dwelleth in me c. (e) Necesse habemus sumere corpus sanguinem ejus ut in ipso maneamus ejus corporis membra simus De inst cler l. 1. cap. 31. wherefore 't is necessary that we should take the Body and Blood of Christ that we may dwell in him and be his Members Whosoever worthily eateth the Body and the Blood of Christ shews that he is in God and God in him And we saith (f) Lib. 2. f. 55. b. Guitmund who take the Communion of this Holy Bread and Cup are made one Body with Christ. Theophylact upon the Tenth to the Corinthians adds That which he saith is this That which is in the Cup is that which flowed from his side and (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad v. 16. by participation of it we communicate with that is we are united to Christ That Men might not only learn by words saith (h) Ed. Erasm p. 217. Petrus Cluniacensis that they cannot live unless they be joined and united to Christ after the manner of carnal Food and Life they receive the Body of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ. We saith (i) Et nos Jesa Christo Jesus Christus nobis unitate foederatur inenarrabili c. De coena Domini f. 320. b. St. Bernard by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ are joined in an ineffable Vnity to Christ and Christ to us as he said He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood abidethin me and I in him § 2 2. This will be further evident from those Expressions in which they say That the receiving of the Cup is necessary for the Remission of Sins for without this Remission there is no Salvation When thou receivest saith St. Ambrose What saith the Apostle to thee As often as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lord's Death if we shew forth his Death we shew forth the Remission of Sins and (k) Si quotiescunque effunditur sanguis in remissionem peccatorum funditur debeo illum semper accipere ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur qui semper pecco semper debeo habere medicinam De Sacr. l. 4. c. 6. l. 5. cap. 3. if as often as this Blood is poured forth it is done for the Remission of Sins I ought always to receive it that my Sins may always be forgiven for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins Now this Passage being cited and approved by many others in the following Ages and extant in the (l) Dist 2. c. 14. Can. de consecrat Canon Law it will be needless to cite more Authors to this purpose only let it be noted that to receive the Blood shed for the Remission of our Sins is to drink of it saith St. Ambrose and well he might no other way of receiving the Blood shed for the Remission of Sins being then known than that of drinking the Sacramental Cup. § 3 3. They do expresly teach That the Sacramental eating and drinking is ordinarily necessary to eternal Life (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 42. Without any doubting or shamefaced fear eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood saith Nazianzen if thou desirest Life Gregory Nyssen condemns Eunomius for asserting That the Mystical Symbols did not confirm our Piety But we saith he who have learned from the Holy Scriptures That unless a Man be born again of Water c. and that he who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood shall live for ever (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. contr Eunom p. 704. We believe that our Salvation is corroborated by the Mystical Rites and Symbols (o) In Levit. qu. 47. This Blood all Men are exhorted to drink who would have Life saith St. Austin Charles the Great confuting the vain Imaginations of the Second Nicene Council and comparing the sacred Blood with Images speaks thus (p) L. de Imag. 2. c. 27. Seeing without the participation of this Blood no Man can be saved whereas all Orthodox Persons may be saved without the observation of Images It is manifest that they are by no Man of a sound Mind to be compared or equalled to so great a Mystery Alcuin the Master of Charles the Great saith We must know that it is not lawful to offer the Cup of the Lord's Blood unmixed with Water for Wine was in the Mystery of our Redemption when Christ said I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine and the Water with Blood flowing from his side shewed the Wine pressed out of the true Vine of his Flesh with Water (q) Haec enim sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam non intratur De Celeb. Miss p. 88. for these are the Sacraments of the Church without which we cannot enter into Life (r) De Officiis Eccles l. 3. c. 26. Amalarius saith the same And our Lord saith (s) De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Maurus having pronounced concerning his Body and Blood that his Flesh is Meat indeed and his Blood Drink indeed and that he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life he therefore hath not that Life who eateth not that Bread and drinketh not that Blood for although Men who are not in his Body by Faith may have that Life in this World which is Temporal they can never have that Eternal Life which is promised to the Saints Christ saith (t) Fol. 216. b. Petrus Cluniacensis gives his Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunken that as it is discerned that without carnal Meat and drink none can pass through this temporal Life so it may be believed that without this spiritual Meat and Drink none can obtain eternal Life for how could he better commend himself to the World to be the Life of Men than by Example of those things in which Man's Life consists and therefore the Wisdom of God decreed to give his Flesh to Men to eat and his Blood to drink in the species of those things when he saith I am the Way the Truth and the Life c. we learn by hearing that he is Eternal Life but when he saith except you eat my Flesh c. we learn by eating that he is the Eternal Life of Men. That Men therefore might not only learn by Words but more familiarly by Deeds that they cannot Live except they be united to him they take the Body they drink the Blood in the likeness of Food not given by or taken from any other but Christ to shew this he signified that he would give to all Men his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink And truly if any Doctrine can deserve to be suspected as new strange and incongruous to the Analogy of Faith it must be this That the Cup of Life the Cup of Blessing which we bless the Cup of Salvation which we take according to our Lord 's own Institution and
which we drink of Worthily is not needful to conferr Life Salvation or spiritual Blessing on the worthy Receiver of it That in all the Liturgies of the Ancient Church they should pray constantly that they who worthily Received this Cup might be filled thereby with all spiritual Benediction and heavenly Grace that in their Discourses on this Subject they should exhort the People after they had received the Bread to drink this Cup for their Sanctification for the remission of Sins for the obtaining Life and tell them it was necessary to be drunk of for all the ends here mentioned and yet believe it was not needful to conferr Grace and spiritualy Blessings on them And 4ly This they do generally prove from the Fifth Century by that known passage of our Lord Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no Life in you (u) Tom. 1. p. 580. Tom. 2. p. 431. St. Basil is express unto this purpose saying That the Baptized person ought to be nourished with the food of Eternal Life and that the communication of the Body and Blood of Christ is necessary to Eternal Life And proving both from these words Verily I say unto you except you eat c. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life St. Chrysostom upon this Text speaks thus Because they had said before it was impossible to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. p. 748. He here shews not only that it is not impossible but that it is very necessary and therefore introduceth these words He that eateth my flesh c. He continually speaks of the Mysteries shewing the necessity of the thing and that it always ought to be done Against the Pelagians saith P. Gelasius (y) Dominus Jesus contra Pelagianos coelefti voce pronunciat Qui non manducaverit c. Ubi utique neminem videmus exemptum nec ausus est aliquis dicere parvulum sine hoc Sacramento salutari ad aeternam vitam posse produci Ep. vniv Episc per Nicaenum Concil Tom. 4. p. 1177 1178. our Lord pronounceth that he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him where we see none exempt nor dares any say that an Infant can obtain Eternal Life without this Sacrament It is not only said Except a Man be born again of Water c. but unelss He eat and drink c. and that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life St. Austin Asserts above Twenty times the absolute necessity that Infants should partake of Christ's Body and drink his Blood by reason of these words (z) Omnino parvulorum salvator est Christus omnino nisi ab illo redimantur peribunt quum sine carne ejus sanguine vitam habere non possunt hoc sensit hoc credidit hoc didicit hoc docuit Joannes Tom. 7. l. 1. contra Jul. Pelag. ed. Frob. p. 949. Christ saith he is altogether the Saviour of Infants and unless they be redeemed by him they will utterly perish seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life This St. John thought and believed learned and taught And again (a) An dicente Christo Si non manducaveritis c. dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine isto Sacramento finiisset hanc vitam Ibid. l. 3. c. 1. p 991. d. 992. a. when Christ saith Vnless you eat his Flesh and drink his Blood you have no life in you can I say the Child can have Life who ends his Life without that Sacrament And a third time He having said Vnless you eat c. and he that eats my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life (b) Quo igitur vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqua spiritu Sancto non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Where the Marginal Note is Eucharistia parvulis sub utraque specie Tom. 7. contr Pelag. Hypognost c. 5. p. 1405. b. c. How is it that you Pelagians promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit not fed with the Flesh of Christ nor having drunk of his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins Behold he that is not Baptized and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words he more expresly tells us saying (c) Dominum audiamus non quidem hoc de Sacramento sancti lavacri dicentem sed de Sacra mento sacrae mensae suae quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit Nisi manducaveritis c. Tom. 7. l. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 19. p. 666. Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism N. B. but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table to which none comes who is not rightly Baptized Except you eat and drink c. What do we farther seek for Dares any Body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children or that they can have Life in themselves without the Participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ But he that saith this doth not attend that if that Sentence comprehends not all so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ those of Riper Years are not obliged to regard it And to refer you to the (d) Vide Dallaeum de Cult Latin. l. 5. cap. 3. Margin for the rest his Conclusion is this (e) Siergo ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinant nec salus nec vita aeterna fine baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra fine his promittitur parvulis Lib. 1. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 24. p. 670. If then so many divine Testimonies accord in saying That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of our Lord they art in vain promised to Children without them Now here it is to be admired that Men of Sence and of Integrity should say St. Austin speaks all this of such a participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as may be had in Baptism when he not only speaks in divers of these places first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord but sometimes of this Sacrament by way of distinction from that of Baptism sometimes of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table and of that eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body And when this Text from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century was by the Fathers still interpreted of the Lord's Supper and Children were admitted to that Sacrament and to the drinking
to remember That Christ shed his Blood for them and by that Blood shed confirmed the New Covenant to them and since Christ hath appointed the drinking of this Cup and this alone to be the memorial of his Blood shed all Christians capable of doing so must be obliged when they do Sacramentally Commemorate these Mercies to drink of this Cup. And this demonstratively follows from the ensuing words Vers 26 Do this as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's death till he come for they do manifest that as well by drinking of the Cup as eating of the Bread the Lord's Death is shewed and that until his second coming both these things are to be done in order to that end And since these words are not the words of Christ but of St. Paul who speaks here of the whole Church of Corinth the words preceeding Do this as oft as you shall drink it in remembrance of me must belong also to all the Members of that Church because of the connective Particle which joins the 25th and 26th Verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be spoken to in the words This do c. and in the following words For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. And if this was the Duty of the whole Church of Corinth it must be equally the Duty of the whole Church of Christ there being no peculiar reason why the Church of Corinth should be obliged to drink this Cup in order to these ends more than all other Christian Churches And when our Lord hath taken so great Care to tell us That the Bread is his broken Body and therefore is to be eaten in remembrance of him i. e. of his Body broken that the Cup is the New-Tastament in his Blood and therefore is to be drank in remembrance of his Blood shed for us When his Apostle doth as distinctly say 1 Cor. x. 16. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup which we bless is the Communion of the Blood and neither of them have hinted in the least that the Cup is the Communion of his Body or the Bread of his Blood but by a particular and separate institution distribution and signification ascribed to them have strogly insinuated the contrary for men after all this to say one of these Species will suffice for the Bread is as well the blood shed as the broken Body and the participation of it is the Communion of the Blood of Christ and that by the partaking of it we do as well remember and shew forth the shedding of his Blood upon the Cross as by the partaking of the Cup is to my apprehension an affront offered to our dear Lord and to the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost In Answer to these Arguments some of the Roman Doctors are pleased to say that this Discourse of the Apostle imports only a conditional Order to do this in Remembrance of Jesus Christ as often as one shall do it and not an order absolutely to do it To this I Answer 1st He who not only doth command us at the celebration of the Sacrament to remember his Blood shed but also Institutes a sign for the memorial of it and doth command us to use this sign because it is appointed to be the memorial of it commands us when we receive the Sacrament to receive that sign for he who wills the end must will the means which he hath instituted for the accomplishing that end but this doth Christ for he institutes a Cup of Wine to represent his Blood shed he saith Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood shed this I command you to do in remembrance of me He therefore doth command us when we receive the Sacrament to receive this sign which in his Institution of this Sacrament he appointed as the means of this remembrance 2dly He who commands us to drink this Cup as oft as we drink it in remembrance of him because we do by drinking of it shew forth the Lords Death till he come commands us to do it as oft as we receive the Sacrament seeing as oft as we receive the Sacrament we shew forth the Lord's Death but Christ saith the Apostle did lay upon us this command for this very Reason saying Do this as oft as you shall drink it in nomembrance of me for as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come 3dly Where there is parity of Reason there the command may very well be deemed of equal latitude and extent for ratio legis est lex where there is equal reason to command there may we reasonably suppose the will of the Law-giver to be equal in commanding but ther is equal reason why our Lord should absolutely command the drinking of the Cup in remembrance of his Blood shed as why he absolutely should say touching the eating of the Bread Do this in remembrance of me the one being as much the Symbol of his Blood shed as is the other of his broken Body and the one shewing forth his Death as much as doth the other we therefore have no cause to doubt but that he equally intended the doing both in order to this end § 3 Second That it doth not appear either from the words of our Saviour Joh. vi or from the practice of himself or his Disciples that he left this practice indifferent will be made evident from an impartial consideration both of our Saviour's words and of his practice and first to clear up the true meaning of our Lord's Discourse in the Sixth Chapter of St. John Let it be observed First That our Lord 's mystical Expressions of labouring for the Meat that doth not perish of eating the true Bread from Heaven are by himself plainly expounded to import only the believing on him or the embracing of him as their Prophet and their Saviour for when he had exhorted them to labour for the meat that did not perish he tells them v. 29. That this was to believe on him that God had sent when he had told them v. 35. That he was the Bread from Heaven he immediately adds He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Having said that he was he Bread which cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. He confirms this Expression v. 40. by these words This is the Will of my Father that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him should have eternal Life And again v. 47. Verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath everlasting Life I am that Bread of Life Secondly Observe that nothing was more common among the Eastern Nations than to express the Actions of believing embracing and obeying the words of Wisdom Vide Leight Hor. Hebr.
believing Jews who heard these words and died before our Saviour's Passion Joh. vi 4. must of necessity be damned for our Lord saith with an asseveration to them Except you eat the flesh c. now this was said at least above a Year before our Saviour's Passion and so before the Institution of that Sacrament in which alone his flesh could be corporally eaten and therefore had it been intended of corporeal and sacramental eating it was impossible that any person of those Hearers could be saved who died in the ensuing year 2. These words interpreted in the corporeal Sence do plainly and inevitably inferr That they who do deprive the Laity all their whole lives of drinking of this blood expose them to inevitable damnation Christ having said Except you drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no Life in you for though eating and drinking being taken figuratively do signifie the same thing viz. believing in a crucified Saviour yet being taken properly they cannot be reputed the same thing For albeit they who receive the body only may be well said to eat the flesh of Christ because they take something by way of Meat into their Mouths yet cannot they be said to drink his blood if they take nothing into their Mouths by way of Drink Since therefore eating and drinking are two distinct Actions so that he cannot properly be said to drink who only eats since the privation of Life is here connected with not drinking of Christ's Blood as much as with not eating of his flesh according to the corporeal Interpretation pretation of these words he must certainly be deprived of the Life here promised who doth not receive the Cup because he is deprived of drinking of the Blood of Christ 4. From Vers 54 56. the Argument runs thus whoseover eateth the Flesh and drinketh the Blood of Christ in the sence here spoken of abideth in Christ and Christ in him and therefore is a true and living Member of Christ's Body and he shall have Eternal Life and be partaker of an happy Resurrection and so no person can be either wicked here or deprived of Everlasting Life hereafter who in this sence here mentioned eats of the Flesh and drinketh of the Blood of Christ Now this is very true of eating Spiritually and by Faith as it imports believing on Christ for Vers 40 This saith Christ is the Will of him that sent me That every one who believeth on the Son may hve Everelasting Life and I will raise him up at the lat Day but then of Sacramental eating of Christ's Flesh it is as false for this was eaten by a Judas and continually is eaten by Millions who are both wicked here and will be damned hereafter this therefore cannot be the import of our Saviour's words and here observe 1. That our Lord speaks in the general whosoever eats 2. That he speaks thus not by way of Promise which might be conditional but by way of plain Assertion and declaration of a thing most certain And 3. That the Text shews the eating mentioned here can never be performed unprofitably no not without the greatest benefit for 't is opposed to the eating of Manna in the Wilderness on this account that whereas that gave only Temporal Life this would assuredly conferr Eternal whereas that was not able to preserve from Temporal this would preserve from Death Eternal 5. Moreover Vers 61 62. our Lord speaks thus Doth this offend you what if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before i. e. are you offended that I thus speak of giving you my Fleh to eat do you look on this Expression now as so absurd and unintelligible what then will you think of it when this Body shall be removed hence to Heaven i. e. HOw will you then be scandalized and think it still more difficult and more impossible to apprehend how you should eat my Flesh and drink my Blood provided you go on to understand my words in the gross carnal Sence For Athanasius In illud Evang Quicunque dixerit P. 979. saith well That Christ here mentioneth his ascent into Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he might divert them from the corporeal sence and therefore argued thus Seing it will be hen impossible that you should corporally eat my Flesh when it is so far removed from you by this you may discern I speak of a spiritul eating of it Whence by the way we learn That Christ thought his Ascention into Heaven sufficient demonstration to the Jews his Flesh could not be eaten upon Earth and why it should not be so to the Christian I am yet to learn. 6. The 63. Vers affords us a more plain and certain Exposition of our Saviour's meaning in the precedent words for thus they run It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb de ecclesiaftic Theolog. l. 3. c. 12. The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life For the import of these words is to this effect unto that eating and drinking of which in this Discourse I have still spoken I have annexed the Promise of Life saying expressly He that eateth me shall live by me he shall by me be quickned Now all Men know That 't is the Spirit in them that gives them Life and when that Spirit is taken from them the Flesh cannot live or minister to the continuance of their Life by which similitude you may plainly learn I spake not of my real Flesh when I told you that by eating it you should have Life but of my Word and Doctrine that of my Passion more especially for my words which I speak to you they are Spirit and they are Life i.e. if you will hearken to them they will make you live Spiritually here Eternally hereafter and by so doing will be Life yea where they are embraced they are that to the new Man which is the Spirit to the Flesh they give him Life Activity and Motion and therefore they are Spirit Had our Lord said it is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing therefore the Flesh which I will give shall be still joined to my Divinity and by the virtue of it give you Life he had said somewhat like the sence which others put upon this Text but saying only The words which I speak unto you they are Spirit we cannot doubt but he speaks of eating and of drinking of his words spiritually 7. Our Saviour having said unto the Twelve Will ye also go away St. Peter Answers To whom should we go Thou hast the words of eternal Life and we believe thou art that Christ the Son of the living God. Where 1. observe that Peter here doth as it were repeat the words of Christ My words are Life saith Christ Thou hast the words of Life eternal saith St. Peter whereas if he had understood our Saviour to have spoken here of Oral Manducation his Answer
30. Trid. Sess 43. cap. 3. these Councils jointly have determined That by force of that natural Connexion and Concomitance which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body Christ's Body is entire under the Species of Wine and his Blood under the Species of Bread it being firmly to be believed and in no wise doubted that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the Species of Bread as under that of Wine and not the Flesh only under the Species of Bread nor the Blood only under the Species of Wine This whosoever shall deny let him be Anathema saith the Trent Council whosoever being learned will not declare upon Oath that he believeth and asserts this Doctrine of Concomitance he must suffer as an (a) Sess 13. can 1. Partinaciter dicentes oppositum tanquam haeresin sunt arcendi puniendi Sess 45. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1124. Heretick saith the Council of Constance And yet this Doctrine which cannot be denied without incurring an Anathema nor disbelieved without the Crime of Heresie is in it self absurd and plainly contrary to Scripture and to Reason and that it was unquestionably unknown to all the Ancient Fathers and the whole Church of Christ is very easie to demonstrate That this Doctrine is absurd that it doth not expound but rather doth expose our Saviour's Institution to the derision of Men of Reason and Consideration will be evident from these following Arguments For § 1 1. This Novelty apparently destroys the energy of the words used in the Institution of this Sacred Ordinance in which our Lord when he had given his Body broken to his own Disciples and they had actually received it saith of the following Cup Drink ye all of this Matth. xxvi 27 28. for this is the blood of the New-Testament shed for you Whereas if he knew any thing of this Concomitance he must know also they had received this blood of the New-Testament already and therefore might have spared his Cup and Reason both This do as oft as you drink it came too late for they had done what he commanded in effect before he bid them do it Sess 13. c. 3. Tantundem sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque continetur as much is contained under either Species as under both saith the Trent Council i. e. whole and entire Christ his Body Blood his Soul and his Divinity and so as much as is delivered in and as much Grace conveighed by the Reception of one Species as both For I suppose that by participation of Christ in this entire manner we have entirely the Grace of the Sacrament Why therefore did our Lord institute the other Species so perfectly unnecessary to conveigh any thing of Christ or of his Grace unto us Why did he bless the Cup and blessing said with like Solemnity and with express injunction Drink ye all of this Or why did he permit his Church for a whole Thousand Years to give his Members a thing which might be oft of a pernicious influence to them who did receive it unworthily but could be of no spiritual advantage to them who did receive it worthily since after we have taken worthily the consecrated Body we have taken as much as when we have received the Blood also Mr. Condom sets down this as their Principle Treat of Communion in both Kinds p. 327. That he who hath received the Bread of Life has no need of receiving the sacred Blood seeing he has received together with the Bread of Life the whole Substance of the Sacrament and together with that Substance the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist Now from this Principle it follows with the clearest evidence that it was needless for our Saviour to have said to his Disciples after they had received the Bread of Life Drink ye all of this Cup. That his Institution of the Cup to be received after the Bread of Life was a needless Institution that the Church was imployed in a needless Action for a Thousand Years when she distributed the Cup to all Believers That when our Saviour said Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins he gave a needless reason of a needless Action exhorting them to do what they had wholly done already to the end here assigned by him of the drinking of it And can that Principle be true which casts such horrid Imputations on the Commands the Institution and the Reason of that Institution assigned by our Blessed Lord and on the constant Practice of the whole Church of Christ And indeed this new Capricio of Concomitance cannot well be thought of by a Roman Doctor but presently this Question stares him in the Face To what purpose then was the Institution of both Species they being conscious to themselves that the very natural and obvious Conclusion from it would be this That our Lord's Institution of both Species was to no purpose they therefore have invented a new Reason of the necessity of Consecrating both the Species apart Mr. Condom ibid. p. 179 180. viz. That the Separation once made upon the Cross of our Lord's Body and Blood might never cease to appear on the Holy Table Now is it not wonderful that Christ should stablish a continual representation of the separation of his Blood from his Body by Species which he commands us to believe contain his Body and his Blood united What a pretty Mystery do these Men make of the sacred Institution of our Lord. Bread and Wine never cease to appear unto our Senses and yet we must not believe this Appearance but by Faith believe there is no such thing the same Faith teacheth me that our Lord's Body and Blood are united there and yet I must believe our Lord designed the continual representation of them there as separate where Faith informs me there is no such thing Secondly This Doctrine of Concomitance seems even to ridicule our Saviour's words and make them run to this effect I say unto you This is my Body broken not by way of representation only but substantially so and yet I know my Body neither is substantially broken in this Sacrament nor can it ever be so I bid you take this Cup and to encourage you to do so I say This is my Blood shed or separated from my Body and yet I know that there is always in this Sacrament such a Concomitance as renders it impossible my Blood should be thus separated as I say it is But notwithstanding I institute a Mystery which by some broken Accidents of Bread annihilated or some few colours or bare Species of Wine without a subject shall give some faint resemblance of my Body broken and my Blood shed for you This is my broken Body that is under these broken Accidents of Bread lyeth my Body whole and united to my Blood and therefore not my Body broken for you This is my Blood shed
the precious blood of Christ. (a) F. 11 12. Lanfrank informs us That sumitur quidem caro per se sanguis per se The Flesh is taken by it self and the Blood by it self the Flesh under the form of Bread and the Blood under the form of Wine They therefore seem not even in his days to have been acquainted with the new Doctrine of Concomitance Sixthly This is apparent from the Decrees of Leo and Gelasius concerning those who in their time abstained from the Cup. For of the Manichees (b) Serm. 4. in quadrages cap. 5. P. Leo saith That they indeed received the Body of Christ but they declined haurire sanguinem Redemptionis nostrae to drink the Blood of our Redemption he therefore thought that they could not drink the Blood according to our Saviour's Institution who received not the Cup. (c) Apud Ivon decr part 2. cap. 89. Gelasius saith That the declining of the Cup was the dividing of one and the same Mystery which could not truly be affirmed if by taking of the Bread alone an entire Sacrament and whole Christ Body and Blood were taken and received He also adds Let them either take the whole Sacrament or be driven from the whole clearly intimating that by receiving the Bread only they received not the whole But it is needless to proceed in confutation of this vain imagination for had it ever entered into the Heads of the Renowned Fathers of the Church they would not so unanimously have said the Cup was necessary to be received for the remembrance of our Lord's Death and Passion for the procuring of our union to Christ for the Remission of Sins for the increase of Grace for the Sanctification and Salvation both of Soul and Body they would not have concluded the Sacrament was imperfect when it was not received nor would they with such Passion have exhorted those who had received the Body to come and be partakers of the Cup or stiled it as in their Liturgies they always do the Cup of Life Redemption and Salvation as we have seen they did § 6 Mr. Condom nevertheless thus Triumphs over us Gentlemen open your own Books open Aubertine P. 356. the most learned Defender of your Doctrine you will find there in almost every Page passages taken from St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom the two Cyrils and from many others where you may read That in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his Person it self seeing they received say they the King in their Hands they receive Jesus Christ and the Word of God they received his Flesh as living not as the Flesh of a meer Man but as the Flesh of God is not this to receive the Divinity together with the Humanity of the Son of God and in a word his entire Person after this what would you call Concomitancy Answ What is all this to the purpose Is this the manner of speaking used by the Romanists since the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented and since the Sacrilegious Defalcation of the Cup Do they express Concomitance by saying You receive Jesus Christ the King the Word of God the living Flesh of God Is it not this they carefully and frequently inculcate that under that one Species alone which is distributed to them they receive Jesus Christ whole and entire Doth not the Council of Constance thus express it That (d) Sess 13. vide Basil Sess 30. Concil Tom. 12. p. 601. it is firmly to be believed and no way to be doubted that the whole Body and Blood is truly contained both under the Species of Bread and likewise under the Species of Wine Doth not the (e) Sess 13. cap. 3. can 1 Trent Council say That by virtue of this Concomitance the Body is under the Species of Wine and the Blood under the Species of Bread Anathematizing them who teach the contrary and that under one Species is contained a true Sacrament Are not the Romanists still endeavouring to possess the People with these Sentiments That in receiving one Species alone they loose nothing since by Concomitancy they receive both the Body and the Blood Is it not this which the (f) Sess 13. cap. 3. Trent Council is so concerned to teach that as much is contained under either Species as under both Let therefore Mr. Condom if he believes the Fathers held Concomitancy shew out of all their Writings any thing of this Nature which may convince us that they did assert it or let him rest assured that what the Romanists since the Twelfth Century (g) Attendant insuper Sacerdotes quod cum Communionem sacram porrigant simplicibus sollicite eos instruant sub panis specie simul eis dari corpus sanguinem Domini Concil Lambeth A.D. 1281. Concil Tom. 11. part 1. p. 1159. have been continually inculcating and obtruding upon others what filleth all their Books and their Discourses on this Subject but never was once mentioned by any Christian Writer for a Thousand Years though they were equally concerned and had all the same reason if they believed Concomitancy yea and the same occasion if they had generally practised the half Communion so to do is but a Novelty invented by the Romish Doctors only to serve a cause and justifie the Defalcation of the Cup. When the Doctors of that Church would in their suppositious Treatises make the Ancients speak in this new Dialect they do not mince the matter thus but make them speak exactly in their Roman Language Thus in that Epistle falsly said to be writ by Isidore Hispalensis to Redemptus they introduce him speaking thus (h) Cum praedictorum fuerit consecratio non ut quidam putant indocti sub panis specie sola caro Christi in Calice tantummodo sumitur sanguis sed in utroque Deus homo in corpore glorificato totus integer Christus integer Christus in calice panis vivus qui de coelo descendit totus est in utroque Epist Isidori ad Redemptum p. 696. When the consecration of the Elements is made there is under the Species of Bread not the Flesh of Christ only and in the Chalice not his Blood only as some unskilful persons think but in both there is God and Man whole and entire Christ in his Glorified Body whole Christ in the Cup the living Bread who came down from Heaven is entire and whole in both Here is plain dealing only the Language and other unquestionable circumstances as (i) De Eucharist p. 902. Aubertine well notes demonstrate that the Author could not write before the middle of the Eleventh Century because the Controversie betwixt the Greeks and Latins touching unleavened Bread which gave occasion to that Discourse began not till the year 1053. APPENDIX CHAP. VIII The Contents The Assertions of J. L. touching Communion in one kind § 1. Against whom it is proved 1. That Christ's Institution of the Sacrament is virtually a Command obliging
in Joh. p. 112 113. or hearkening to her Councils and Instructions by eating and by drinking of them Thus Wisdom cryeth in the Streets saith Solomon Come eat of my Bread and drink of my Wine that I have mingled Prov. ix 5. that is Go in the way of understanding v. 6. Eat you that which is good and let your Soul delight it self in Fatness that is Isa lv 2. Incline your Ear hear and your Soul shall live And by the Son of Syrach Wisdom is introduced speaking thus They that eat me shall yet be hungry and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty Ecclus xxiv 21. i. e. He that obeys me v. 22. Hence Philo the Jew informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Joh. vi v. 51. to eat is a Symbol of Spiritual nourishment Add to this that of Mr. Leightfoot That the Talmudists make frequent mention of eating the Messiah and thereby understand only their being made partakers of his Benefits And that of Clemens of Alexandria upon that passage of St. Paul I have fed you with Milk Strom. l. 5. p. 579. and not with strong Meat viz. Milk is the rudiments of Faith or the Doctrines of the Catechism the first nourishment of the Soul strong meat a comtemplation which makes us to discern the divine power and essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Contemplations are the Flesh and Blood of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meat and drink of the divine Word is the knowledge of the divine Essence Thirdly Observe that from these Metaphors our Lord proceeds to that contained in these words objected by the Roman Doctors v. 51. The Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World that is It is my Body which I will give up unto death that by it the world may have life which is a greater Benefit exceedingly than that which you received from that Manna which Moses gave you in the Wilderness or from that meat with which I did so lately fill your Bodies The Jews taking these words in a gross sence as if our Lord had promised to give his real Flesh to be swallowed down their Throats and eaten by them as they had eaten Bread the day before and as their fore Fathers had eaten Manna in the Wilderness exclaimed against him as promising a thing absurd inhumane and imposible saying How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat to this our Saviour Answers v. 53. in words still more expressive of his violent and bloody Death for the salvation of Mankind viz. Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood c. Now these words are by some conceived to import thus much Vnless you with the Mouth of your Bodies do eat my real and corporeal Flesh and drink my proper Blood you cannot have eternal Life Having premised these Observations I shall now proceed to shew both from this Chapter and from other Reasons that our Lord spake not here of oral and corporeal eating of his natural Flesh and drinking of his proper Blood but only of doing of these things spiritually and that not only in the celebration of that Sacrament which by our Lord was Instituted for the remembrance of his Death and Passion but generally believing that by his Death and Passion he became the Saviour of the World and purchased Pardon and Salvation for all that heartily believed in him and would sincerely yield Obedience to his precepts And 1. Against the gross and for the spiritual Interpretation of these words I argue from the 51. v. thus The Flesh which Christ here promised to give for the Life of the World is the same with the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. for so we learn expresly from these words I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh that I will give for the Life of the World. And again having said He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life v. 54. and he that eateth me shall live by me v. 57. he adds immediately This is the Bread which came down from Heaven and he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Now our Lord hath expresly taught us that the eating of this Bread of Life imported only our believing on him v. 35. as hath already been made evident from our second Observation therefore the eating of his Flesh doth certainly import the same spiritual Action Moreover we are only to eat of Christ as Flesh in that importance of the Phrase in which we are to eat of Christ as Bread for as Christ saith he will give Flesh to eat so doth he say he will give Bread to eat as he saith He that eateth of my Flesh shall live for ever so he saith He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever but none can say that Christ was or could properly be Bread or eaten by the Mouth as such wherefore he being only figuratively and spiritually Bread could only figuratively and spiritually be eaten as Bread if therefore in the same importance only we are to eat his Flesh that also is to be eaten in a spiritual Sence 2. From these words v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat 't is evident the Jews conceived that our Lord promised to give them his proper Flesh to eat and swallow down their Throats as they had done the Bread with which he fed them And it on all hands is agreed that they mistook the sence of Christ's words and fansied such a meaning of them as he did not intend but had our Lord intended the corporeal eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood 't is certain that it must be swallowed down their Throats as properly as was the Bread which they had eaten and therefore no Man who maintaineth this corporeal eating of Christ's Flesh to be intended here can suitably to his Opinion say That they imposed a false sence upon our Saviour's words since from this sence it does inevitably follow that Christ intended that his humane Flesh should properly be eaten and their words signifie no more Add to this one Consideration which shews what apprehensions the Fathers of the first Three Centuries had of this eating of the Flesh of Christ viz. when 't was objected to them by the Heathens that they did eat Man's Flesh they constantly in their Apologies reject the accusation as the vilest calumny and as a most abominable thing sufficient to discover that the Author of such an institution must be some wicked Damon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Christians saith Apol. 2. p. 70. 1. 50. Justin Martyr do not own the eating of humane flesh it is an infamous thing and falsly is reported of us This is saith Ad Authol l. 3. p. 119 126. Theophilus the most wicked and inhumane of
would in all probability have been to this effect Whatsoever appearance there may be of inhumanity absurdness and impossibility in eating of thy natural Flesh and drinking of thy Blood yet we believe it because thou hast said it who art Truth it self and who art able to make good thy words we therefore hearing nothing of this tendance from him we may conclude that he knew nothing of this import of them And 2. observe that he thought it sufficient to say We belive thou art the Christ which if our Lord spake here of Oral Manducation was nothing to the purpose but if he only spake of spiritual eating of him was the very thing which was designed by our Lord in this Discourse and which he spake of in those words which so much offended others We therefore conclude with Clemens of Alexandria That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Paedag. lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 100. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. pag. 104 105. when our Lord said Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood he allegorically meant the drinking of Faith and of the Promises and that our Lord is by way of Allegory to those that believe in him Meat Flesh and Nourishment and Bread and Blood. With Tertullian That De Resur Carn cap. 36 37. our Lord all along urged his intent by Allegory calling his word flesh as being to be hungred after that we might have Life auditu devorandus ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus to be devoured by the Ear ruminated upon by the mind and by Faith digested With Origen That Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem ejus verusest citanquam mundo 73. we are said to drink his Blood when we receive his words in which Life consists that his flesh is meat indeed and his blood drink indeed because he feedeth all Mankind with the flesh and blood of his word as with pure meat and drink With Ubi supra Eusebius That his Words andDoctrines are Flesh and Blood. With Arhanasius That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. pag. 979. the words which Christ spake were not carnal but spiritual for how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat that it should be made the Food of the whole World. With St. Austin Tract 25. in Johan Tom. 9. p. 218. Tract 26. p. 223 Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti credere enim in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum why providest thou Teeth and a Belly believe and thou hast eaten for to believe in him is to eat the living Bread. And lastly with Licet in Myfterio possit intelligi tamen verius Corpus Chrifti sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est In Psal 147. fol. 94. a. St. Jerom In the truest Sence the Body and the Blood of Christ is the Word and Doctrine of the Scripture Caro Christi sanguis ejus in auribus nostris infunditur the flesh and blood of Christ is poured into our Ears We say in the Language of Origen Hom. 7. in Levit. ibid. Si filii estis Ecclesiae agnoscite quia figurae sunt si enim sedundum literam sequaris If you are Sons of the Church own these things to be Figures for if you follow the Letter this very saying Except you eat the Flesh is a killing Letter In the words of Ubi supra Eusebius pronounced in the name of Christ do not think that I speak of that Flesh with which I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagine that I command you to drink of my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words that I have spoken to you they are Spirit and Life for as St. Austin saith touching the Exposition of Scripture Phrases De Doctrin Chriftiana li. 3. cap. 16. If the saying be preceptive either forbiding a wicked Action or commanding that which is good it is no figurative Speech but if it seems to command any wickedness or to forbid what is profitable and good it is figurative This saying Except you eat c. seems to command a wicked thing it is therefore a figure enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to remember that his Flesh was wounded and Crucified for us 2. § 4. Luc. xxiv 30. I should proeed Secondly to shew That it doth not appear from the practice of Christ himself in breaking Bread and giving it unto Two Disciples at Emaus nor from the practice of this Disciples Acts ij 42. who are said to have continued in breaking of Bread and who were gathered together to break Bread Acts xx 7. that both our Lord and his Disciples communicated in one ikind only But these Pretensions have been so fully answered by a late excellent Discourse of Communion in one kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux from Pag. 22 to 28 that it is superfluous further to insist upon them especially seeing the Author of the Li 6. pag. 486. History of the Trent Council hath informed us that 't was the Judgment of some of the Fathers there That all these places must be laid aside as impertinent to this matter or insufficient to prove that for which they are produced because had they concerned the Eucharist they must have been Instances not only of taking but also of consecrating the Holy Sacrament in one kind and so by them it would be concluded that it was not sacrilege to consecrate one kind without the other which say they is contrary to all the Doctors and the meaning of the Church and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament 3. Waving this therefore I proceed Thirdly to shew § 5. that it was the Custom of the Church to give the Sacrament to the Sick and to Infants capable of receiving of it in both kinds And 1. Whereas J.L. doth with true Romish confidence affirm That all ancient Writers do attest that it was the custom to give this Sacrament under one kind to the Sick the contrary is extreamly evident not only by the instances collected by the learned De Cultu Lat. l. 5. c. 11. p. 641 642. Dally of Sick Persons who communicated in both kinds from the 4th to the 10th Century but also from the Canons of the whole Church of Christ for in the third Century St. Cyprian and the Presbyters of Rome inform us That they had agreed that Si urgere exitus ceperit Ep. 18. Si premi infirmitate aliqua periculo coeperint Ep. 19. si de Saeculo excederint Ep. 20. item Ep. 30 31. if the lapsed Penitents were indangered by sickness and they were nigh to Death's door they should be admitted to the peace of the Church and that they should be relieved in the thing which they desired How was it that they did relieve the infirm when death approached even the same way that they did the strong Ep. 57. Protectione sanguinis corporis Christi With the protection