as Gregory de Valentia owns they must This Worship saies he belongs after a certain manner to the species as when the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is worshipt in the humanity which he assumed the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity Pertinet per accidens suo quodam modo ea veneratio ad Species quemadmodum suo modo etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus cultus ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario neque in hoc est aliqua Idololatria must be also united to Christ Valentia Disput 6. Quaest 11. de ritu oblat Eucharist the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity so as to become with that one entire object of Worship as the Species are according to them with Christ in the Eucharist that is they must become one suppositum or one Person with Christ This is so weighty a difficulty as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not only sweat but sink under it Valentia a De Idol l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjunction the Species have with Christ but denies their being hypostatically united to him but then how are they to be worshipt Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Creatures yet they are not to be worshipt notwithstanding that presence because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him or are not hypostatically united to him Bellarmine being pincht on this side removes the burden to t'other that is as sore and can as little bear it Christ says he b Longe aliter est Christus in Eucharistia in aliis rebus Deus Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum Suppositum est idque Divinum caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent cum illo unum quid faciunt licet non eodem modo Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist than God is in other things for in the Eucharist there is but one only suppositum and that Divine all other things there present belong to and make one thing with that If they do so then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ as T. G's learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place if they make but one suppositum with him and but one with him let it be in what manner it will they must be hypostatically united to him Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo tho not after the same manner is both unintelligible and will not at all help the matter 't is only a Confession from him that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ and make one suppositum with him and one object of Worship that he does not know how this can be and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so for this is no way imposed upon him as T. G. saies notwithstanding his non eodem modo If in the Incarnation of Christ one should say That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity but that both were not united after the same manner but the Soul in such a manner as being a Spirit and the Body in another yet so that both made but one Suppositum with it and that Divine and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that and made one with that tho not after the same manner would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Divinity and his Soul and Body and so must the other be between Christs Divinity and his Body and the Species if they make one Suppositum and are as they hold to be worshipt as such Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine and state the Case with some exactness tho I am sensible with too much length but that is the way to shorten the Controversie and by this means I have cut off their common retreats and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to and in which they are wont to Earth themselves As that they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear witness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with Christ as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of Christ for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whether it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito
so they may be offered to God and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death But this is no answer to the question for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice which it is not in a proper sence though it be not my business to shew that here but as it is a Sacrament Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament and why did he give both Species to his Apostles He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice for as such if it were so it was to be onely offered up to God but he gave both the Species to his Disciples and why did he do this if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was given by one and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God He does not receive them as a Sacrifice but as a Sacrament And why is the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the
the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing †P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened †P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog cum Tryph. We are charged by some with Atheism says Athenagoras who measure Religion only by the way of sacrifices and what do ye tell me of sacrifices which God wanteth not though we ought to bring him an unbloody sacrifice and to offer him a rational Worship (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanag Legat. pro Christ where the rational worship explains the meaning of the unbloody sacrifice Tertullian in his Apologetic answering that charge That Christians did not sacrifice for the Emperours it follows says he by the same reason we do not sacrifice for others because neither do we do it for our selves (e) Pro Imperatoribus sacrisi la non penatis sequitur ut eadem ratione pro allis non racrificemus quia nec pro nobis ipsis Tertull. Apologet. adversus gentes c. 10. but in answer to this he declares how Christians prayed for the Emperour c. 30. and in another place he says they sacrificed for the Emperors health that is with a pure prayer as God has commanded (f) Sacrificamus pro salute Tmperatoris i. e. purâ prece sicut Deus praecepit Idem ad Scapul and I offer to God says he in the same Apologetic speaking against other sacrifices a rich and a greater sacrifice then he commanded the Jews Prayer from a chast body from an innocent soul proceeding from the Holy Spirit (g) Ei offero opimam majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit orationem de carne pudicâ de ammâ innocenti de Spiritu sancto profectam Ib. Apol. c. 30. This is the Host to be offered says Minutius Felix a good mind a pure soul a sincere conscience these are our sacrifices these are the sacred things of God in answer to their not having Altars and Shrines (h) Cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus pura mens sincera conscientia haec nostra sacrificia haec Dei sacra sunt Minuc Octav. Sc. delubra aras non habemus Ib. which objection made also by Celsus is after the same manner replyed to by Origen Our Altars are the mind of every one that is righteous from whence is truly sent up sweet smelling sacrifices to wit Prayers from a pure conscience (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contra Celsum l. 8. p. 389. Lactantius when he proposes to speak of sacrifice shows how unsuitable any external one is to God and that the proper sacrifice to him is praise and an hymn blessing alone is his sacrifice we ought therefore to sacrifice unto God by word the chief way of worshipping God is Thanksgiving out of the mouth of a just man directed to God (k) Nunc di sacrificio ipso pauca dicemus sacrificium laus hymnus hujus sacrificium sola benedictio verbo ergo sacrificari oportet Deo summus igitur colendi Dei ritus est ex ore justi hominis ad Deum directa laudatio Lactantius de wero cultu l. 6. §. 25. Could those excellent Advocates for Christianity have no other ways assoiled the charge drawn up against them that they had no sacrifices like all other Religions but by flying to such spiritual and improper sacrifices as Praise and Thanksgiving this plainly demonstrates that they had no proper and visible sacrifice which indeed in so many express words they deny when the word sacrifice was understood strictly and properly (l) Quid ergo sacrificia censetis nulla esse omnino facienda nulla Arnob. disput adversus Gent. l. 7. Had they so accounted the sacrifice of the Mass as our Adversaries do now this might have been given in as the Christian sacrifice instead of all others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexandrin Strom. l. 7. p. 707. Par. and yet it is strange they scarce ever mention the Eucharist in those discourses of theirs wherein if it had been a sacrifice it had been most proper and pertinent to have spoke of it and the sacrifice of a man under the species of bread and wine had outdone all the Jewish and most of the Heathen sacrifices and had been a full answer to the objection as it was made by them but say our Adversaries they would not speak of so great a mystery as the Eucharist to unbelievers which they were used to conceal even to Catechumens that were not yet perfectly initiated into the Christian Rites but surely they would not have told a downright lye and denyed that they had any proper sacrifices had the Eucharist been one as we see they did neither did they keep the service of the Eucharist so secret as not to let the Heathens be acquainted with it as is plain from Justin Martyrs Apology where he largely discourses of its whole performance to Antoninus the Emperour (a) Apolog. 2. versus finem and to take off this little subterfuge of our Adversaries I shall adde one thing more on this head which shows beyond all dispute that the Primitive Church had no such opinion of the Eucharists being a sacrifice and that is the same charge of Julian the Apostate who very well understood Christianity and had been a Reader of it in the Church who notwithstanding objected the same thing to the Christians with the Jews and Heathens namely that they had no Sacrifices and that they did not erect altars to sacrifice upon to God (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian apud Cyril Alexand contra Jul. l. 10. p. 343. He knew too well the Mysteries of their Religion so as not to be ignorant that the Eucharist was a proper sacrifice had it really been believed to be so by the Church at that time and Cyril's answer to him plainly shows that it was not for he owns the charge and pleads only that we have spiritual and mental sacrifices which are much better (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 345. and instead of Sheep and Oxen and the like visible sacrifices we offer says he for a sweet savour Faith Hope Charity Righteousness and Praise (d,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. but not a tittle of offering the sacrifice of the Mass which would have been greatly to the purpose had there been any such thing and there was no reason to have refused the mentioning it to Julian who had once been a Christian and so must certainly have known it had there been any such thing in the Christian Church 2. When the Fathers do call the Eucharist a sacrifice they adde such Epithets and Phrases to it as do quite spoil the Roman notion of it for they call it a spiritual sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 't is in Eusebius (a,) Demon ftrat Evangel l. 5. c. 3. Cyril of Hierusalem (b,) Mystagog Catech. 5. Theodoret (c,) Histor Relig and others besides the Greek Liturgies and the Apostolick Constitutions where the word spiritual is generally added to it Now a spiritual sacrifice they must own
Comestionem substantiae corporis Christi non esse naturalem so might the Egyptians have said too if they had pleased tho how they can otherwise eat him 't is hard to understand but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating unless they will at the same time say They do not eat him truly and naturally and yet do eat him so and they are so used to Contradictions in this point that I don't know whether they will make any more Bones of this than of the rest or of the substantial Body of a man himself when they have got so large a Faith or rather so large a Swallow But how is it that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner and yet it is a carnal Body that ye so much contend for and that ye really and truly eat and 't is a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into and sometimes a very foul and wicked one And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very Body of Christ as well as the most faithful But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth nor chew him in our Mouths as our other Food nor digest him in our Stomachs nor cast him out into the draught if ye do not as ye pretend being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it and yet a very great many among you have owned all that z Retract Bereng sub Nicol. 2 in Concil Rom. Verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Sic Gualt Abbaud apud Boil p. 177. as not knowing how it could be otherwise and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacramental Christs presence may not be so too which is the Heresie on the other side a Iste in omnibus veritatem subtrahit dum asserit omnia fieri sc fractionem attritionem corporis Christi in Eucharistia non substantia sed in specie visibili forma panis Sacramento tantum Gualter adversus Abailard apud Boil 179. and ye seem to make strange Monsters of your selves that have spiritual Teeth and can spiritually and not naturally eat a natural and a carnal Body and if ye do not thus eat it as ye eat other meat when ye take it into your Mouths and into your Stomacks and do every thing to it that you do to your other food which is as like eating as if it were very true and natural eating and if it be not Bread which is thus eaten when it is just as like other Bread as is possible then it is certainly the most phantastick Food and the most phantastick way of eating it that can be imagined then there must be a new way of eating which is not eating and a new way for a Body to be present and yet not present as a Body and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding which is no understanding that can understand or believe all this But further ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host to keep the Body of Christ confined to it and inclosed in it as a Prisoner till the Species corrupt and so the prison is as it were opened and the Body let loose and when that is gone whether ye think it be the Species or the Substance of Bread that corrupts I would gladly know and surely then when the Body is gone there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents without a Subject if it be Bread what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh and from Flesh to Bread again and this latter without any words from the Priest but since Christs Body must be so permanently in the Host not only in the act and use of the Sacrament but at all other times ye are then forced to own that as it is eaten in the Communion as well by those who have no faith as by the most faithful Christians so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host taking it no doubt heretically for meer Bread that yet they truly take the Body of Christ and eat it after some manner or other but whether it be after a natural manner in them or no I don't know how you have resolved but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous question b An mus vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. See Burchard de Correct Miss upon those Questions De vino in calice congelato de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine de vomitu post receptionem Sacramenti Quando cadit corpus Christi Quando cadit sanguis Christi fol. 51 52. in the Affirmative Whether if a Mouse or a Hig or a Dog eat the Host they do partake of Christs Body Or as Thomas Aquinas your most Angelick Doctor says consequently to this Opinion of yours c Alter derogaret veritati corporis Christi p. 3. qu. 79. It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christs presence in it So that wherever the Species are there is always Christs Body and whatever happens to them happens to that also If they fall to the ground Christs Body does so to and so if they lie in a hollow Tooth or hang but in the least crum or drop upon a Communicants Beard there according to their principles they and the Body must be worshipt with Latria and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body that has got to them the adorable Object still goes with the Species till they be corrupted and whither the Species be corrupted or no if they be poysoned as they have somtimes been or whether Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poyson I can't tell but when the Species are in the pix he is as fast there as he ever was in his Sepulcher and to all appearance as dead and senseless and if the Species be Burnt or Gnawn or vomited out of the Stomack before they are corrupted all these misfortunes belong as truly to Christs Body as to them and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious Body than ever were offered to it in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth when it was Spit upon and Scourged and Pierced and Crucified by the Jews But Good God! that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his Body by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities that Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World by such an extravagant Doctrine and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idolatry as this is God Almighty open all our Eyes that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind and darkness of Understanding
tremendous Mysteries and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Petr in Biblioth Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body and his most precious Bloud That under the name of St. James after the Prayer of the Priest that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lytur Jacob. Ib. which word all supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates represents the Deacons after the communion of the Clergy as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and after they had received of both the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of his Blood * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them the immaculate Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Marcl Ib. and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith Sobriety ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and Christian Vertues Which had bin very improper if none but himself had bin to partake of them So that whatever Antiquity and whatever Authority may be allowed to those Lyturgies who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind And those Churches who used these Lyturgies and so probably ascribed these Names to them as Hierusalem that of St. James Alexandria that of St. Mark these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies But to come to the more Authentic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom which are now used in the Greek Churches though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations there is a manifest proof in both of them for the Communion in both kinds In the former the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants that we all who partake of one Bread and one Cup may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ to judgement or condemnation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Easil so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone nor was alone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ in another Prayer he mentions the people expresly and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe by his great power to give unto them his pure Bloud and by them that is by the Priests to all the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And as the Priest thus prays for the People and for others before the Communion so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words We give thee thanks O Lord our God for the participation of thy holy pure and heavenly Mysteries which thou hast given us to the benefit sanctification and health both of our Souls and Bodies Do thou O Lord of all things grant unto us that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Chrysost Savil. Edit Tom. 6. which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow and that which is in the Cup his Blood †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. that so they may become to those who partake of them for the cleansing of the Soul the remission of Sins ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and the like And having used that Prayer Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood and by us to all the people He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine and uses particular expressions at the giving of each As this hath touched thy Lips and will take away thy Sins and purge away thy Wickedness * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God and in Charity †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And though there is no particular description of their Communion as there is of the Deacons yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same and had it been different no doubt there would have been an account of it but after all the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving in the name of all Blessing God that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 1003. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Cassander in his Lyturgies tells us * Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost Basilii Lyturgiis convenit Lyturg. per G. Cassand That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two both in the prayers and the orders of the performance and in this the people as he informs us pray towards the conclusion That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood †Populus sub finem benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus Benedictus sit qui aedit sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum pretiosum sanguinem suum Ib. and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Bloud And again Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins which they call Missals they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage and which contain the Communion in both kinds as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum publisht at Rome by Thomasius where the Gelasian Form that is older than the Gregorian speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders and with all the People ‖ Post haec Communicat sacerdos cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo P.
have Consecrated the Eucharist in such a Tempest in an unconsecrated place and at Sea where according to Cassander ‖ Lyturgic c. 34. Haec Missa sicca i. e. sine consecratione communicatione etiam navalis seu nautica dicitur eò quòd in loco fluctuante vacillante ut in mari flaminibus quibus in locis plenam missam celebrandam non putant In libello ordinis Missae secundum usum Romanae Ecclesiae they are not permitted to use Consecration nor to have the full Mass but onely what he calls the Missa sicca and the Missa Navalis and it is plain Baronius with whose Authority I am now urging de Meaux is of the mind that the faithful did carry the two Species in their Vessel for he says so expresly in so many words * In Navi portasse Navigantes Christi Corpus Sanguinem Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. There is no getting off the plain and evident Authority of these two great men for receiving the Eucharist in both kinds Monsieur de Meaux though he heaves a little yet cannot but sink under it and it makes him confess That these passages may very well prove that the Bloud was not refused to the faithful to carry with them if they required it but can never prove that they could keep it any long time since that Nature it self opposes it So that if Nature be not against keeping the Wine Custom and Authority it seems are for it and I dare say that Nature will suffer the Wine to be kept as long as the Bread however they who are such friends to Miracles and have them so ready at every turn especially in the Sacrament have no reason methinks to be so afraid of Nature Monsieur de Meaux passes next to the Public Communion in the Church Of Public Communion in the Church And if he can prove that to have been in one kind he has gained his main point however unsuccessfully he has come off with the rest though we see all his other pretences are too weak to be defended and we have destroyed I think all his out-works yet if he can but maintain this great fort he saves the Capitol and preserves the Romish Cause He has used I confess all imaginable stratagems to do it and has endeavoured to make up his want of strength with subtlety and intrigue He will not pretend it was a constant custom to have the Public Communion in one kind but that it was free for Christians to receive either both Species or one only in the Church it self and in their solemn Assemblies and that they did this on some particular days and occasions as in the Latine Church on Good-Friday and almost all Lent in the Greek Now though we have made it out that the whole Catholic Church did generally in their Public Communions use both kinds yet if they left it free to Christians to receive one or both as they pleased or to receive sometimes both and sometimes one this if it can be proved will shew that they thought Communion in one might be lawful and sufficient and that it was not necessary to be in both Let us therefore see what evidence there is for any such thing for it looks very strangely that the Church in all its Lyturgies in all the accounts of celebrating the Communion should always use both kinds to all that partook of the Sacrament and yet leave it free to Christians to receive it in one if they pleased and that on some few days they should give the same Sacrament in a quite different manner then they used at all other times this if it be true must be very odd and unaccountable and unless there be very full and evident proof of it we may certainly conclude it to be false What cloud of witnesses then does de Meaux bring to justifie this what names of credit and authority does he produce for it Why not one not so much as a single testimony against the universal suffrage of the whole Church and of the most learned of our Adversaries who all agree in this truth That the Public Communion was in both kinds for above a thousand years Is there any one Writer in all the Ten nay Twelve Centuries who plainly contradicts it any one between the Apostles and Thomas Aquinas who says it was the Custom of the Catholic Church or any part of it to Communicate onely in one kind Nay can de Meaux shew any particular persons or any sort of Christians that ever were in the World before the thirteenth Age that were against both kinds and received onely in one except the Manichees a sort of vile and abominable Hereticks who are the onely Instances in Antiquity for Communion in one kind These men believing Christ not to have really shed his Blood but onely in phantasm and appearance would not take the Sacrament of his Bloud and by the same reason neither should they have taken that of his Body and thinking Wine not to be the Creature of God the Father of Christ but of the Devil or some evil Principle or bad Spirit and so calling it the Gall of the Dragon they had a general abhorrence from it and so would not receive it in the Sacrament Pope Leo heard that several of these were at Rome and that to cover their infidelity and skulk more securely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines his manisestentur indiciis quorum deprehema fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi à sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur Leo Sermo 4 de Quadrag they came to the public Assemblies and were present at the very Sacrament but yet they did so order themselves at the Communion that so they might the more safely hide themselves and be undiscovered They take with their unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they refused to drink his Blood this he gave notice of to his Roman Congregation that so these men might be made manifest to them by these marks and tokens that their sacrilegious disimulation being apprehended they might be markt and discovered and so expelled or excommunicated from the society of the Faithful by the Priestly Authority Now how can all this which shews plainly that the Communion at Rome was in both kinds be turned to the advantage of Communion in one this requires the slight and the dexterity of Monsieur de Meaux and 't is one of the most artificial fetches that ever were It is the onely argument which he has to prove that the Public Communion was not in both kinds This remark upon the words of Pope Leo and upon the Decree of Gelasius which
separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and slain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with all the wounds he received in his body the total effusion of his blood ‖ Ib. Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded and his bloud as thus poured out in this mystical Table and why must Concomitancy joyn those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided Christ's body and bloud we say ought to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration Is Christ then divided P. 310. is his body then despoiled of bloud and blood actually separated from the body ought Christ to die often and often to shed his blood A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it Why do they then make this separation of his body and bloud when they consecrate it if that be onely mystical and representative so is it in our reception much better for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and bloud as they do to consecrate them but onely his mystical body and bloud which is always to conserve this figure of Death and the character of a Victim not onely when it is consecrated but when it is eaten and drunk which it cannot otherwise be 'T is this errour of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildred and entangled themselves in this matter and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament they have run themselves into endless difficulties and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given without being thus explained Surely so wise a Law-Giver as our blessed Saviour would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easie to be understood by them it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself and as they are necessary to be observed by us that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by This practice must begin some where and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it antecedent to their own practice There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law and not the Law the Rule of Practice and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away if they are left wholly to the mercy of men to explain them For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meaux's must not be admitted without some caution and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law it self and from the divine Institution of them as I have all along shewn in this Treatise It would have been a great reflection upon the Church if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ though so plain and express a Law ought neither to loose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ as Communion in one kind and I have therefore fully shewn that its Practice has always agreed with this Law in opposition to de Meaux who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to and founded upon the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ ought to take place and is antecedent both to the Churches Practice and the Churches Authority As to Tradition which was the main thing which de Meaux appealed to I have joyned issue with him in that point and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that but there is another more considerable plea which is prior to Tradition and which as de Meaux owns †P. 201. Is the necessary ground work of it and that is Scripture or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture which is so plain and manifest that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case onely I would set it in its right place and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition but Tradition upon the Law of Christ and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases with this reasonable Proviso That it does not interprete us out of a plain Law nor make void any Command of God that may be known
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near
Christ i. e. Sacramentally and Vertually In the Ordo Romanus and in the Canon of the Mass it self (c) Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus at petimus ut accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec Sancta Sacrificia illibata in primis quae tibi offerimus Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae sed cunctae familiae taae quaesumus Domine ut placatus accipias Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam escriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis curpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi fiui tui Domini mostri Jesu Christi Ordo Romanus p. 62. Edit Hittorp Canon Missae there is this prayer over the oblations that God would accept and bless these Gifts these Presents these Holy and undefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee c. and another to the same purpose said by their Priest with his hand stretched over the oblata This oblation therefore of our service and of thy whole Family we beseech thee O Lord mercifully to receive c. And again This oblation O Lord we beseech thee to make blessed c. signing upon the oblata That it may be to us the body and blood of thy dearest Son our Lord Jesus Christ All these prayers over the oblations whereby they are presented to God are made before Consecration so that the oblations which are here called Holy and pure Sacrifices are thought worthy of that Name before they are become the Body and Blood of Christ and so made a proper sacrifice in the present sense of the Church of Rome the Canon of the Mass is Older then their New doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and affords plain evidence for applying the name of sacrifice to the Eucharist upon the account of those offerings and oblations that were made there 2. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice by the Ancients upon the account of those religious Acts and Pious Exercises which are there performed by the devout Communicants and which are called sacrifices both in Scripture and in the Fathers thus our Prayers may be as well a morning as an evening sacrifice Ps 141.2 And therefore as Irenaeus says speaking of the Eucharist God would have us continually offer a gift at his Altar to wit our Prayers and Oblations which are directed to the heavenly Altar †Vult nos quoque sine intermissione offerre munus ad altareâ—est ergo altare in coelis illucenim preces oblationes nostrae diriguntur Iren. l. 4. advers Haers c. 33. though they are made at the Earthly So our Praises and Thanksgivings which are then raised to the highest pitch when we have the greatest instance of the Divine Love offered to our minds are that sacrifice which we are then to offer to God giving thanks to his name Heb. 13.15 Namely for that Miracle of kindness Christ dying for us from which the Eucharist has its name and for which reason it is called a sacrifice of Praise in the Ordo Romanus †Memento Domine samulorum famularumque tuarum omnium circumadstantium quorum tibi fides cognita est nota devotio qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis prose suisque omnibus pro Redemptione animarum sucrum pro spe salutis c. tibique reddunt vota sua Ordo Romanus p. 62. viz. for our Redemption and hope of Salvation and also for those vows which we then render unto God when we present our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God Rom. 12.1 as the Apostle speaks and as St. Austin expresses it the Church is then offered to God and is made one body in Christ when we are made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 and this is the sacrifice of Christians (b) Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi unum corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia ubi ei demonstratur quod in eâ oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur August Civitate Del l. 10. c. 6. not only a sacrifice of Praise as 't is called by Eusebius (c) Demonstrat l. 1. c. 10. St. Basil (d) Liturg. St. Austin (e) Ad Pet. Diac. c. 9. and other Fathers whereby we offer up unto God the calves of our lips in the Scripture phrase but wherein we offer and present unto God our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto him and though we are unworthy to offer unto him any sacrifice yet beseech him to accept this our bounden duty and service according to the Prayer of our Church in its excellent office of the Communion Melchior Canus in his Defence of the sacrifice of the Mass has unawares confest this Truth That Christ did only offer up at his last Supper a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving For to give thanks says he after the Jewish manner and take the Cup into his hands and lift it up is truly to offer a sacrifice of Thanksgiving When Christ therefore said Do this he plainly commanded his Apostles that what they saw him do they should do also by offering up a sacrifice of Eucharist that is of giving of Thanks (f) Ritu quippe JudaiÌ„so gratias agere calicem in manibus accipiendo levando vere est hostiam gratiarum actionis offerre Quùm itaque dixit Dominus hoc facite planè jussit Apostolis ut quod ipsum facere cernebant id queque illi farerent Eucharistiae hoc est gratiarum actionis hostiam exblbendo Canus in locis Theolog. l. 12. p. 806. and he expresly speaks against Christs offering up a Mass-sacrifice for sin then when the day of the bloody sacrifice was now near and the very hour approaching and when their general sacrifice was nigh by which it pleased the Father to forgive all sins (g) Christum in caenâ sacrificium non pro peceato quidem sed gratiarum tamen actionis obtulisse quod cum sacrificii cruenti dies instaret jam planè aut certè jam appropinquaret hora non oportebat hostiam in caenâ pro peccato Mysticam exhibere cum impenderet generalis hosiia illa in quâ Patri complacuit omnia peccata resolvi Ib. p. 834. which is to make the Eucharist what we are willing to own it a sacrifice of Thanksgiving and is in a few words to cut the very throat of their Cause as to this Controversie 3. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice as it is both a Commemoration and a Representation of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross so 't is a commemorative and representative sacrifice as we call that a bloody Tragedy which only represents a Murder and we give the name of the thing to that which is but the resemblance and likeness of it The Jews called that the Passover which was but a memorial of it
Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition seems to make the whole Essence of the sacrifice consist in Consecration alone without any manducation or destruction which Bellarmine makes absolutely necessary Christ he says is placed upon the holy Table clothed with those signs that represent his death in vertue of the words of consecration which are the spiritual sword that make a mystical separation betwixt the Body and the Blood. Now if Christ be thus only sacrificed mystically and by representation he is not sacrificed truly and properly nor is there any true and proper propitiation made hereby which is the true state of the Controversie between us Christ may be sacrificed representatively as Caesar may be slain in a Tragedy without being really present and if he were present and placed upon the Altar as they will needs have him yet he is no more sacrificed by the mystical representation then if Caesars Picture were stab'd and he were behind it unhurt I see no reason why Christs presence should be necessary to make such a mystical representative or commemorative sacrifice and if Christ were present I see not how he is more sacrificed then if he were absent So that they only confound their thoughts to make a proper sacrifice where there is none and when they have boasted of a true proper visible external sacrifice they know not where to find any such thing and it comes to no more at last then a meer commemorative and representative one or in plain words to a sacramental and Mystical representation and remembrance of a past sacrifice which there is neither any need nor any possibility of renewing Their differences about the proper sacrificial act whereby they do with good success destroy one anothers notions of it and so taken together destroy the thing it self these are the more considerable because 't is not the res sacrificii which makes the sacrifice though that were never so truly present but the sacrificing Act or the Actual sacrificing it for as Bellarmine says * Nam non res illa sed rei illius oblatio proprie est sacrificium sacrificium enim est a 〈◊〉 no◠res permanens Bellarm de Miss l. 2. c. 4. D. A sacrifice is an action not a permanent thing and 't is not the thing it self but the offering it is properly the sacrifice So that though Christs natural Body and Blood were never so much present in the Eucharist even according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self yet so long as there is no proper action there to sacrifice it or no sacrificing act it would signifie nothing to the making it a sacrifice 3. This Doctrine of the Mass makes a living body a sacrifice which requires it should be dead and yet at the same represents it dead when it supposes it present in a state of life which is as odd a jumble as making a man to be by at his own funeral and at the same time bringing in the person alive yet dressing up his picture to remember him dead and in the habit of death it self The Eucharist is to remember and represent Christ in a state of death his body and blood as separated from one another and the one broken and the other poured out and the words of consecration are the spiritual sword as the Bishop of Meaux calls them that are to do this and so to constitute the sacrifice but whilst this is a doing nay by the very doing this thing the same spiritual sword becomes a spiritual word and raises the same body living and sets it in that state upon the Altar so that by this means it destroys the sacrifice a great deal more then it made it before for it makes it be then truly living whereas it only represented it before as dead So that 't is at the same time a dead representative sacrifice and a living proper sacrifice which is in truth no sacrifice at all for a living sacrifice is just as much sense as a dead Animal that is 't is a contradiction and one of the Terms destroys the other If a Jewish Priest had knockt down the Oxe with one hand and raised him up with the other or restored him to life after he had slew him this would have made but a very odde sacrifice and to make Christ dead by the sacramental signs and to sacrifice him thus in Effigie and to make him alive again under the sacramental signs and so to sacrifice him truly this is a strange and unaccountable riddle I would ask whether the consecrated species of Bread and Wine by which Christs blood is shed mystically and death intervenes only by representation as the Bishop of Meaux phrases it whether these would make a real sacrifice without Christs living body under them if not 't is not this mystical representation of death makes the sacrifice Or whether Christs living body without those species and signs of his death would be a sacrifice If not then 't is not the placing that upon the Altar and so a real Oblation of it there makes the sacrifice and then what is it that does so Is it not very odd that the same person must be there seemingly dead and yet really alive at the same time to make up this sacrifice 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a very great Error and inconsistent with it self All our Religious Duties and all our vertuous actions may in a large and improper sense be said to be propitiatory as they are said also in Scripture to be sacrifices for no doubt but they make God kind and propitious to us and incline him to have Mercy upon us and the blessed Eucharist as it exhibits to us all the graces and benefits which Christ hath by his death purchased for us whereof Pardon and Remission of fin which is hereby sealed to us is a very great one so far may be called propitiatory and it may be instituted for the Remission of sin so far as it is to apply to us the vertue of Christs body and blood and make us partakers of his sacrifice upon the Cross but this it may do as it is a Sacrament without being any sacrifice much less without being a propitiatory one as the Council of Trent hath determined it to be truly propitiatory (b,) Vere propitiatorium esse hujus quippe oblatione placatus Dominus Concil Trident. Sest 6. c. 2. by the oblation of which God is appeased and this in opposition to a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving (c.) Si quis dixerit Missaesacrificium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis non autem propitiatorium Ib. Can. 3. Now as it is a sacrifice of Praise and spiritual Devotion it is no doubt in the Bishop of Meaux's words acceptable to God and makes him look upon us with a more propitious eye (d,) Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church p. 35. Is this then all the meaning of its being propitiatory Did ever any Protestant deny it
in Ecclesiâ frequentetur Ib. should have no oblation made for his departure nor any Prayer used in his name in the Church St. Austin gives it in as the custom of the Vniversal Church in his time that a sacrifice was offered for the dead (e) Non parva est Ecclesiae Vniversae quae in hâc consuetudine claret authoritas si nunquam in Scripturis veteribus scriptum legeretur sc oblatum pro mortuis sacrificium August cura pro mortuis and this he says is sufficient authority for it though there were nothing of it in Scripture and having shown that what happens to the dead body is of no concern to the departed soul (f) Non existimemus ad mortuos pro quibus curam gerimus pervenire nisi quod pro eis sive altaris sive orationum sive eleemosynarum sacrifiâ—iis soleanitèr supplicamus Ib. versus finem none of our care says he can reach the dead but only that we supplicate for them by the sacrifices of the Altar of Prayers or of Alms and the same thing he mentions in several other places of his works and in his own oblations at the Altar for his Mother Monica after she was dead Now what can we think of these Oblations unless with the Papists we allow such a state of departed souls as they call Purgatory that is neither Heaven nor Hell for if they were either in the one or the other of those these oblations would signifie nothing to them and how plain is it that they thought them to be some way benefitted or relieved by the sacrifice of the Mass or Altar I answer that neither of those Opinions as they are now held and received in the Church of Rome do follow from the Primitive Custom of offering for the Dead but that they were of another nature then what they account them and this I shall evince from the following considerations 1. Then these Oblations were made for departed Souls who were not supposed to be in a state of pain as they now believe Purgatory to be but in a state of ease and happiness as St. Austin believed his Mother to be when he offered for her and when he prayed for her * credo quâ—â— jam feceris quod te rego sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine August Confess l. 9. c. 12. he did believe that God had already granted her what he prayed for but he beg'd him to accept these free Will offerings of his mouth It was not then a doubt of her state but only the voluntary expressions of his Love and Duty which he designed by his Prayers and Oblations for her and those Olations were made even for Saints and Martyrs and the most holy Christians of whose future happiness there was no manner of question and for all indeed who dyed in the Communion of the Church And therefore 2. They were an honorary Testimony given to them of their good state and of their dying in the Peace and Communion of the Church to have their names recited at the Altar service out of the Diptychs or folded Tables was an honorary memorial and mention of them as members of the Church and 't was a disowning them as such to expunge or blot their names out of those Diptychs and so the making or receiving Oblations for them at the Altar was an acknowledgment of their right to the Altar to the Christian Communion and therefore no oblations were received of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those who were not Communicants or had not a right to Communion of those who were guilty of scandalous sins or of those who were in a state of Penance for them as may be seen in the Apostolick Constitutions †l. 4. c. 5. l. 3. c. 8. and in one of the most ancient Councils (a) Episcopum placuit ab eo qui non communicat munera accipere non debere Concil Eliber c. 28. which forbids the Bishop to take oblations from him who does not communicate Petavius has largely made this out in his Notes on Epiphanius (b,) Animadvers in Epiphan Exposit fid and produces a Council which provides †Concil Vasense Ib. that the Oblations of those penitents should be received who were surprized by a sudden death in a journy Which was a receiving them into the Churches Communion quasi ex Postliminio 3. By having these Oblations received and offered for them they were made partakers of the prayers that were made for them at the Altar what ever benefit these prayers were believed to be of to departed souls which I am not here to examine that did accrue to them by having these oblations made and received for them for by this means they were particularly mentioned and recommended in the Prayers at the Altar and thus both Tertullian St. Cyprian and St. Austin explain the sacrifices and oblations which they mention as made for the dead (c) Vxor pro animâ desuncti maritiorat ossert annuis diebus dormitionis ejus Tertull. de Monogam The Wife prays for her husbands soul and offers on his Anniversary And again (d) Neque enim ad altare meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece qui ab altari sacerdotes ministros suos avocari voluit Cypr. Ep. 1. He deserves not to be named in the prayer of the Priests at the Altar of God who takes off Gods ministers from the Altar in the fore-mentioned case of making a Clergy-man Executor (e) Vbi in precibus sacerdotis quae Domino Deo ad ejus altare funduntur locum suum habet etiam commendatio mortuorum August cura pro mortuis And in the prayers of the Priest which are poured out to God at his Altar the commendation of the dead has place So that the good they had by these oblations was upon the account of these Prayers and not by any vertue in these oblations as they were a sacrifice distinct from the benefit of the Prayers as they were Alms indeed together with prayers they thought the dead benefitted by them together with the prayers and so St. Austin in the fore-quoted place mentions the sacrifices of the Altar which he explains by prayers and Alms both which he calls sacrifices * sive altaris sive orationum sive eleemosynarum sacrificiis supplicamus ut supra but not in a proper and strict sense as our Adversaries must acknowledge For these sacrifices I hope were not true and proper ones such as the sacrifice of the Mass is held to be nor were they properly propitiatory for their sins nor did the Antients who prayed for the dead at the Altar and made oblations for them think that these oblations were properly propitiatory or satisfactory for their sins as the Church of Rome believes the sacrifice of Mass now to be there is nothing that amounts to this in any of those places where they speak of offerings for the dead
and to the belief of Lies as most Idolaters generally were but may it please him who is the God of Truth to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived in this or any other matter in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church which is much better than Cursing and Anathematizing its Adversaries I hope as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THere are several mistakes of the Press but most of them are so Plain and Obvious that it is hoped that every Reader will immediately see and correct them without any trouble and without any particular account of them Five Sermons of Contentment one of Patience and one of Resignation to the Will of God By Isaac Barrow D. D. late Master of Trinity Colledg in Cambridg Never Published before in Octavo Printed for Brabazon Aylmer Licensed Aug. 3. 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind IN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OF THE BISHOP of MEAVX's OF Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVII AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE of the Publisher THe Translatour of the Bishop of Meaux's Book of Communion under both Species having told us why he made choice of this Author whom he stiles The Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age and in brief to speak all in a word the Great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Having thus brought forth this great Champion of the Roman Church he makes a plain Challenge with him to us of the Church of England in these words If this Author write Reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted By this I perceived he expected that we should be so civil as to take notice of so great a Man as the Bishop of Meaux or any thing that bears his Name and not let it pass unregarded by us after it was for our benefit as he tells us made English and besides I did not know but some unwary persons among us might believe the reason he writes however bad and therefore I thought he deserved to be confuted and ought by no means to go without the civility and complement of an English Answer This I doubt not might have been very well spared had the Publisher been pleased to have gone on a little further with his Work of Translating and obliged us who are strangers to the French Tongue with one of those Answers which are made to de Meaux's Book in that Language but since he has not thought fit to do that I must desire him to accept of such Entertainment as our Country will afford him though it is something hard that we must not only treat our Friends at home but have as many Strangers as they please put upon us But we who cannot Translate so well as others which is a much easier part than to Write at ones own charge must beg leave of our French Adversaries if we sometimes speak to them in plain English and the Bishop of Meaux must excuse me if Truth has sometimes made me otherwise answer him then if I were a Curé in his own Diocess Whoever has so great an opinion of the Bishop of Meaux's Vertue and Learning as to take matter of Fact upon his word which the Translatour's mighty Commendations were designed no doubt to beget in his Reader must believe the Communion in One Kind was the Practice of the Primitive and the Catholic Church which if it were true would be a very great if not sufficient excuse for the Roman This the Bishop asserts with all the confidence in the World and this his Book is designed to make out and whoever will not believe it must necessarily question either the Learning of this great Man or else his Sincerity I shall not dare to do the former but his late Pastoral Letter has given too much reason to suspect the latter He that can now tell the World That there has been no Persecution in France and that none has suffered violence either in their Persons or their Estates there for their Religion may be allowed to say That the Primitive Church had the Communion but in one Kind a great while ago But the one of these matters of Fact deserves more I think to be confuted than the other I suppose it was for the sake of the Author that the Translatour chose this subject of Communion in One kind though he says It is a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants this being the main Stone of Offence and Rock of Scandal and it having been always regarded since the Reformation as a mighty eye-sore and alledged as one sufficient Cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the Pre-existent Church of Rome When this Pre-existent Church of Rome fell into her Corrupt Terrestrial and Vnchristian State among other Corruptions this was one that gave just offence and was together with many more the Cause of our separating from it That it gave the Eucharist but in one kind contrary to Christ's Institution and took away the Cup of Christ's precious Bloud from the People But yet this point of highest concern is in the judgement of the Translatour but a bare Ceremony and upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman seems to him reducible in great measure to meer Form and Ceremony If it be then I hope it may be easily compromized and agreed for I assure him I am as little as he for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the Spirit of those who tear Christ's seamless Garment for a meer Form and Ceremony but we who are sometimes thought fit to be called Heretics and to be Censured and Anathematized as differing in Essential matters from the Church of Rome at other times are made such good Friends to it that we differ but very little and there is nothing but Form and Ceremony between us But what is to Accomodate this matter and Reconcile this difference between the two Churches Why the Doctrine of the Real Presence in which Both Churches he says agree that Christ our Saviour is truly really wholly yea and substantially present in the Sacrament This is to close up the difference not onely of Communion in one kind but of the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Mass too in the Translatour's judgement But does the Church of England then agree with the Roman in the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body and Bloud in the Sacrament Does it not expresly say the contrary namely That the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here and that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one * Rubric after Office
of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all