them Likewise Manna given to the People from Heaven and the Water flowing out of the Rock were Corporeal and Corporeally they fed the People and gave them drink yet the Apostle nameth that Manna and that Water Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and then he applyeth it to the Bread and Wine as before which takes off all ambiguity of his meaning for he drives at this that the Bread and VVine which remain in the Sacrament though Natural and Corporeal things yet by the powerful operation of Christ they are enabled to produce in the Souls of the worthy Receivers the same Spiritual Grace and Sanctification as if the Body and Blood of Christ were there really present and therefore the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ. He proceeds farther saying Here also we ought to consider what is meant by these words except you shall eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his Blood you shall have no life in you He said not That his Flesh which hanged on the Cross should be eaten in pieces and eaten of the Apostles nor that his Blood which he shed for the Redemption of the World should be given his Disciples to drink for it were a wicked thing if his Flesh should be eaten and his Blood drunk as the Infidels took it And to confirm this he cites St. Augustine upon the same Text of Scripture Aug. de Dodr. Christ L. 3. of Christ's commands in these words He seemeth to command a wicked thing therefore it is a Figure c. Thus St. Augustine affirmeth the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ to be celebrated of the Faithful under a Figure for he saith It is no point of Religion but rather of Iniquity to take his Flesh and his Blood as they did which understood not Christ 's words Spiritually but Carnally and went back Then he gives many examples in other like cases to shew Why the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood of Christ because of the Similitude they have with the things Signified and so concludeth Wherefore the Mysteries be named the Body and Blood of Christ because they take the appellation of things whereof they be Sacraments Then he cites several passages out of St. Isidore to confirm the same Opinion of whom he saith Afterwards he declareth what Sacraments are to be Celebrated among the Faithful that is the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Body and Blood of Christ And here I desire the Reader to take notice by the way that for above Eight hundred years after Christ there were but these Two Sacraments acknowledged in the Church of Christ and consequently no more were Instituted by Christ himself Yet the Church of Rome hath introduced Five more which Antiquity never heard of under the notion of Sacraments Is it credible that Christ should Institute for his Church Seven Sacraments and yet communicate to the first Professors of Christianity and their Successors for Eight Centuries the knowledge only of Two of them This cannot be The other Five were therefore Instituted by the Church of Rome for the Council of Trent names Seven and makes it an Article of Faith to believe them all Sacraments and layes its Curse upon the Disbelievers Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis Trident. Sess 7. Can. 1. non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Domino Nostro Instituta aut esse plura vel paucior a quam septem videlicet Baptismum Consirmationem Eucharistiam Poenitentiam extremam Vnctionem Ordinem Matrimonium aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse vere propriè Sacramentum Anathema sit Which was formerly defin'd by the Council of Florence Florent Decr. Eugenii a Arm. under the same circumstances What judgment can we here frame Examine Antiquity for Eight or Nine hundred years after Christ that can give us no Intelligence of any more then Two Sacraments and yet the Church of Rome strictly commands the belief of Seven Certainly the Subjects of that Church must have recourse to their blind obedience to submit to such Canons and Decrees as these For if Christ did not Institute those Five pretended Sacraments as it is plain he did not then the Church of Rome must have attempted to institute them not by appointing the matter but by giving them the vertue of Sacraments which is highly presumptive and a manifest violation of Divine Right for none but Christ can ordain the means and the vehicles whereby he intended to convey his Spiritual Graces which were the fruits of his Passion to the Souls of the Faithful this is his peculiar Prerogative But this being a digression from the matter in hand I desist and leave it to the consideration of the Judicious Reader Bertram now draws to the close of his First Question Whether the Body and Blood of Christ
be contained in the Holy Sacrament in Verity or in Figure and concludes with these words Hitherto have we declared that the Body and Blood of Christ which are received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful be Figures And so terminates this First Question SECT VIII An Account of the Doctrine of Retram in reference to the Second Question THe Second Question that was to be resolved by Retram or Bertram was this as he himself declares Whether the same Body that was Born of Mary that Suffered Dyed was Buried and sitteth on the Right hand of the Father be that Body which is daily received in the Church by the mouths of the Faithful in the Mystery of the Sacrament or no Ambr. L. 1 de Sacram. And first he discourseth out of St. Ambrose That the substance of the Creatures suffer no Mutation in these words For after the substance of the Creatures they be even the same things after the Consecration that they were before For before the Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after they appear to remain in the same kind still Where his Position is That the substance of the Creatures are the same after Consecration that they were before which he proves thus Before Consecration they were Bread and Wine and after Consecration they not only appear to remain but really do remain in the same kind still of Bread and Wine this must be the drift of his Argument for else it would not prove his intent Then having said That the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in forme but in vertue he applauds a distinction of St. Ambrose How diligently and how wisely hath he made a distinction where be saith touching the flesh which was Crucisied and Buried this is the true Flesh of Christ but touching that which is received in the Sacrament he saith This is the Sacrament of the true Flesh so dividing the Sacrament of the Flesh from the very Flesh c. But he affirmeth the Mystery which is done in the Church to be the Sacrament of the very Flesh in which Christ Suffered instructing the Faithful that the Flesh in which Christ Suffered and was Crucified and Buried is not a Mystery but the very Natural Flesh but this Flesh which now containeth the Similitude of the very Flesh in Mystery is not Flesh in Kind nor in Forme but in Sacrament For in Kind it is Bread c. Hence he proceeds to the Autority of St. Hierome Hieron in Epistolam Pauli ad Eph. The Flesh and the Blood of Christ saith he St. Hierom are understood two manner of ways which he explicates the one Corporeally and the other Spiritually Therefore saith Bertram the Spiritual Flesh and the Spiritual Blood which are daily received of the Faithful do differ undoubtedly from the Flesh Crucified and the Blood shed as the Autority of this Doctor doth witness Much to this purpose he discourseth upon the Autority of St. Augustine Aug. in Evangelium Sancti Joan. distinguishing between the Spiritual Food and the Corporeal Food of the Fathers of the Old Law comparing them with us Where he affirms out of St. Augustine that their Spiritual Food was the same with ours the Body of Christ but the Corporeal Food was very different as much as the Manna the Cloud and the Sea differ from Bread and Wine Which he confirms by the Autority of St. Paul speaking of the Antient Fathers that were Baptised in Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and they all did eate the same Spiritual Meate and drank the same Spiritual Drink which he concludes to be Christ in a Figure as it is with us in the Sacrament where he saith Christ is in a certain manner and this manner is in Figure and Image Hence he draws this Illation Wherefore the Body and Blood that we now celebrate in the Church do differ from the Body and the Blood which are now known to be glorified by the Resurrection This Body is the Pledge and the Figure the other is the very Natural Body And presently he adds And as the Figure differeth from the verity thus it is plain that the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ which is received of the Faithful in the Church differeth from the said Body that was Born of Mary the Virgin c. Then he cites St. Austin's words Preaching to the People of the Body and Blood of Christ. The thing which you see in the Altar of God saith St. Austin was seen of you the last night Aug. Serm. ad Populum but what it is or what it meaneth or of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament ye have not yet heard The thing which you see is Bread and Wine He then tells them That by Faith they ought to believe the Bread to be the Body and the Wine to be the Blood of Christ And then he makes them object that the Body of Christ that was Born of the Virgin c. with his Blood Ascended entirely into Heaven where he now is How then can this Bread be his Body and this Wine his Blood St. Austin Answers These good Brethren be called Sacraments because that one thing is seen in them and another thing understood that which is seen hath a Corporeal form and that which is not seen hath a Spiritual Fruit. Whereupon Bertram adds In these words this worshipful Author instructing us what we ought to think of the proper Body of the Lord that was Born of Mary c. Also what we ought to think of the Body set on the Altar whereof the People be partakers The very Body is whole and not divided with any Section neither cover'd with any Figures but this Body set on the Table of the Lord is a Figure because it is a Sacrament And again Therefore St. Austin hath Taught us that as the Body of Christ is signified in the Bread which is on the Altar so is the Body of the People that receive it Then Addressing his Discoure to the Emperor he saith Your Wisdom most excellent Prince may perceive that I have proved by the Testimonies of Holy Scripture and of the Holy Fathers that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ and the Cup called his Blood is a Figure because it is a Mystery And that there is no small difference between the Mystical Body and the Body that Suffered was Buried and Rose again for this which suffered is the proper Body of our Saviour neither in it is any Figure or Signification but the manifest action of the thing it self c. And thus he concludes his Answer to the Emperor insisting all along upon this Truth That in this Holy Sacrament is contained the same Bread and Wine that was before which are called the Body and Blood of Christ because they Mystically and Figuratively signifie the same and are Received by the Faithful by way of Commemoration of Christ's Passion and by vertue of Christ's Institution they
Council determines what contracts shall be Sacraments and what shall not the Council determines to what contracts Grace shall be affixt and to what not which is all that Institution imports for they would have Christ to take his measures from them and would impose a Law upon the Will of God to accommodate himself to their will they order all and the Word Incarnate must regulate himself accordingly which makes them the principal Instituters and Christ only the Instrumental Which is too great an indignity and detracts very much from the perfection of Christ's Institution For I demand What reason can be alleag'd Why Christ could not or would not determine all this himself He had a perfect comprehension of all that concern'd his Church which the Council had not neither can they deny but that Christ was the Principal nay the only Instituter of Sacraments Who then can deny but that Christ by an Irrevocable Decree determin'd all things relating to the Sacraments independant of the Council of Trent many Ages before this Instituting Decree was framed But an Error once committed per fas nefas must be maintained I might here annex an Account of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in some others of their pretended Sacraments for whereas the Order of Subdeaconship was ever conferr'd in the Primitive Church by the Imposition of Hands this is now wholly omitted and in lieu thereof they have Instituted the Tradition of an empty Chalice and an empty Pattene to the Ordained which argues a total change So likewise in Consirmation the Apostles and their Successors ever Confirmed by the Imposition of Hands without any Unction but now without the application of Chrisme they deem Confirmation invalid and the Forme would be false which is this Signo te signo crucis Confirmo te Chrismate salutis In nomine c. I Sign thee with the Sign of the Cross and Confirm thee with the Chrisme of health In the Name c. But this I leave to others consideration for enough hath been already said to my designed end Dispute III. Of Communion in One Kind The Preface ALL Humane Laws though never so well Constituted are liable to be subverted either by the change of circumstances or by the capricious humors of Governors How happy were the Lacedemonians as long as they were govern'd by those wholsome Laws which Lycurgus had established amongst them but when those Laws were gradually repealed or per non usum antiquated then their Commonwealth began to be ruinous and tended to destruction But Divine Laws ought to be Sacred as being framed by an irrefragable Autority whose Legislator is omniscient neither hath his wisdom and prudence any bounds who knows and foresees all future changes and circumstances as perfectly as if they were present and whose infinite providence is best skilled in fencing against all adverse accidents that may happen and yet these Laws also must undergo the Test of Human Policy and suffer change and Reformation Our Great Redeemer furnished his Church with such Laws as he thought most convenient obliging all Christians to receive those Sacred Rites of his Body and Blood in both Kinds yet in process of time the Church of Rome upon some pretended inconveniences hath alter'd that Law and denyes the Laytie the use of the Chalice but whether groundedly or illegally is the drift of this Disputation to Examine SECT I. The Grounds of the Church of Rome for denying the Chalice to the Laity THat Pure and Soveraign Doctrine which was Taught and Practised by Christ himself attained its Original Purity for the space of many Centuries after Christ and his Apostles during which time the Sacrament of the Eucharist was Administred to the faithful Receivers under both Kinds but the continuance of it drew it insensibly more remote from its Origine and so exposed it to the danger of being Adulterated for the Romanists pretend that it was observed that when the Communicants lips were separated from the Chalice some small particles of the Consecrated Species fell from the Chalice which it was not possible to prevent or to collect the Particles so dispersed wherefore another expedient was instituted that they who presented themselves to participate of those Sacred Mysteries should suck the Consecrated Species out of the Chalice by a Silver Quil fitly adapted and prepared for that purpose yet all in vain for this also was found liable to the same inconvenience wherefore finding no remedy for so great a difficulty it was at last resolved That none of the Seculars nor the Clergy except such as were Priests should receive the Blood under the Species of Wine So the Council of Trent Trid. Sess 21. C. 2. Quarè agnoscens Sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in Administratione Sacramentorum Auctoritatem licet ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimè jam mutata illa consuetudine gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendam decrevit quam reprobare aut fine ipsius Ecclesiae Auctoritate pro libito mutare non licet And then layes a Curse upon those that should not submit to this Doctrine in these words Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis rationibus adductam fuisse ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret aut in eo errasse Sess 22. Can. 2. Anathema sit The First Reason Because it was a great irreverence and a high Contempt of the Sacred Blood of Christ which was the price of our Redemption to see it fall to the ground and trampled under foot by those who receive so great a benefit by it and whereunto they stand indebted for the Graces they receive here and the hope of Glory hereafter wherefore the high Veneration and Adoration which we owe to the Incarnate Word present in this Sacrament ought to preponderate all other Considerations which certainly our Redeemer expects from us The Second Reason Because whosoever receives the Holy Eucharist under the Species of Bread only receives all Christ as well the Blood as the Body together with the Divine Word and all the Sacred Trinity for though ex vi verborum by the words of Consecration only the Body of Christ be Sacramentally Constituted under the Species of Bread yet per concomitantiam by a necessary Connexion of the parts of Christ with each other the Blood of Christ the Soul c. are all rendred present under the Species of Bread so that if this Sacrament be once Administred under the Species of Bread it were a needless repetition to administer the same under the Species of Wine for this were no other then to Administer to the same person one and the self-same thing twice without addition or diminution which would not be available to the Receiver The Third Reason
the regulating of their Consciences yet these Men though never so Heterogeneal in Dialect and National differences make but one complex or collection of the Popes Negotiators whose main scope and design is to maintain and improve the Prerogatives of their great Master by all the subtle arts and sedulous industry they are capable of What plausible Arguments do they use to persuade people that their Church cannot Err and the illiterate Vulgar greedily swallow this Bait which confirms them in their servitude and slavery and makes them prompt to submit to all the Prescripts of the See of Rome not regarding the arduity thereof And among other marks of the Popes greatness this of Infallibility is chief for upon this Link hangs immediately his Supremacy his Temporal pretended Power over Kings and Princes c. because these Titles are deduced from his being universal Pastor which the non-erring Councils have declared him to be so that the Councils Infallibility is the Root of those Prerogatives it is the main Pillar which supports the Magnificence and Greatness of the Church and Court of Rome and if this should fail that Superstructure would fall to utter Ruine and Desolation This therefore is the great Bulwark which dreads no opposition this is the main Fort that still remains immoveable against all attempts this is the Ship of St. Peter which though tossed and agitated upon the swelling Billows by Raging and Tempestuous Storms yet never sinks Well may there be some attempts upon the out-works by light Skirmishes and Velitations in Controversies of less moment which if by immediate Arguments they cannot repel recourse may still be had to the main Fort and if that begins to open upon the Enemy by Thundring Infallibility in his Ears Lord who can withstand it This will soon defeat him and dissipate all his attempts But upon what grounds doth the Church of Rome arrogate to it self this high Character First Proof in exclusion of all others Why this is drawn from an irrefragable Testimony it being grounded on the Promises of Christ himself for this is the Church to whom Christ hath promised That the Gates of Hell should never prevail against it This is the Church to whom Christ's word is engaged to send it another Paraclite the Spirit of Truth that should lead it into all Truth This is the Church to whom Christ said I will be with you till the end of the World And finally this is the Church committed to the care of St. Peter first Pope thereof to whom Christ said Thy Faith shall never fail which is meant of all other Popes that by a lineal descent succeed him And who dare attempt to evacuate Christ's Promises Hence it comes to pass that the Bishops and Fathers assembled in a general Council though of themselves weak and subject to Error yet being the chief Members of the Church for Doctrine and Dignity and being the Representative of the whole are render'd Infallible as being backt by Divine Authority by virtue of Christ's Promise they do not now determine matters of Faith and dogmatical points as meer Men but are as it were Deifi'd in order to this Function by a supernatural quality infused into them and inherent in their Intellects or else by a previous disposition and concomitant operation of the Holy Ghost which determines them to Truth and protects them from Error They are but the Organ to deliver Truth but the Divine Oracle is the Dictator they are but the instruments which convey those Mysteries to the knowledge of Mankind but the Spirit of God is the principal Agent so that thâ—â— Canons and Decrees come from them full fraught with the Divinity which renders them Infallibly certain for the Holy Ghost every Session attends the motion of those great Men to regulate all their Proceedings by the never erring Rule of his infinite Veracity whence it ensues that to pick quarrels with their Definitions is a high Temerity it is to wage War with Heaven or by the weak scrutiny of humane discourse to examine the truth of such Mysteries as Heaven hath revealed which if they should contain any seeming Error or Contradiction yet our understanding must adhere to them as infallibly true because our Reason is guided only by obscure Notions and abstractive Acts which draws in foreign Species by the mediation of the Senses which give but a glimmering light to the Understanding and often suggest Falsity for Truth but the Decrees of Councils are sacred and carry the Seal of the Holy Spirit enstampt upon them by whose directions they are framed wherefore it is no less than a Sacrilegious Presumption to Question the Truth of them for this is to oppose Human Reason against Divine Authority This is the substance of their first Proof drawn from the Authority of Scripture which at first appearance seems great and glorious a specious pretence to work upon the credulity of the ignorant Vulgar The second Proof is grounded in Reason but before we propose it we must open the way by putting the Reader in mind that the Divine Word the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity considering the deplorable condition of Mankind by the Fall of Adam resolved upon an efficacious Remedy to assume Human Nature and by an Hypostatical Union to be Phisically United and become on with Flesh and Bloud and in that Nature to suffer death and thereby to offer to his Eternal Father an infinite Treasure of Merits and Satisfaction to make an attonement between God and Man and to satisfie for Mans transgressions even to the rigor of Justice because the satisfaction was made in the same specifical nature that offended and it was made to the full equality of the Crime because the Meritorious Cause thereof was a Divine Person of infinite Dignity and therefore his Actions were of infinite Worth But because it was not permitted to every individual Person to draw from that infinite Mass of Satisfaction and Merit in what measure he pleased this priviledge being reserved for the Pope alone to grant out of this stock by his Indulgences what quantity and to whom he deemed expedient therefore a Church must be ordained and a method prescribed how to apply the benefit of Christ's Passion to each one in particular To this end our great Redeemer instituted Sacraments to be the organs and vehicles to convey the Fruit of his Passion to the Receiver and this is secunda post naufragium tabula whence the Church of Rome saith in her Publick Office O felix culpa quae talem meruit Redemptorem This being supposed The second Proof is grounded on this consideration that the principal design of our Redeemer was to draw Souls to Heaven notwithstanding the loss sustained by Original Sin for to this end he offered his satisfaction to this end he merited habitual and sanctifying Grace transient and actual Graces prevenient concomitant and subsequent Graces to illuminate the Understanding to move and incline the Will to embrace Good and
Because by the words of Christ our Redeemer Eternal Life is annexed to the Receiving of his Body under the Species of Bread only If any Man eate of this Bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 51. and again He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Vers 58. Where no mention is made of Receiving under the Species of Wine and yet Eternal life is promised to him that eateth of this Bread therefore to Receive Christ under the Species of Wine is not necessary to Salvation not necessitate medii because the Bread alone is sufficient as appears by the words of Christ Nor Necessitate praecepti because no such Precept is extant and if there were then the eating of the Bread alone would not be sufficient to Salvation which Christ himself affirms to be sufficient The Fourth Reason Because it hath ever been the practice of the Church since the Apostles time to Administer the Communion under the Species of Bread only to those that were infirm and reduced to imminent danger of death for to these the Sacrament was usually carryed under one Species only so likewise in Armies before a Battel was to be fought the Sacrament was commonly Administred to them only in one kind neither is it to be presumed that the Church in its greatest purity would not only countenance men to transgress against Christ's Precept but be Instrumental also themselves to the violating of his Commands whence it follows That Christ laid no such Precept upon his Church nor the Members thereof The Fifth Reason Because in the Apostles time one Species was in use according to the opinion of diverse of the Fathers who hold that Christ gave the Communion in one kind to the two Disciples that were with him at Emaus So Augustin Hierom Chrysostom and Theophylact. Others say That the meaning of that place And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers is of this Sacrament Acts 2. v. 42. As also that And upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break Bread c. Acts 20. v. 7. Where by breaking of Bread they understand the Receiving of the Sacrament These Texts and the Reasons above mentioned we shall examine when we come to the Solution of their Objections SECT II. The Decision of this Controversie IN order to the Resolution of this Question a threefold Precept is here to be distinguish'd There is a Positive a Negative and a Mixt Precept The first is a Command of Practice for some positive action is to be exercised for the fulfilling of a Positive Precept As by the Fifth Precept of the Decalogue we are obliged to render that honor and respect which is due to our Parents which we cannot fulfil meerly by abstaining from actions of disrespect and contempt but by Positive actions of Honor and Duty though there is no obligation incumbent upon us to be always in exercise of these actions but only when occasion requires A Negative Precept commands us to abstain from doing some positive thing which is prohibited and if the action forbidden be intrinsecally ill then the doing of it is prohibitum quia malum if the action of it self be indifferent then to do it is malum quia prohibitum This Negative Precept layes a never interrupted obligation upon us to observe it as in the Sixth Commandment by which we are obliged to do no Murther the meaning is that an act of Murther is not to be permitted neither this time nor that time nor any other time whatsoever neither upon this person nor that person nor any other person whatsoever which is to be understood universally and by a compleat distribution And herein a Negative Precept differs from a Positive A Mixt Precept includes both the former of two different objects as the first Precept obligeth us to acknowledg God and not to acknowledge any thing else for God And in this is grounded that division of sins into sins of Omission and Commission This being supposed The First Assertion is That the Ordinance of the Church of Rome never to Administer the Communion to the Laity in both Kinds is manifestly against Christ's Precept For Proof hereof I shall insist upon that saying of our Saviour Amen Amen I say unto you except you eate the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you John 6. v. 53. where those words Amen Amen express the greatest asseveration that our Great Redeemer ever used and this adds more force and energie to the subsequent Precept The words cited contain a severe Commination of depriving us of eternal Salvation except we eate his Flesh and drink his Blood which by the confession of our Opponents includes a Precept though they deny that it extends to Communion under both Kinds Let us now examine what falls immediately under this Precept None but a Creature indued with liberty and reason is capable of a Precept for iâ— it be positive it injoyns the exercise of some free action regulated by Reason since necessaries cannot fall under any Precept If it be Negative it commands the avoiding of some positive action which is in the power of Free-will to exercise or not to exercise we have here a positive Precept which injoyns all Christians to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man which affects immediately the free actions of Man of eating and drinking and in obliquo it determines the matter about which these free actions are to be exercised namely the Flesh and the Blood of the Son of Man This matter is not in the power of the Laity to procure at their pleasure but is to be tendred to them by the Priest which done then it is in their free election to eate and drink or not to eate and drink wherefore these actions are that exercise which the Precept immediately obligeth them to Neither is it left to their choice how they are to receive this matter for as the Legislator determines the matter so likewise doth he determine the manner of receiving it he doth not say indesinitely or indeterminately except you take or receive this matter but explicitely plainly and distinctly Except you Eate the Flesh and Drink the Blood c. So that by this Precept they are ty'd up and determin'd to the very particular manner of doing it neither doth the Law-giver say Except you eate the flesh or drink the blood c. but Except you eate the Flesh and drink the Blood c. by a Copulative not a Disjunctive So that he who eateth the Flesh under the Species of Bread only though he fulfil the first part of the Precept yet he complyes not with the second part for though by eating the Flesh under the Species of Bread he receives the Blood also and all Christ yet he doth not drink the Blood which notwithstanding is as rigorously commanded as the first and in
as express terms To confirm this I shall in the next Assertion make it appear that in drinking the Chalice there is a different signification and a peculiar benefit which accrues to the Receiver very distinct from all that which issues from the receiving under the Species of Bread Which much commends the great love of our dear Redeemer to Mankind in Commanding us to Receive under both Species that so he might give us an entire and compleat repast and refresh us with all those Graces which correspond to each part thereof he doth not invite us to this Banquet of all Delicious Rarities with intention to feed our Souls by piece-meale and by halves but abundantly poureth forth the Treasures of his Merit and Satisfaction so to replenish our Souls with a full and compleat refection And to make us the more sensible hereof he chose to suffer that Ignominious Death upon a Cross and to permit the effusion of his most Sacred Blood though he could have wrought our Redemption without either for though as purely God he was not capable of Satisfaction nor Merit yet that Divine Word having by the Hypostatical Union assumed Humane Nature all his actions became Theandrical the least whereof was of an infinite value capable without Death or Passion to Redeem a Thousand Worlds for though he assumed the Nature of Man yet he took not upon him the Personality of Man there was but one Suppositum which was the Divine Hypostasis of the Word of God and this gave the poyse and value to all his actions which proceeded from one Person that was both God and Man as they proceeded from Man they were capable of Merit and Satisfaction and as they proceeded from God they were infinite in both kinds and so never to be exhausted So that by one act of love or any other Moral Vertue he might efficaciously have Redeemed us and yet he chose to do it by a bitter Death and Passion the better to accommodate himself to the weakness and imbecillity of our capacity for this more efficaciously strikes our fancy and imprints upon our Souls a more sensible feeling of his infinite Love towards us And for a more ample testimony hereof he hath left us his Sacred Body and Blood to participate thereof and to taste of the fulness of his Graces and Mercies thereby still renewing the Memory of his Passion Who then shall abridge us of these Favors by prescinding the one halfe and mincing the benefits bestow'd upon us by so liberal and munificent a Hand How great is the presumption of some Men who call all Christ's Actions in question and submit them to the scrutiny of their weak indagation They usurp his Infallibility they alter and change his Sacraments they Repeal his Laws they dispense in his Precepts and Impose upon him what he never Ordained Christ saith Except ye drink the Blood of the Son of Man ye shall have no life in you The Church of Rome saith Though ye drink not the Blood of the Son of Man so you eate his Body ye shall have life in you Whom shall we believe Christ or the Church of Rome Shall we desert a certain Infallibility to adhere to an uncertain and presumptive one Could not the All-knowing Word of God whose Prudence and Wisdom hath no bounds foresee all the Inconveniences that could or would come to pass And Could not his Infinite Providence order and dispose all for the best Is it to be presumed that Christ left his Work imperfect or not duly order'd to be compleated or reformed by the weak industry of Man Wherefore by what hath been said I conclude That the practice of the Roman Church in denying the Chalice to the Laity is an express violation of Christ's Precept The Second Assertion This kind of half-Communion Prohibiting the Sacrament under both Kinds is a high Injustice and very prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver This Assertion I prove first because all the Laity yeà and the Clergy also that are not Priests are rendred uncapable of fulfilling Christ's Precept at least as long as they shall remain in their Communion and though the Authors of this Prohibition are highly culpable and very unjust in denying the Faithful what Christ hath left them yet the Receivers also are transgressers for not fulfilling Christ's Precept But you will say How can they help themselves if the Priest refuseth to exhibit the Sacrament to them in both Kinds which is not in their power to procure neither can they be obliged to impossibilities I Answer That they who seriously endeavor to fulfill Christ's Precepts are bound in Conscience to forsake the Communion of that Church and to Imbrace the Communion of the Protestant Church where these Sacred Mysteries will be compleatly Administred to them for by this means they are capable of complying with Christ's Command which they are strictly obliged to do The Second Proofe They who never receive those Holy Rites but in one Kind not only transgress against Christ's Command but also incur the penalty that is annexed to it which is no less than the privation of eternal happiness Except you eate the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you And what is consequent hereto they are liable to the everlasting torments of Hell How enormous therefore must the Injustice be of those that are Instrumental What do I say instrumental that are the principle cause of reducing men to that extremity that unavoidably they must violate Christ's Command and thereby incur eternal damnation and all this by denying them that which by Christ's Institution they have right to Can any Injustice be compared to this Can any damage be more prejudicial and injurious to the Receiver The Third Proof The Sacramental products of Communion under the Species of Wine are very different and heterogeneal from all the Graces and Favors conferr'd upon him that participates the Sacrament in the other kind only for this Spiritual refection hath a great analogy and proportionable similitude with the natural repast of the Body and their respective operations are reciprocal correlatives by way of similitude with each other and therefore the Original Instituter adapting these Mysteries to the procedure of Nature congruously Instituted them under the Symboles of Bread and Wine the Bread we esteem to be the Staffe of Mans Life because it Administers such vital and animal Spirits as are the substantial support of Mans Life and thereby it gives aliment vigor and growth to the body which is the principal part of nutrition The Wine makes the heart glad and enlivens it to exercise the functions incident to human imploy with more life and expedition it also supplies the radical heat and moisture with seasonable accesses of its innate qualities it delibutes the vessels and organs which are the vehicles of the Spirits and furnishes them with such proportionable qualities as are most accommodated to expediate the exercise of their nutritive Functions
by compleating the disposition which the oeconomy of Nature intends for nutrition by their attractive dispositive conversive and expulsive faculties and so conduceth in a high degree to nutrition augmentation and sensation So the Bread administreth the substantial matter that is to be wrought upon but the qualities of Wine give their immediate assistance in all the elaboratories which it passeth through to dispose it and bring it to its intended end In like manner by the primary Institution of this Sacrament those Graces that are drawn from the Mass of Christ's Merits are not inconsiderately distributed but in pondere mensura with a due regard to the exigency of circumstances for though increase of Inherent and Sanctifying Grace be common to both parts of this Sacrament yet the Actual Graces which are annexed to the one part are far different from those that correspond to the other for Communion under the Species of Bread Communicates to the Receiver such Actual Graces as tend to the substance of the Spiritual and Supernatural Life of the Soul they incline the understanding to a firm adhesion to the Principles of Faith they move the Will to the practice of Moral Vertues Piety and Religion both towards God and Man But Communion under the Species of Wine gives proportionable Graces which though they are vers'd about the same matter yet their tendency towards those vertues is in a different manner for they excite the faculties of the Soul to the exercise of Christianity with cheerfulness and alacrity they give perseverance and longanimity they induce the Will to practise Vertue and Religion out of the highest Motive of the Love of God above all things These are the Graces which put the last accomplishment to our Spiritual Actions without which the former though they come full fraught with the substantial and consistent Element of a Spiritual Life yet in the execution thereof they are dull and flaccide and for want of a more vigorous excitation are the sooner defeated by adverse Temptations and Suggestions of the Sensual Appetite Hence we may gather how much more a whole and adequate Communion conduceth to the accomplishment of a Spiritual Life then an inadequate and half one for what emolument is it to one to receive a strong and substantial food if his vital faculties are not duly qualified to digest it and converte it into his proper substance And I would have it observ'd that this Doctrine of the different Graces corresponding to the receiving this Sacrament under the two different Species is no product of my weak invention but is the constant Position of diverse Learned and Approved Divines of the Church of Rome and without which their Principles of the Sacrisice of the Mass cannot be well managed as I shall shew anon And in this is grounded the substance of this Third Proof For if we duely ponder of how great a consideration and value these special Graces are in themselves which correspond to the Chalice and how conducing they are to the perfection of a Spiritual Life and sencing the Soul against the subtile attempts of its Enemies it will be the manifest ground of a cleer illation that to deprive so many thousands of such unspeakable benefits is a great Injustice and a considerable prejudice to those in whose favor the Meritorious cause of them had with so much bounty and liberality left them as a Legacy to all such as should worthily receive his most Sacred Blood under the Species of Wine The Pope in his Oeconomy and the Administration of his Jurisdiction seems wholly unmindful of Distributive Justice for to some by his Jubilies Pardons and Indulgences he very liberally disposeth of Christ's Satisfaction upon consideration of their complyance with the Orders of His Holiness though he be sparing enough to others But in arrogating to himself a Power of dispensing Christ's Merits and the fruits of his Passion yea and to alter Christ's own Institution by refusing them to such as the Author himself had ordered to receive them is too high a presumption Must we by Human Autority be deprived of what by the Divine Giver hath been consign'd to us this stands in high opposition with all equity and is besides an illegal usurpation of Divine Right But we now come to solve their Objections and Allegations specified in the precedent Section in defence of this partial refusal SECT III. The Objections Solved THe first Objection is grounded on the Irreverence of permitting some Particles of the Chalice to fall to the ground as is specified in the first reason of the contrary opinion First I Answer That this Prohibition removes not that inconvenience except they forbid Communion under the Species of Bread also and so utterly exclude the Laity from any part of this Sacrament for there are more Particles lost from off the Bread then from the Wine it being not Morally possible to handle the Bread without separating from it several Minute Particles which did adhere to the Mass and yet were not continued but only contiguous to it which on the least motion fall off whereof many are so small that sugiunt visum and especially when a Priest in Mass divides the Hoast in order to Consummation then by reason of the Elastick Vertue of the Ayre and the resisting quality of the Wafer these Minute Parts must of necessity be carryed beyond the extent of the corporal and so lost which no human care nor diligence can prevent Secondly I Answer That this and all other circumstances which occur in practise were cleerly and certainly foreseen by Christ himself who notwithstanding deemed it expedient if not necessary to issue forth his Command of receiving this Sacrament in both Kinds who knew full well how far the weak industry of Man could reach to prevent such inconveniences and for ought we know may send his Angels from Heaven to collect and take care of such Particles as some of the adverse Party affirm And this may serve for an Answer to the first Reason The Second Objection He that complies with a Precept quoad substantiam though he should not be so circumspect as to be punctual in all things quoad circumstantias yet he may truly be deemed to have complyed with the command and is no transgressor but he who receives in one Kind only receives all Christ as well the Body as the Blood which is the whole substance of the Precept therefore he is no Transgressor I Answer by distinguishing the Major He that complyes with the Precept quoad substantiam although he observe not the Circumstances fulfils the Precept if the Circumstances be the Object of the Precept I deny the Major If the Circumstances fall not under the Precept I grant it but in the present case the eating and drinking compared to the Precept are the very substance thereof though in reference to the Body and Blood of Christ they are but Circumstances for the Body and Blood of Christ in relation to this Precept are
materia circa quam the eating and drinking are materia quae this is the very thing that is commanded for they are the Human actions which are immediately under Precept the Body and Blood of Christ are the Matter about which these actions are verst for to fulfil this command it is not sufficient to eate and drink any thing but it is necessary to eate the Body and drink the Blood of Christ it is not in the power of the Seculars to procure or Consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ but when it is exhibited to them it is in their free election to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood which by this Precept they are obliged to As by the Fourth Command of the Decalogue we are injoyn'd to keep holy the Sabbath day that is to abstain from servile labor and to exercise acts of devotion but the Precept doth not determine what acts of devotion we shall in particular exercise for this is left to our free election either to hear Divine Service or hear the Word of God explained or to imploy our time in Spiritual Reading or in Prayer and Meditation c. here the alteration of the Circumstances hinders not the fulfilling of the Precept and therefore in this case the Argument proceeds rightly But our Case is far different wherein the Legislator determines us to particular actions and leaves it not in our election to change them or to omit either of them So he that takes the Body and Blood of Christ and doth not eate the one and drink the other fulfils not the Precept And this answers the Second Reason The Third Objection He that receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ and may be truly said to eate the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ and so satisfies the Precept according to that of Cyprian Sermone de Coena Domini Potus esus ad eandem pertinent rationem I Answer That he who receives only under the Species of Bread though he receive the Blood as well as the Body yet cannot be said to drink the Blood under that Kind for that which is eaten is commonly solid and consistent but nothing can be taken by way of drinking except it be a sluid and a liquid matter wherefore to receive under the Species of Bread is not to drink the Blood of Christ except you grant that one may drink dry bread To the Authority of Cyprian I Answer That in the same Sermon he endeavours to prove the Evangelical Precept of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ by the same Text Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood c. where he hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Ibid. Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur whereby he expresly declares his sentiments to be coherent with ours In the words above cited he rather confirms then impugnes this Doctrine for he declares that eating and drinking belong both to this Sacrament which is the Spiritual refreshment of the Soul in the nature of one compleat Banquet which without Drinking would be imperfect and incompleat The Fourth Objection Admit the Hypothesis of a Precept to receive in both kinds yet to avoid the inconveniences before-mentioned the Superiors of the Church according to the prudential dictates of a right Government may and ought to frame an Epikeia by a grounded interpretation of the Will of the Law-giver that if he were present to be consulted herein he would declare his intention not to have his Law executed on such hard circumstances which excuses the Governours in denying the promiscuous use of the Chalice and exempts the Subjects from being transgressors First I Answer That upon the same ground they may also prohibit Communion under the species of Bread for the same difficulties are militant for this as well as for that as hath been proved Secondly I Answer That Divine Laws admit of no Epikeia nor interpretation of the Divine Will but when God commands Man must obey The reason is because we cannot suppose any defect in the Omniscience of the Divine understanding who perfectly penetrates all future events and circumstantial emergencies before they come to pass with as much infallible certainty as if they were then present so that here is no ground at all for the prudential dictates of humane Reason But humane Laws upon extraordinary accidents may admit of an Epikeia because the wisest Legislator among Men is supposed to be ignorant of future contingencies and yet such may happen wherein a rational Judgment not byassed by sinister Motives may deem it imprudence hic nunc to have the Law put in execution and therefore may rationally interpret the Will of the Law-giver to suspend the execution of the Law under such arduity But however such casualties may occur yet humane Laws suffer no detriment thereby for upon removal of such hard circumstances the Law revives and obliges to its observance as much as before How then can it be consonant to Reason that meer Men should not only suspend the execution of a Divine Law upon an incident occasion but prohibit the observance of it to all but Priests constantly and for perpetuity so that all but Priests are debarr'd from the observance of this Law for ever This is an attempt of a higher nature for hereby they endeavour to abrogate and repeal this Law as much as in them lies for ever which argues a bold and daring presumption very injurious to the Divine Conditor Legis The Fifth Objection is grounded in those sayings of Christ where he only mentions the Bread and promiseth Eternal Life to them that eat it John 6. as the Third Reason proposeth I Answer That in the same Chapter our Lord having distinctly explained his meaning more then once of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood thought it needless to repeat all the particulars as often as he mentioned this Sacrament so that the meaning of those Texts is he that eateth this Bread worthily and in the manner as I shall prescribe or as I have prescribed shall live eternally otherwise if the meer eating of that Bread were sufficient to Salvation then an unworthy Receiver might be sure of Eternal Life which illation all must reject And this answers the Third Reason The Sixth Objection is drawn from the practise of the Churh in its primitive and purest times which was to administer this Sacrament to those that were to fight a battle and to such as were in danger of death by infirmity in one kind only whence it ensues that both kinds are not necessary nor under precept which is the Fourth Reason I Answer That the precept which we insist upon being positive it doth not oblige to receive under both kinds toties quoties neither doth it determine how often we are to receive under both kinds but leaves this to the determination of the Church and the Piety and Devotion of the Receiver so that by Receiving some times in our Life or
so often every year under both kinds we fulfil the precept and that being done the receiving afterwards under one kind can be no violation of the precept it being an act of Devotion not prohibited but he that never receives under both kinds all his life time is a manifest transgressor And so the Fourth Reason is answered The Seventh Objection is in substance the same with the former only this induceth the authority of the Fathers upon the Texts cited in the Fifth Reason where by breaking Bread they understand this Sacrament I Answer That the Disciples in those times lived in common and gave up their Temporals into the common stock and took their refection in common so that their coming together to break Bread means their Meeting together to take their Corporal repast However the Receiving under one Kind upon particular occasions proves just nothing in order to this question because the Precept may at other times be fulfilled by receiving under both Kinds which the Fathers no way impugne But if you consult the Fathers you shall find many of them abetters of this Opinion Chrisostom speaking of the practise of the Old Law wherein it was not lawful for the people to participate of that part that was reserved for the Priest adds these words Sed nunc non sic verum omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrisost Hom. 18. in poster Corinth Gelasius apud Gratian Cap. Comperimus de Consecrat dist 2. Gelatius Papa speaking of the Manachaeans saith thus Comperimus quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis Sacri portione à calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire And of the same Opinion is Leo Papa Leo. Serm. â—â—de Quadrages with others And this proves the Fifth Reason Inâ—â—â—eient SECT IV. Corallaries drawn from the Romanists Doctrine of their pretended Sacrifice of the Mass IT is the usual practise of our Antagonists when they apprehend any Dogmatical Point conducing to their intended design they cast about them and summon all the strength of Arguments they can muster up to establish that Principle But if the same Position in another occasion stand in their way and obstruct the evincing of some other Thesis then they with all sedulous industry apply themselves to depress and cry down the same Point which they had before so elaborately strived to make good As in this subject to make out the legality of their half Communion How do they endevor to devest the drinking of the Blood of all its Prerogatives and particular Graces peculiar to that kind alone as though it were superfluous and after receiving under the Species of Bread it were but actum agere to Administer the Chalice Yet when they treat of their Sacrifice of the Mass then the consummating of the Chalice is held in great veneration and esteemed to necessary that rather then omit it they must lay hold of any hard shift and have recourse to extremities for which no reason can be alleaged except they grant the Chalice its due and allow its efficacy and operation as proper to it self which in this Discourse we shall make plainly appear The approved notion of a Sacrifice is this Immutatio facta circa rem aliquam creatam in agnitionem Supremi Dominii It is a change made about some created thing in acknowledgment of the Supreme Dominion and according to this definition they infer the Mass to contain verum Council Trid. in profession sâ—â—â—i proprium propitiatorium Sacrificium as the Council of Trent declares A true proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice for in the Consecrating of the Bread and Wine there is a proper Conversion or Transmutation of the same into the Body and Blood of Christ and these are also consummated by the Sacrificater all which is performed by way of a Commemoration of that bloody Sacrifice whereby the Author of Life offer'd himself upon the Cross to his eternal Father as a Propitiation for the sins of Mankind Yet to compleat this unbloody Sacrifice it is not sufficient that the Priest do consummate the Hoast under the Species of Bread but it is also rigorously and indispensably necessary that he also consummate the Chalice under the Species of Wine and therefore in case a Priest after having Consecrated the Bread and Wine and Consummated the Hoast should by any sudden accident or indisposition of Body fall down at the Altar and be rendred wholly unable of Consummating the Chalice under the Species of Wine in this case they are to use all possible means suddenly to procure another Priest and if none could be found that are fasting yet rather then faile they must appoint one that is not fasting to Consummate the Chalice and yet without such an immergent necessity it is esteemed a heinous crime for any one to presume to receive this Sacrament except he be fasting the reason hereof is because the Sacrifice should not remain imperfect for the Offering up an incompleat Sacrifice to the Author of all Being is held a great abomination and a disrespect to God and therefore a less inconvenience must yield to a greater for ex duobus malis minus est eligendum This being so I now come to examine the ground of this indispensable necessity Why is the Consummating the Chalice so rigorously requir'd They Answer To compleat the Sacrifice I again demand What is wanting to the compleating the Sacrifice They Answer The Receiving under the Species of Wine which in this Sacrifice hath been Consecrated Here I must alledge their own Arguments which they so industriously urge to excuse their denying the Chalice to the Laity For say they he who receives under the Species of Bread receives all Christ not only the Body but the Blood of Christ the Natural Union the Divine Word the Hypostatical Union and the whole Trinity therefore to receive again under the Species of Wine is superfluous it is actum agere he had all before and more he cannot have so that the second reception is but a bare repetition of the former without addition or diminution This Doctrine which is their own I apply to their Sacrifice When the Priest hath Consecrated in both Kinds and Consummated the Hoast I still press to know What is wanting to compleat their Sacrifice Nothing can be assign'd but the Consummating the Chalice But I Reply The Sacrificater hath already Received all Christ nothing excepted What would he have more for to Consummate the Chalice is but to receive the very same again it is but an unnecessary Repetition it is actum agere whereby nothing is received but what was received before and therefore if any thing be wanting to Compleat the Sacrifice it must be some Spiritual Benefit or Emolument that the Chalice brings with it In
fair Arguing some reality should be assigned for bare words are not satisfactory and if they pretend that there are any peculiar Graces or Spiritual Favors which accrew to the Receiver under the Species of Wine distinct from those that are received by Communion under the Species of Bread as many of their great Divines affirm then they give a Legal Reason of Christ's so much inculcating the receiving of this Sacrament under both Kinds Amen Amen dico vobis Johannis 6 v. 53. Mat. 26. v. 27. Luc. 22. v. 17. nisi maâ—ducaveritis carnem fiâ—â—â— fortinis biberit ejus sanguinem non habelitis vitam in vnhis Bibite ex hoc omnes Accipite hoc dividite inter vos c. And by this they may give a rational account why they so strictly exact the consummating of the Chalice in their Mass But if they grant this How then can they excuse their Injustice of denying the Cup to the Laity for these Graces are of a high value and of right belong to them as is more largely declared above Sect. 2. in this Disputation So that they are here reduced to this perplexity If they grant these Spiritual Graces to the Chalice they cannot excuse their Injustice to the Laity If they deny them they cannot make out their practise and Doctrine of their Sacrifice of the Mass These are hard shifts to defend a bad Cause but certainly they have most reason who candidly acknowledge the Graces conferred upon us by receiving the Blood of Christ under the Species of Wine which so much conduce to the right Institution of a Christian Life and perseverance in it Let us therefore cast a glance of compassion on the deplorable condition of those that live in the Communion of the Church of Rome who not only are deprived of such Spiritual Graces and Favors but by a constant Rebellion against Christ's Commands are become refractory and incorrigeable in their disobedience and which is worst of all hereby incur the penalty threatned to the disobedient by Christ himself which is no less then eternal Damnation neither is it possible as long as they remain in those circumstances to make their Peace or Attonement with All mighty God which can never be effected but by a valid Absolution or a true Repentance but if they resolve to continue in that Communion they are neither capable of a valid Absolution nor a true Repentance for two essential impediments that cannot be removed obstruct and render inefficacious all their endeavors The one is an incapacity of retractation the other an impossibility of a purpose of amendment for How is it possible for any one to retract his sin or purpose to amend as long as he is deliberately and firmly resolved to continue in the same sin for such a resolution is wholly inconsistent with a retractation and with a purpose to amend and yet these two are both necessary to a valid Absolution and to a true Repentance which is allowed by all I shall therefore conclude this Disputation with this ensuing Sillogisme They who are transgressors and uncapable of a valid Absolution and true Repentance cannot be saved but they who are resolved to continue in the Church of Rome are Transgressors and incapable of a valid Absolution and true Repentance ergo They who are resolved to continue in the Church of Rome cannot be saved The Major none can deny it being consonant to the Doctrine of both Churches and evident in it self The Minor hath been sufficiently proved in this Disputation But How dismal and fatal is the consequence to those whom it concerns They have no remedy but one which is to separate from that Church which reduceth them to such extremities and then they may be in a Capacity to Repent and exercise Acts of Attrition and Contrition so to reduce their Souls to a better state Dispute IV. Of Transubstantiation The Preface AMong all the Dogmatical Points wherein the Roman and Protestant Churches differ none is Controverted with more Fervor and Animosity then this of Transubstantiation the Romanists earnestly defending it and the Protestants as vigorously denying it Besides the Method and Manner which the Church of Rome useth in the Explication and Proofe of this Mystery leads them into such a labyrinth of insuperable Difficulties yea and Impossibilities as shall be here proved that all their Pretended Infallibility will not be able to protect them from Error for they make so great a Breach in the Lawes of Nature and so impose upon Human Reason as if rightly understood the most credulous could never stretch their Belief to an Assent For they move Heaven and Earth to accomplish their Design they bring in the Divine Omnipotence to their support and yet still need more help to make out their Vndertakings the particulars whereof the following Sections will declare SECT I. The Romanists Doctrine relating to Transubstantiation WHoever intends to make a strict Inquiry into all the Parts of this strange Mystery must of necessity Consult the Grounds of Natural Philosophy on which it depends where in the first place they adhere to Aristotle whose Principles are more accommodated to their Design then any other for they absolutely except against the Doctrine of Cartesius and reject his Principies who composeth this sublunary World or one simple Compleat substantial Body admitting of no substantial Composition either of Matter or Forme or any other equivalent parts but divides this Body into integral parts which he reduceth to Three Classes The One he calls Globulos Caelestes Another Materiam Subtilem And the Third Particulas Striatas All which though according to their own Entities are Homogeneal yet by reason of their different Figures Motions and other Modifications produce all that variety and those Hetorogeneal effects which this World proposeth to our Corporal Senses And though he often mentions Local Motion Moodes and Modisications yet he would never admit any accident either absolute or modal no first or second qualities entitatively and really distinct from the substance as his Writings sufficiently declare and also as I have been several times informed by Doctor Gutscouen a Doctor of the University of Lovaine and Canon of the Cathedral of Liege who was Des Cartes his bosom Friend with whom he Communicated all his Principles before he Printed them Who assured me that Des Cartes was an irreconcileable Enemy to all Accidents Moods and Qualities really distinct from the Substance This therefore being waved they stick close to the Peripateticks who admit Moods Qualities and Accidents really distinct from the Substances which they affect Secondly In all Compleat Bodies in this Sublunary World they admit a Substantial Composition of Matter and Forme so as that the first Matter being produced by a creatain Action is indifferent to all Formes but depends on no one in particular and therefore since the first Creation of the World if we Consult Nature no Matter hath been produced none destroyed But on the contrary the substantial Forms
Wine hath fed Five Thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes where he either Converted the Ayre into Bread and Fish or else replicated the Loaves and Fishes and so put them in several places at once And by the Power of God's Omnipotence Aaron's Rod was turned into a Serpent Why then should we refuse our Assent to his turning Bread into his Body The Answer We do not at all Question the Power of the Omnipotent who can work greater Wonders then these nay the Creation of this Globe of the Universe which he produced out of nothing was a greater Proof of God's Omnipotence but we deny the thing of Fact that Christ hath actually changed Bread into his Body which we have no ground to Believe and as our Opponents defend it we conceive it impossible Another Objection may be taken from the Autority of the Fathers whereof some seem to affirm others to deny But their Opinions make no Articles of Faith and though we reverence their Autority yet we deem it not expedient in this place to scan the drift of their respective sayings Only this in General Their usual expressions of this Sacrament are That it contains the Symbole the Figure the Type the Antitype the Resemblance the Sign the Image of the Body and Blood of Christ which certainly must stand in opposition with the Real Presence of the thing it self Dispute V. Of the Reall Presence The Preface HAving Treated of Transubstantiation which imports a real Conversion of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ I now come to Institute a Discourse of the Real Presence For though a Conversion of that nature by force of the words of Consecration which should verifie the same words in a literal sense be wholly impossible as hath been proved yet I do not deny but that in the Treasury of Gods Omnipotency there is contained a Power to Constitute the Body of Christ Really Present in the Sacrament praescinding from the manner how it is done which if it be by a Conversion it would invert the Order of Nature in a high degree and multiply a prodigious number of Miracles without necessity But in this Discourse I shall only inquire into the Matter of Fact whether the Body of Christ be Really Present in the Eucharist or not and not at all examine the manner how it is there and so proceed equally againct Transubstantiation Consubstantiation and Impanation For I take Companation to be the same with Consubstantiation And by the Real Presence I understand a Real Actual and Local Existence whereby the Body of Christ is locally present not only in Heaven but also in the Eucharist the same time as the Church of Rome Teacheth waving any other peculiar presence besides this that the Body of Christ may have in this Sacrament for my present design is only to examine the truth of that Assertion which affirms the Body of Christ to be Properly Really Physically and Locally Present in the Eucharist by a Homogeneal ubi with the Consecrated Host whether this ubi be Circumscriptive or Definitive SECT I. The Church of Rome's Definitions concerning the Real Presence IN these later Centuries from Christ various Questions and Difficulties have been agitated concerning the Eucharist wherein both contending parts might prudently have spared themselves the trouble of raising such contests no way beneficial to a Christian Life nor necessary to Salvation As First Whether the same Body of Christ which is in Heaven be Truely and Really or only Virtually and Figuratively present in the Sacrament What need so Hot a Debate of this Question to perplex the Minds of the Well-meaning Vulgar who might as soon obtain Heaven by their Implicit Faith as after so long a protracted Contention with such Heate and Animosity on both sides in order to the decision of this Question which notwithstanding neither is nor ever will be determin'd so as both Parties will Acquiesce For supposing the Body of Christ to be only Virtually and Figuratively present yet by its being there in Virtute there are as many degrees of Grace both Habitual and Actual produced in the Soul of the Faithful and Worthy Receiver as if it were Really and Corporally present there are the same Spiritual Benefits and Emoluments to advance its progress in Vertue and its tendency towards Eternity in both cases For as in Baptisme the Lotion which is duly applyed by the Baptizer according to Christ's Institution Sanctifies the Soul of the Baptized expels Original Sin and gives him a Right to the Inheritance of Glory and yet the remote Matter still remains a meer Natural Element of Water as it was before and the Immediate Matter which is the Application of that Water to the Baptized is of it self a pure Natural Action though by Vertue of Christ's Institution these Natural things acquire a Power to produce such Supernatural effects as pure Nature cannot pretend to So likewise in the Eucharist the Natural substances of Bread and Wine have the same capacity of being elevated to a Sacrament by Christ's Ordination and consequently of being instrumental to produce those Spiritual effects which by Divine Institution are annexed to the due receiving of this Sacrament as well as the Natural Element of Water for whether the Body of Christ be really present or not yet certain it is that he is there by his Vertue by his Divinity and by his Omnipotency and will as assuredly confer upon the worthy Receiver those Spiritual Guifts which he hath promised as if he were in verity and reality present by his Body Notwithstanding the Church of Rome tenaciously asserts the Real Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament and hath raised it to an Article of Divine Faith Fulminating an Anathema against all those who shall deny it So the Council of Trent Si quis negaverit Trident. Sess 1.3 Can. 1. in Sanctissimae Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem unà cum anima Divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodò esse in co ut in signo vel sigura aut virtute Anathema sit This definition is consonant to the Canons and Decrees of other Councils and diverse Texts of the canon Law As Concil Constant. 2. Lateran Con. c. C. Panis de consecrat D. 2. C. Cum Marthae de celebrat Miss c. So that they have made it an Article of Faith and thrown their Curse upon all that shall deny it and yet many Thousands there are among the ignorant Vulgar of both Sexes who after this definition cannot give an account of the difference between the Real Virtual and Figurative being of Christ's Body in this Sacrament and so must still have recourse to their Implicit Faith as much as if there were no such definition And how much this Belief of the Real Presence conduceth to Salvation I leave to the judgment of the impartial Reader supposing what
Heresie He was of the most eminent repute of his time He was a great Opponent of all Novelty and Innovation and for his Merits very dear to the Emperor These then were the Persons which the Emperor consulted and required them to give him in Writing the True Sense of the Church concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Whether it were contained in the Sacrament in Verity and Reality or only in Vertue and Figure as also whether it were the same Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary Suffered upon the Cross Rose from the Dead c. that we receive in the Sacrament for to both Questions Paschasius Answers That it was the same Body present in the Eucharist in Verity and Reality and not only in Vertue and Figure To these two Questions the forenamed Doctors gave in their Answer in Latin to the Emperor in Writing and their Resolutions were contrary to the Doctrine of Paschasius as to both Questions For to the First Whether that which we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be truly and really the Body of Christ or only a Figure and Type thereof They both Answer That the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in this Sacrament only in Figure and Virtue and not in Reality As to the Second Question Whether it be the same Body that was Born of the Virgin Mary that suffered on the Cross that was Buried and Rose again that Ascended into Heaven they Answer That we Receive the Figure and Verture of that same Body And not wholly to omit the Transactions of these two Doctors I shall here briefly relate some passages of each of them SECT VI. A briefe account of some passages of the life and death of John Erigène THis Learned Doctor how dear soever he was to that Great Emperor Charles yet he was sharply censur'd and severely handled by several Authors and great Prelates and especially by the Council of Valentia for some Dogmatical Points which he deliver'd in a Treatise that he Wrote of Predestination and the state of the future Life as deviating from the Orthodox Principles of the Church yet none reprehended him for his Doctrine of the Eucharist And certainly he meritted eternal renown for Translating the Hierarchy of Dionysius of Areopagyta from Greek into Latin by Command of the Emperor Charles which Work added no small access to the Opinion formerly conceived of his zeal and eloquence for hence he was esteemed a Saint and that his Doctrine and knowledge was infus'd from Heaven His Fame daily increasing he was at last called into England by Alfrede then King where he was Barbarously Murdered by his own Disciples in the Monastery of Malmesbury in the year 883 or thereabouts and was decently buried in that Church but his Body was afterwards with great Pomp and Magnificence translated to the Cathedral and there placed before the Altar with this Epitaph Here lies John the Holy Philosopher Gulielm Malmesb. L. 2. C. 5. who in his life time was inriched with wonderful Doctrine and in the end had the honor to ascend by Martyrdom to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ where the Saints reign eternally as William of Malmesbury relates And after his decease by the Autority of the See of Rome he was put into the Catalogue of Martyrs His Treatise of the Eucharist remained extant about 200 years after he Wrote it by the Emperors Command but about the year 1050 it was read in the Council of Verceils where Pope Leo the Ninth presided and there condemned to be Burnt as being repugnant to the Orthodox Doctrine of the Eucharist which was accordingly put in execution and so this Treatise perish'd And consequently it was often moved to have him expunged from the Catalogue of Saints but without effect till the time of Baronius who alledging That he had Written against the Real Presence upon this account got him excluded from that rank wherein he had been formerly placed by Gregory the 13th and other Popes Histor Ecclesiast Angliae L. 2. P. 119. as Fuller relates SECT VII Some Passages of the Life and Doctrine of Retram THis Doctor was one of the Learnedst and of the fairest repute of his time and upon this account was chosen among the rest by Charles the Emperor together with John Scot or Erigéne to give him an account what was the true meaning of Christ's Word 's and the true Doctrine of the Church in relation to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist By this means to allay the heat of that turbulent Contention and Animosity which had reacht the utmost confines of his Dominions and dissected his Subjects into violent Factions occasioned by the Writings of Paschasius wherein he Asserted the Real Presence These two great Men in Complyance to the Emperors Command gave their Answer in two distinct Treatises in Latin upon this Subject wherein they both agreed that the true Orthodox Doctrine never admitted of any Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament but that it was there contained Virtually and Figuratively by means of Christ's Institution which they proved out of the Scripture and Fathers alleging several parallel examples out of Holy Writ concluding that the adverse Opinion was a Heterodox novelty contrary to Scripture Fathers and the Universal Belief of the Church till that time Retram when he Wrote this Treatise was a Priest of the Church of Rome and Monck of the Monastery of Corby soon after there arose great difficulties between Nicholas the First then Pope and Photius Patriarch of Constantinople whereupon Pope Nicholas implores the Assistance of the Bishops of France to defend the Latin Church against the Greeks The Clergy of the Gallican Church knew not where to find a more able and expert Champion to carry on this great design then Bertram or Retram and so unanimously chose him to defend the Pope and the Latin Church against their Antagonists Retram undertakes it and discharges his trust with a great deal of honor and applause and was afterwards created Abbot of Orbais But to come to his Doctrine his Treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ was providently preserved and at length Translated into English and Printed here in England about a Hundred Thirty and two years since in the year of our Lord 1549 whereof there have been several Editions since and it was lately Printed in France both in Latin and French But now come we to give you a Specimen of the Tenets which by this Treatise he endeavors to establish First Then he tells us That the Bread which by the Mystery of the Priest is made the Body of Christ doth shew one thing to the External Senses and another thing soundeth inwardly to the Mind of Faith Outwardly the Bread remaineth as it was before c. and then he adds of the VVine The Wine also which by the Consecration of the Priest is made the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ