from their asserting the necessity of both species that they would not omit it if it could be otherwise and therefore Greg. Nazianz. in praise of Gorgonia saith Omnes in Navi residentes Corpus Sanguinem Christi accepisse Thirdly If this were practis'd This Answer agrees to all the fore-mentioned instances it was onely in case of necessity and that which is onely made lawful by an unavoidable necessity when that necessity is taken away is unlawful And indeed by the same reason a Jew might have prov'd the neglect of Circumcision lawful at any time because when the Children of Israel travell'd in the wilderness by reason of their uncertain removes it was necessary to omit it Fourthly I cannot tell what necessity of communicating in one kind should happen to them since they might take Wine with them or go to Land to procure it Fifthly As to the Communions sent to other Provinces Sect. 6 I know they were wont to send a loaf to one another in token of mutual Friendship Love and Unity Yea they had their Eulogia in token of their Communion in the same Church Stillingfleet Iren. p. 399 370. But that they participated of it as Sacramental Bread or that they did it without Wine or doing it so supposed themselves to celebrate an entire Sacrament are things remaining to be proved And thus we have endeavoured to return somewhat satisfactory unto our Adversaries pretences for Justification of their half-Communion It remains that I briefly confute the same which I shall endeavour by these degrees 1. Christ Instituted the Sacrament in both kinds Sect. 7 this is granted by our Authour nor could he possibly deny it 2. I say Christ Instituted in both kinds not only for Priests but Laicks which appears 1. from the Reasons annex'd to the receiving of both kinds and 1. The Reason of their receiving the bread is this because 't is the body broken for them take it saith our Saviour this is my body which was broken for you Ratio legis est lex This therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all believers as well as the Apostles and other priests the institution or precept to take and eat most consequently concern them and if it do not by what Argument will they conclude that this Institution as to any part of it concerns Women yea or the successours of the Apostles Now transfer the Argument to the cup and it runs thus The Reason of participating of the Cup Mat. 26.28 viz. Because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the remission of sins doth concern Laicks as well as priests Therefore the command drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annex'd 1 Cor. 11. concerns them also Again another Reason why we must do this why we must eat the Bread and drink the Cup is that we may remember Christs death and shew it forth till His second coming as the Scripture speaks and all the world acknowledgeth and doth not this concern all believers as well as priests Yea seeing the words recorded vers 26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this blood 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. you shew the Lords death till he come were not as we can find in any of the Evangelists spoken by our Saviour they must be spoken by S. Paul who applies himself to the whole Church of Corinth and consequently the words preceding this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me must belong to them by reason of the connective particle which connects the 25 and 26 verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be related to in the words this do c. for as often as ye eat c. Again Sect. 8 I Argue thus that which is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests when worthily receiv'd concerns Laicks as well as priests But the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ to Laicks as well as Priests 1 Cor. 10.16 as saith the Apostle to the Corinthians who I suppose were not all priests upon this account exhorting them not to partake of Idol Sacrifices in which I suppose he did not grant a liberty to the people but intended by this argument to restrain them from partaking of the table of Devils as well as priests The Major is evident for sure it concerns Laicks to partake of that which is to them the Communion or Communication of the body of Christ this argument may also be transferred unto the Cup for that being the Communion of the blood of Christ when worthily receiv'd as well as the bread it equally concerns them to participate of that as of the bread Now that which I foresee may be return'd to these arguments is this Sect. 9 That the people by participating of the bread do participate of the Cup which is the blood shed for the remission of their sins that is they participate of that which is the blood it being concomitant with the bread and so the bread is the Communion of the body of Christ but not so only but also of his blood Now 1 To omit the refutation of this figment of concomitance till anon this Answer destroys the Energy of Christs words who after they had participated of the body bids them also drink of this cup because it was his blood shed for sinners when as yet he knew that they had already done so and could have told him that he might have spared his cup and his Reason both 2. Were this so then would the participation of the cup be evidently superfiuous it being Instituted after the participation of the body to exhibit that blood to us which by the participation of the Body was already exhibited Arg. 3. Sect. 10 If in this Institution the Apostles were considered not as priests Bishop Taylor duc Duâ— p. 422 423. S. par 2. but as representatives of the whole Church Then was the Sacrament Instituted in both kinds not only for priests but Laicks for that which was given to them and they required to receive as representatives of the whole Church must concern the whole Church not only priests but Laicks Now if they were not to be considered in this capacity where shall we find a warrant that the people may receive at all for if they receiv'd only in the capacity of Clergy men then the Institution extends no farther and 't is as much Sacriledge for the people to eat and drink the Symbols as 't is to offer at the consecration for 't is a medling with Sacra which equally belongs not to them But if they receiv'd in the capacity of Christians onely then they receiv'd the Commandment for drinking in the Chalice for themselves and for all Christians Their usual evasion is that the Apostles as Laicks receiv'd the Bread But then when Christ said hoc facite he made them Priests and then gave
in this controversie I refer you to Bishop Taylor 's Discourse upon this Subject if you are able to except any thing against his Stating of the Question do it if not cease to calumniate and know that the renewed Rubrick is an Explication of what the Church of England believeth in this matter and if you have any thing to produce against it besides the empty name of Zuinglianisme we are ready to consider it But to pass these things Sect. 2 let us come unto his evidence of such a change of the Sacramental elements into the body and blood of Christ which makes Christ Corporally present under the species of Bread and Wine but destroys their substance and here not daring once to fasten upon hoc est corpus meum or the sixth of John he lays hold on a passage of Saint Paul's in the 1 Cor. 11.29 and tells us that if this Transubstantiation should not be received Mr. Cressie p. 128. none could receive the body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the body of Christ but meer bread that an impenitent sinner receives And Saint Pauls charge would be irrationall when he says such an one receives judgement to himself in that he doth not discern the Lords body Ans 1. This Argument is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle who saith let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily viz. that bread and cup eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body so that the unworthy eater of the bread is the person that discerns not the Lords Body 2. Such persons are said not to discern the body of Christ because they deal with the Elements that are Instituted to represent his Body and Blood as with common meat not treating them with addresses proper to the mystery So Saint Austine non dijudicat 〈…〉 c. 8. i. e. non discernit à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter illi debita so also the Greek Schol. upon the place Sect. 3. But our Author proceeds thus If the change be not in the Elements but in the receivers Soul that is if the Elements be not transubstantiated what need is there of Consecration what effect can it have why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer the Sacrament what hinders that such a presence may not be effected every dinner and supper Answer Such Arguments as these may very well perswade us that our Author receiv'd this Doctrine from Tradition Mâ— Cressie p. 12â— s. 8 not Ratiocination as before he tells us For if he had receiv'd it by such a Ratiocination his Baptismal water must necessarily have been changed into I know not what For if it remain water still may not I ask him what need of any Consecration to become Sacramental what effect can Consecration have upon it why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament what hinders but we may have such a presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit every time we go to wash our selves This haply our Author saw and therefore he durst not say if the elements be not transubstantiated but if the change be not in the Elements which we grant it is the Bread is no longer common Bread but holy separated from a prophane use to a sacred it is now become an instrument to convey the benefits of Christs death which before it was not represents Christ's broken body which before it did not But Thirdly to make a little sport with his demonstrations Tell me is there no use of Consecration but to transubstantiate What is their Holy-water Are all their Bells their holy reliques and images transubstantiate Secondly Hath Christ required the Consecration of the Eucharist should be done by a Priest or not If not then let him tell me why a Master of a family may not consecrate these Elements as well as the Paschal Lamb If he hath required it then surely whether Transubstantiation be true or false it cannot be effected by a Laick But Thirdly tell me what is the Bread we eat at dinner the Bread broken for us Is the Wine the Papists drink on their fasting-dayes the Blood shed for the remission of their sins Do men by eating and drinking remember Christs death till he come Have they any promise of such blessings from the partaking of their common Bread as Sacramental If not why doth our Author trouble us with such a frivolous comparison He next proceeds to demonstrate this change out of the Fathers Sect. 4 and thus he begins Sect. 10. In all ancient Lyturgies that is all spurious ones as Blondel himself and for your better directions you may see the name of Blondel in the Margin without any Addition of Book or Chapter Though an Hugonot confesseth the prayer for the Consecration of the Elements was that God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and Wine the Blood of our Lord. And for this he cites St. Basils Liturgie Cyrill Hieros Mystag Catech. after that the Acts of the Council of Nice Cyrill Alexand. Ep. ad Calosyr and Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. And here we have all that pretend to demonstrate this change except Optatus who tells us that the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ Now the mischief is first that all these Authors unless we may except Cyrill of Alexandria are spurious and have been proved so by Dr. Hoyle in his Answer to a popish Friar and some others And first as for Saint Basils Liturgie Sect. 5 he tells us that even Bellarmine himself dares not reckon it among St. Basils works Secondly in this Liturgie is appointed to be sung the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn See the Epistâ—h of the same Felix to Peter Bishop of Antioch and Zeno the Empetor in the second Tâ—mb of the Councils which began to be sung in the Church about the time of Felix the third who liv'd Anno Domini 480. Whereas Basil flourish'd Anno Domini 370. or thereabouts It mentions Confessors after Martyrs whereas the Romanists themselves confess they were not mention'd in their offices till after the dayes of this St. Basil These and many other things you may find against it in Mornaeus and Cocus and other Protestant Writers Secondly As for the Catechism of Cyrill of Jerusalem Sect. 6 he tells us p. 467 468. that even Papists themselves ascribe it to one John of Jerusalem that liv'd about 400 hundred years after Yea even Gretser tells us that he hath seen a manuscript which ascribes these Catechisâ—res to John of Jerusalem Yea in the Greek Library which the City of Augusta bought of Antonius Governour of Corcyra this book goes under the same title The Mistogogi call Catechismes of John of Jerusalem as the Index of these books doth evidence Nor doth the putter
one and carry them to those that be absent And Gregory Nazianzen writes to his sister Gorgonia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the pretious Body and Blood of Christ in her Devotions she mingled it with her tears and so received it 2. See Dr. Taylor duc dub B. 2. c. 3. p. 425. We acknowledge that it was attempted to be changed upon occasion of the Eremites who coming but seldome to Church could but seldome receive the Chalice but desiring more frequently to communicate they carried the consecrated Bread with them into their Cels and when they had a mind to it in that imperfect manner Can. 3. did celebrate the Lords Supper But this custome was condemned with a curse in the Council held at Caesar-Augusta in Spain Non Consumpsisse in Ecclesiâ which saith If any man receive the Sacrament and can be proved not to have finished it in the Church let him be accursed for ever 3. We say that the Doctors of the Church in Tertullian and Saint Cyprians time did think it necessary to receive the Cup and therefore could not be thought to have approved this half communion except in cases of necessity Justin Martyr who was before Tertullian tells us P. 97. 98. that the Deacons distributed to all present the body and blood and that the Apostles in their Gospels had delivered to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christ had so commanded them S. Lib. 2. Ep. 63. Cyprian tells us that if it be not lawful to break one of Christs least Commandements much less is it lawful to break any of those great commandments belonging to the passion of our Lord or the Sacrament of our Redemption Hom. 16. on Numb or by humane Tradition to alter them And Origen saith speaking of the Sacrament the Christian people embrace him who saith Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you Now he that saith so surely must be supposed to think it necessary that the people should have this blood to drink which is so necessary to their spiritual life Fourthly and lastly Sect. 9 we say that the Fathers cited by you in the Margine do not affirm that they received the bread onely To. 3 l. 9. c. 3. And this you have been told by Chamier and other Learned Protestants upon this Controversie produce your Fathers in the next and confirm it from their words The next supposed Evidence he brings is Sect. 3 the communicating of Infants in one kind Now here again We answer as before 1. That Saint Cyprian and others cited in his Margine do not say that the Infants which communicated received in one kind onely and that they mention but one kind doth prove no more the thing in contest then Saint Pauls charge of the unworthy persons not discerning the Lords Body proves that he participated not of the Cup or if he did participate discern'd it 2. We say that Infants did communicate in both kinds As you may see in D. Featly's Grand Sacriledge p. 186. Chamier To. 4. l. 9. and this is proved from the testimony of the same Cyprian from Saint Anstin Ep. 107. To which you may adde a passage in his Hypognostic's cited by the Learned Chamier and by Gennadius 3. Sect. 14 We acknowledge the Church in Communicating of Infants did sometimes dip the Holy bread into the Chalice and so ministred the Sacrament but this is an Evidence that they thought not the bread alone sufficient 4. We acknowledge also that upon occasion of this use Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 p. 426. Can. de Consecrat dist 2d some fell in love with the trick and would have had it so in ordinary Administrations but against those Pope Julius opposeth himself declaring it to be against the Divine Order and Apostolical Constitutions and contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles and Custome of the Church and his words are remarkable to shew from whence this Article is to be determined Non difficulter hoc ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur in quâ ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt shewing that the very institution of the Sacrament is the Fountain from whence we are to derive the truth in this inquiry But when this superstition was again revived about the year 580. the now mentioned Decree of Pope Julius was repeated in the third Council of Braccara and all set right again according to the perpetual custome of the Church and the institution of our blessed Lord and their pretence which was lest they should spill any thing of the holy Chalice laid aside as trifling and superstitious His third instance is the Communicating of the sick and penitents at the point of death Sect. 4 Ibid. which according to him was in one kind Now to this we say that the two last answers given to the former instance suit to this For the Church did sometimes administer the bread dipped in the Chalice to dying persons And upon that occasion also it was abused and the opposition now mentioned was made to that abuse Next we say his proofs are not concluding indeed Euseb l. 6. tells us That the old mans mouth was dry and therefore the Boy was desired to moysten the Bread by sopping it but thence to argue that the old man received no Wine is a strange and contradictory inference 3. We say and that out of the same Authors by him cited that such did communicate in both kinds This appears by the charge that Dionysius Alexand. Euscb Eccl. Hist lib. 6. c. 6. gave to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to partake of the Holy Mysteries they should obtain their desires If in health they had been humble suiters for it Yea this may be gathered from Justin Martyr who in the place forecited saith That the body and Blood of our Lord before hand consecrated was sent to those that were absent amongst whom were necessarily the sick Lastly Bishop Taylor duc dub l. 2. c. 3 N. 429. S. 28. the Council of Turon considering the necessities of sick and dying persons appointed the consecrated Bread to be sopped in the Consecrated Chalice adding this reason that the Priest might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable to you for the Remission of your sins unto Eternal Life ' wherein they intimate that it was necessary to the truth of these words and cousequently to the receiving an entire Sacrament that the sick person should participate of both the Elements and consequently never dreamed of your concomitance the onely salvo imaginable for this your sacriledge Fourthly Sect. 5 He tells us this was practis'd in Communions at Sea Ibid. Now First He should have made this good by testimony and not have produced it back'd with no authority especially when Secondly 'T is manifest
G. 26. For he saith Christ took the Cup and gave it to them saying Drink you all of this this what This in the Cup why so for this is my Blood and then immediately follows But I say unto you I wil not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine untill the day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom Now then this fruit of the Vine Saint Matthew speaks of is this that the Disciples are bid to drink of as even the series of the words shew Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood but I will not drink of this 2. The fruit of the Vine must necessarily demonstrate some Wine so St. Marks fruit of the Vine must also have reference to some Cup demonstrated by him But they mention no other Cup besides this Sacramental therefore they must necessarily speak of this and so much for his Major Now I deny his Minor which must be proved thus That which S. Luke mentioned before any Consecration began Immediately after the Cup confessedly belonging to the Passover must belong to it But these words St. Luke thus mentions Now I retort upon his Major thus That which Saint Matthew and Saint Mark mentioned not till after Consecration and immediately after the Sacramental Cup must belong to it But this sentence is thus mentioned by them I know he will tell us the disparity is in this that St. Luke promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the other Evangelist did not Answer Grotius will tell him that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only sigillatim as you may see Acts 4.18.23 which Interpretation must take place here it appearing sufficiently that he frequently for the Coherence of things joyns those passages which were separated in order of time * As the same Grotius in his Comment doth evince Vide Grot. in locum and therefore this reason of disparity is taken away Thus I have confuted his Confidence Sect. 14 Now though I dare not be Confident I think it very probable Vide Jansonium in locum that St Luke also speaks of the Consecrated Cup as Saint Augustine would have it by preoccupation that so this saying parallel to that of eating no more of the Passover might be joyned together For Matthew and Mark speak of four things belonging to this Sacramental Cup 1. Giving of Thanks 2. Distribution of it 3. The asserting of it to be his Blood 4. His protestation of not drinking of it any more Now Saint Luke speaks onely of the third of these If you will not allow the other verse to refer to the Sacred Cup. But if this be granted then are all these actions mentioned in S. Luke directly as in the other Evangelists Now then the interpretation makes all Harmonious between the Evangelists whereas he bids defiance to S. Mark and especially to S. Matthew who as I have prov'd must necessarily be understood of the Eucharistical Cup. But our Author hath another answer Sect. 15 if this fail viz. that were it so that the wine after Consecration were call'd the fruit of the Vine Mr. C. p. 133. yet this doth not argue against a change of it's nature for Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent was call'd a Rod still because it had been one Exod. 7.12 And John 2.9 't is said of the Master of the feast shat he tasted the water that was made wine Now to this I return 1. That the cases are no way parallel for first in these instances the matter remain'd the form only being chang'd it being proper conversion but in the Eucharist the Trent Council hath defin'd that the substance of Bread remains not and so there is not so much Reason why it should have the same name 2. These might well be call'd so because the Serpent was made out of a Rod tanquam ex causâ materiali and the wine out of water but you dare not say that the Blood of Christ is so made out of wine 3. There were Circumstances annex'd in these Cases which did obviate all possibility of Fallacy The Serpent is call'd a Rod but such a one as devour'd the other Rods the wine mention'd by S. John is call'd Water but 't is Water made Wine as if I should say panis transubstantiatus which phrase you would not much dislike you will say this Wine is call'd the Blood of Christ Ans Well but whether Spiritually or Corporally is not said 2. We answer that if this be a sufficient reason why the Blood of Christ should be call'd the fruit of the vine though it be not really so then may this be a sufficient reason why the bread may be call'd the body of Christ though it be not so See Paraeus de Reg. phrasium Sacrament In Cor. 11. v. 23. because Sacramental signs have often the names of the things signified by them The sequel is evident from the parity of Reason the same foundation of Each being the Analogous phrase of Scripture and in the great hold of Transubstantiation must be quitted But 3. He saith he will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which Argues that before viz. In other pasovers Or at least in this He had drank of it before now that which he had drank of before this being the first institution of the Sacramental Cup must be really the fruit of the Vine Well then that which he saith he will drink of no more must be the same also From what hath been said we may see sufficiently the weakness of his argument hence for transubstantiation Sect. 16 which runs thus Our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup but he did not drink of the fruit of the vine because he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ergo the Consecrated Cup was not the fruit of the Vine For not to tell him See Beza in locum Heins In Mat. c. 21 v. 41 c. the Syriack Copies leave out the two verses in which the stress of all this Argument lies nor yet to mind him of Beza's transposition of the verses a * thing sufficiently probable 1. How will he prove that our Saviour drank of the Consecrated Cup will he run to Matt. 26 Alas He hath told us that it Concerns not this Cup will he cite universal tradition Let him shew it and at the same time he will shew that he interprets Saint Matth. contrary to them seeing they that affirm it gather it from his words 2. Why may not his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thus interpreted I will not drink any more viz. after the solemnity ended Have we not S. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bear us out in 't and Saint Mark 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also may very well be borrowed from the 16 vers in Saint Luke It being very ordinary for Sacred Writers to leave a particle to be understood from the words foregoing or consequent And if this interpretation stand it can only be