in the plural not by one of them only and (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 580. how this should be done Christ saith he hath taught us saying unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. And at the close of the Gospels it is written that Jesus taking Bread and giving thanks brake and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body broken for you this do in remembrance of me and taking the Cup and giving thanks he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this c. The Apostle also doth attest these things saying I received from the Lord that which I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus in the Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and giving thanks brake it and said This is my Body broken for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise after Supper he took the Cup saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood do this in remembrance of me for as of as you shall not this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 581. What therefore do these words profit us That eating and drinking we might be always mindful of him who died for us and rose again Which words are as full a confutation of the Roman Doctrine as can be desired by any Protestant For they expresly teach that every Baptized person (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moral Reg. 21. Tom. 2. p. 431. is bound to partake of both the Mysteries of the Bread and of the Cup that our Lord hath taught him how he should be nourished by these mysteries even by eating Sacramentally of his Flesh and drinking Sacramentally his Blood. That the words of the Institution of this Supper mentioned in the Gospels and in particular those words Drink ye all of this belong to all Believers even as much as the forementioned words He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. they being here introduced to prove that all Believers ought to be nourished by the holy Mysteries that therefore 3. Do this in both these Places is not a Command directed to the Apostles to Sacrifice Christs Body and his Blood but to Believers to eat and drink them And 4. That we are to remember and shew forth Christs Death not only by eating but by drinking also St. Ambrose speaking of these Sacraments as he and many of the Ancients call the consecrated Bread and Wine informs us that Christ speaks of them in the Song of Songs saying (y) Edite inquit fratres mei inebrianimi De Sacram l. 5. c. 3. quoties enim bibis remissionem accipis peccatorum inebriaris in Spiritu ibid. Eat my Brethren and be inebriated for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins and art inebriated with the Spirit And the same Ambrose elsewhere saith If as oft as this Blood is poured out it is poured out for the Remission of Sins (z) Debeo illum semper accipere ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur l. 4. c. 6. I ought alwaies to receive it that my Sins may always be remitted In which Words he not only asserts That Christ's Blood poured out ought to be received which cannot be done by receiving it only by Concomitance with the Body but also that our Lord commands his Brethren not to eat only of these Mysteries but to be inebriated and saith That we are thus inebriated by drinking St. Chrysostom is copious on this Subject for saith he § 4. many things conduce to christian Love (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matt. Hom. 32. p 223. one Table is offered to all the same Drink is given to all and not only so but it is given out of one Cup For the Father being willing to induce us to love one another ordered this making us to drink out of one Cup which is an Instance of intense Love So that the Sacrament of the Cup according to St. Chrysostom was of the Institution of the Father and he thus ordered Matters for the Advancement of his great Commandment of Christian Love. In his Twenty seventh Homily upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians he saith That as Christ said over the Bread and over the Cup do this in Remembrance of me (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 421. revealing to us the Cause of giving us this Mystery So doth St. Paul here say As often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's Death Christ therefore did command the drinking of this Cup and did it for a Cause which will remain to the Worlds End and equally concern all Christians viz. The Remembrance and Annunciation of his Death And in his Fifteenth Homily upon the First of Timothy he brings in Christ thus speaking to the Laity as well as Clergy I have united I have joined you to my slf (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 316. I have said eat me drink me And whether Christ or the Trent Council should be obeyed in this Matter it is not hard to judge especially if we consider That in the Judgment of St. Chrysostom Christ did not only institute but command these things to be done His Words are these As chiefly we remember those Words which we last hear from our departing Friends and are wont to say by way of Admonition to their Heirs if they dare to transgress their Commands consider this is the last Voice which your Father uttered and till his last Breath he required these things Even so Paul being willing hence to render his Discourse formidable Remember saith he that he gave this his last Mystery and in that very Night in which he was to be slain for us (d) In Cor. 1. Hom. 27. pag. 421. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he commanded these things St. Austin doth sufficiently inform us of the same thing by asking of this Question When our Lord saith Exceept ye ear my Flesh and drink my Blood you shall have no Life in you how is it that the People are so much reslrained from the Blood of the Sacrifices which were offered for Sins If by those Sacrifices this one Sacrifice was signified (e) Ab hujus Sacrificii sanguine sumendo in alimentum non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam qu. 57. in Levit. from taking of the Blood of which Sacrifice not only no Man is restrained but All Men are exhorted to drink it who will have Life for surely such an Exhortation must be equivalent to a Command § 5 It is worth the Enquiry saith (f) In Levit. p. 327. Procopius Gazaeus how it comes to pass That when in the Law the eating of Blood is forbidden Now Christ commandeth us to eat his
Blood. § 6 Isidore Hispalensis saith in Allusion to the Words of Wisdom That Christ the Wisdom of God hath built him an House the Church in which he hath slain the Sacrifices of his Body in which he hath mingled the Wine of his Blood in the Cup of the divine Sacrament and prepared his Table that is the Altar of the Lord when sending forth his Servants the Apostles and Teachers to the Foolish that is to all Nations that knew not the true God he saith unto them (g) Dixit eis venite comedite panem meum bibite vinum quod miscui vobis id est Sancti corporis escam sumite poculum sanguinis sacri percipite De Gent. vocat cap. 26. Come eat my Bread and drink my Wine which I have mingled that is take ye the Meat of my sacred Body and receive the Cup of my sacred Blood. His Command therefore according to Isidore was by his Apostles sent to all Nations and to the Foolish among them to drink the Cup of his sacred Blood. The Council held at Braga in the same Century speaking of those who delivered to the People a piece of Bread dipp'd in the Wine for the whole Communion confutes this Practice by recurring not only to the Custom of the Church but also to the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Command of Christ for say they (h) Quidam in Sacrificiis Domini Eucharistam vino madidam pro complemento communionis credunt populis porrigendam Quod quam sit Evangelicae Apostolicae Doctrinae contrarium non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probabitur a quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commemoratio memoratur Concil To. 6. p. 563. how Repugnant this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Custom of the Church may easily be proved from the Fountain of Truth who gave the Cup by it self saying Drink ye all of this as he took the Bread by it self saying Take eat c. Hence then we learn That the Fountain of Truth commanded and the Doctrine of the Gospel requireth That all the People should receive the Cup and that they should receive it ordinarily apart from the Bread. Regino quotes from venerable Bede these Words (i) Postquam infirmus sacra Unctione fuerit delibutus statim corpore sanguine Domini recreandus est ut de cujus vita temporali desperatur vivificari in anima vita aeterna mereatur ait enim Dominus qui manducat c. Proinde Sancti Canones praecipiunt ut nulli fideli in extremis posito Communio denegetur De Eccles Disc l. 1. c. 119. p. 77. § 7 When the infirm Person hath been anointed he presently is to be refreshed with the Body and Blood of our Lord that he may deserve to be quickned with Life Eternal in his Soul when his corporal Life is despaired of for our Lord saith He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life and unless you eat you shall have no Life in you And hence the sacred Canons command that the Communion should be denyed to none of the Faithful in the Close of this Life Where we learn 1. What was then understood by the Word Communion viz. the receiving of both Species the Body and the Blood and how these Species were to be received viz. The Flesh was to be eaten and the Blood to be drunk 2. Why they were to be both received viz. Because of our Lords Sayings John vi And 3ly We also learn for Confutation of Mr. Condom's first pretended Practice of the Church That the Sick were to receive the Body and the Blood and that the Canons of the Church required that they should not be withheld from them Zacharias Chrysopolitanus cites from the same Bede these Words (k) Hinc est quod ait Bibite ex hoc omnes ore corde ut sitis participes passionis meae Monotess p. 306. Hence it is that he saith Drink ye all of this both with the Heart and with the Mouth that ye may be Partakers of my Passion § 8 Paschasius Rathertus saith It is Christ alone who breaketh this Bread and distributeth it to Believers by the Hands of his Ministers (l) Similiter calicem porrigit eis dicens accipite hibite ex hoc omnes tam ministri quam reliqui credentes cap. 15. saying Take ye and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the Faithful This is the Blood of the new and everlasting Testament Cassander informs us That the Gloss called expositio quadruplicis Missae expounds the Words thus (m) Ex hoc scilicet Calice sanguinis omnes scilicet sine personarum acceptione De Com. sub utraque specie p. 1043. Drink ye of this Cup of Blood All without exception of Persons Hincmarus Remensis having cited the same Words adds (n) Tom. 2. p. 90. Haec dixit dicit This he said then and this he saith now All plainly contradicting the R. Gloss and Mr. Condom's Exposition That these Words Drink ye all of this were only spoken to and concern'd only the Apostles Lanfranck § 9. Arch-bishop of Canterbury speaks thus to Berengarius If thou couldest with Christian Caution understand these things which ought to be understood literally and spiritually (o) Proculdubio crederes quod universalis Ecclesia credit praedicares quod Apostolica Doctrina in tota mandi latitudine praedicandum instituit carnem scilicet sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi ore corpore ore cordis hoc est corporaliter spiritualiter manducari bibi De Sacr. Euch. f. 131 132. thou wouldest without doubt believe that which the universal Church believes thou would-est publish what the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published through the World viz. That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be eaten and drunken both by the Mouth and Body and by the Mouth of the Heart that is both bodily and spiritually And Anselm his Successor in the same See saith We ought to eat and drink this Sacrament two ways (p) Ore cordis ore Corporis Com. in 1 Cor. 11. with the Mouth of the Heart and of the Body The doing both these things the drinking of the Blood of Jesus with our Mouths is that which ought to be done that which the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published Pope Paschal writes to Pontius Abbot of Clun §. 10. thus (q) Scribens ad Caecilium B. Cyprianus ait quando aliquid Deo inspirante mandante praecipitur necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet excusatus apud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat ne aliud fiat a nobis quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecit igitur in sumendo corpore sanguine Domini juxta eundem Cyprianum Dominicatraditio servetur necab
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
of the Cup on that account Isidore Peleusiota in the same Age extolling the Sacerdotal Order saith That by their means we are regenerated (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. Ep. 52. and made partakers of the divine Mysteries without which no Man can attain the Heavenly rewards as is apparent from the Heavenly Oracles now saying That unless a Man be born again c. and anon Vnless we eat c. we have no life in us Which Argument he seems to have borrowed from St. Chrysostom who saith (g) Hom. 3. de Sacerd. tom 6. p. 16. l. 38. If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who is not born again of Water c. If he that doth not eat the Flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood is deprived of Eternal Life and all these things are not otherwise communicated but by the Hands of the Priest who can without these Men avoid the Fire of Hell or enjoy the Crowns laid up in Heaven Amphilochius saith (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Vit. Basil c. 17. p. 221. It is impossible that any one should be saved unless he be regenerated by Baptism and made partaker of the Life-giving Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ (i) De Ecclesiast Officiis l. 1. de Sacrificio c. 18. Isidore Hispalensis cites and approves that passage of (k) Timendum est ne dum qui abstentus seperatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso vel dicente Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem ejus non habebitis vitam in vobis Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Et Raban Maur. de institut Cler. l. 1. c. 31. St. Cyprian in his Treatise on the Lord's Prayer It is to be feared least any one being long separated from the Body of Christ should be far from Salvation Christ having said Vnless you eat c. Hincmarus Remensis saith That Christ spoke those words of his Body and Blood inviting his Servants to his Table that l Locutus est nobis de corpore sanguine suo commendans talem escam talem potum Nisi manducaveritis c. haec sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur Tom. 2. p. 92. this and Baptism are the Sacraments of the Church without which we cannot enter into true Life (m) Habet vitam aeternam hanc ergo non habet qui istum panem non manducat nec istum sanguinem bibit nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt aeternam vero omnino non possunt August Tract 26. in Joh. p. 229. Sinc isto cibo potu Raban M. de instit Cler. l. 1.31 Rabanus speaks thus The Truth saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed Men may have temporal Life without this Meat and Drink eternal they can never have Which Words he borrowed from St. Austin's Comment on the Sixth of John. Regino cites this passage from the Capitulars of Charles the Great That (n) De Eccl. discipl l. 1. can 195. great discretion is to be used as to the Receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ for care is to be taken least being deferred too long it tend to the Destruction of the Soul our Lord having said Vnless you eat c. (o) Quasi quodam jurejurando protestatur dicens Amen Amen c. Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 1007. Humbert in his Disputation against the Greeks saith That Christ restified with an Oath that without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had saying Verily I say unto you except c. The Flesh is taken by it self saith Lanfranck and the Blood by it self not without a certain Mystery though in another Sence whole Christ is said to be eaten viz. By spiritual desire of eternal Life and Meditation of his Passion (p) Utraque comestio necessaria utraque fructuosa altera indiget alterius ut boni aliquid operetur hinc in Evangelio legitur nisi manducaveritis c. De Sacr. Euch. p. 126 127. both these Comestions are necessary for hence it is read in the Gospel that unless we eat c. (q) Comment in 6. Joh. Rupertus Tuitiensis saith That least any Man should think he hath recovered by Faith alone the Life of his Body and Soul without the visible meat and drink of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently needs not the Sacrament Christ repeats the same thing again touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood by this undoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly believe whosoever despiseth to eat and to drink for although thou be a Faithful Man and profess thy self to be a Catholick if thou refusest to eat of this visible Meat and Drink even by this that thou presumest that this Meat and Drink is not necessary to thee thou cuttest thy self off from the Society of the Members of Christ which is the Church § 4 Now if that sence which the constant interpretation of the Fathers hath put upon these words from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century be owned by Romanists the consequence is unavoidable that it is necessary to Salvation to receive the Sacrament under both kinds for they who do receive the Body only may be said well to eat the Flesh of Christ because they take something by way of Meat but they cannot be said to drink his Blood as here our Lord requireth them to do since they take nothing by way of drink The privation of Life is here connected with the neglect of Drinking as much as with the neglect of Eating since therefore eating the drinking are distinct Actions he cannot properly be said to drink who only eats and therefore must neglect what by the Fathers descants on these Words is necessary to life eternal Moreover since on this sole account they constantly did minister the Cup to little Children as Roman Catholicks confess they ministred both the Bread and Cup to Children capable of receiving both as the Church History attests it follows that they held it necessary to Salvation in conformity to these Sayings of our Lord recorded by St. John that both should be received by all Christians capable of taking both Species And therefore in condemning this Doctrine Sess 21. can 4. and that with an Anathema the Fathers of the Trent Council must have virtually Anathematized the whole Church of Christ for Nine whole Centuries and by renouncing of this Interpretation so generally received the Doctors of the Roman Church must at least seem to us to violate that Oath Jaramentum professionis fidei a Pio 4. editum which they have taken never to interpret or own any sence of Scripture Nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers CHAP. IV. The Contents In opposition to that Determination of the Trent Council That a true or an
for you that is under this empty shew of Wine lieth my Blood united to my Body and so my Blood not shed and whether hoc est corpus thus interpreted doth not make Nonsence of the words let the considerate Reader judge § 2 Thirdly If there be such a necessary Concomitance in the Sacrament then must each part of the Sacrament exhibit whole and entire Christ with all his Benefits and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part or Species of the Sacrament must be the depriving them of whole Christ and all his benefits Now then in doing this either they are deprived of some spiritual Benefit or not if the first then must the Romanists be Sacrilegious because they do deprive the people of some spiritual Benefit from those sacred Mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably unto the Institution of our Lord and the common practice of the Church for a Thousand Years If the receiving of the Chalice worthily be of any advantage to Souls then he who does not receive it is a looser and he by whom they are deprived of this spiritual Good must be a Sacrilegious person If it be said that no spiritual Benefit can accrue to them by drinking of the Cup then must it be asserted that albeit a Man receive entire Christ worthily yet may he never be the better for it and what is this but to esteem the Blood of the Covenant thus received an unholy thing § 3 Fourthly had our Lord taught Concomitance his Institution of this Sacrament had been the Institution of a thing directly contrary to the Law of Moses viz. The eating of Flesh with the Blood and then it must have ministred offence to the Apostles and the first Jewish Converts who were all strict observers of that Law. Since then we do not find that the Apostles the Jewish Converts or even the Sects of Nazeranes and Ebionites did ever scruple the receiving of the Sacrament on this account we may presume our Saviour taught no such Concomitance § 4 To conclude should we admit of this imagination it would not free the Romanists from the Imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from delivering of half Christ For feeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently an half Sacrament He that receives only the Bread receives only the Sacrament of the Body and not the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ and so receives not an entire Sacrament § 5 That the Fathers of the Church till the Tenth Century knew and believed nothing of this Doctrine of Concomitance as it is evident from many of their Testimonies cited in this Discourse so may it fully be evinced from the received Customs of the Church of Christ And First this may be proved from that received Custom mentioned in all the Liturgies both of the Eastern and the Western Churches which was to bite or break a piece of the consecrated Bread and putting it into the Cup to say these words (b) Fiat commixtio consecratio corporis Sanguinis Domini nostri Ordo Rom. apud Cassandr p. 112 119. Let there be made a mixture and a consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ For though (c) Durant de rit Eccl. l. 2. c. 52. Durantus and (d) Bona rerum Liturg. l. 2. c. 16. p. 814. Bona do in conformity to the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation carefully remark that the Priest doth not thus speak as if those things were then united which before were separated and that they made no mixture of our Lord's Body and his Blood according to their real essences but only according to their Sacramental Species yet do the Liturgies refuse this Subterfuge and their Expositors sufficiently confute this uncouth Gloss for they do never speak of a Commixtion of the Sacramental Species but always of the Body and Blood of Christ They pray that this Commixtion and Consecration may avail to their (e) In vitam aeternam Ord. Rom. eternal Salvation which cannot be expected from the Sacramental Species but only from the real Body and the Blood. Albinus Flaccus doth inform us That this Commixtion is made (f) Ut calix Domini totam plenltudinem contineat Sacramenti Cap. de celebr Miss p. 93. that the Cup of the Lord may contain the whole fulness of the Sacrament as it were by the Copulation of the same Mystery This is not done in vain saith (g) De Eccles Offic. l. 3. c. 3. Amalarius for corporal Life consists of Flesh and Blood whilst these two continue in Man his Spirit or Life continues In that Office is shewn that the blood shed for our Souls and the flesh dead for our Body return to their proper Substance and that the New Man Christ is made lively by the quickening Spirit that he who died for us and rose again can die no more (h) Per particulam oblata immissae in calicem ostendit Christi corpus quod jam resurrexit a mortuis De inst Cleric c. ult Rabanus Maurus in like manner saith That the particle consecrated thus put into the Chalice shews that the Body of Christ is now risen from the Dead (i) Ad designandam corporis animae conjunctionem in resurrectione Christi cap. 17. Micrologus saith That this mixture is made to signifie the Conjunction of the Soul and Body of Christ in the Resurrection and that the particle put into the Chalice signifies the Body of our Lord risen from the dead Now they who say this mixture was made that the Cup might contain the fulness of the Sacrament did not believe that the Cup before contained the Sacrament compleatly as it must do if it contained the Body before And they who say That this is done to shew that the Body of Christ is now alive and risen from the dead and that this mixture therefore sheweth this because it joineth or uniteth Flesh and Blood did not believe they were before united by Concomitance And as our Lord by consecrating the Wine after he had distributed the Bread and bidding them all drink thereof because it was the Blood of the New Testament declared sufficiently that he did not conceive that his Disciples had received already that same Blood he Consecrated that they might receive it Even so these Christians who mixed the Consecrated particle of our Lord's Body with his Blood that so the Union of both in which our Saviour's Life consisted might be represented sufficiently declare they did not think his Flesh and Blood were by Concomitance before united Secondly This will be farther evident from that known Custom of the Church which was to mix the Bread and Wine that so when they Communicated Infants or infirm persons who could not swallow down the Bread alone they might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ profit thee to
Life Eternal for that this Decree of the Council of Tours That the Sacred Oblation given to such persons should be dipped in the Blood of Christ that so the Priest who gave it to them might truly say to the infirm Person The Body and Blood of Christ profit thee c. was observed in the Church from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century we learn from (k) Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi ut veraciter possit Presbyter dicere infirmo corpus sanguis domini proficiat tibi c. Regino de Eccles Discipl l. 1. cap. 70. Proficiat tibi in remissionem peccatorum vitam aeternam Jvo Decret part 2. cap. 19. Burch l. 5. c. 9. Regino Ivo and Burchardus who all make mention of this Canon as a Law which was observed in their times That this practice was used though not with Approbation in the Fourth Century even in the Administration of this Sacrament in publick is evident from the Condemnation of it by (l) Concil Tom. 2. p. 528. P. Julius A. D. 336. in these words We have heard that some possessed with a Schismatical Ambition do deliver to the people the Eucharist dip'd for a compleat Communion which thing how contrary it is to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine and how repugnant to the Custom of the Church it is not hard to prove from the Fountain of Truth from whom proceeded the appointment of the Mysteries of the Sacrament For this they have not received from the Gospel where Christ commended his Body and his blood to his Disciples for there the commendation of the Bread apart and of the Cup apart is rehearsed nor do we read that Christ gave Bread dipp'd to any but to that Disciple whom he would shew to be the betrayer of his Master by the sop dip'd This saith (m) Cap. 19. Micrologus is the prohibition of Julius the Thirty fourth Pope writing to the Bishops of Egypt Thirdly This will be farther evident from this Consideration That the Fathers do certainly speak of the Consecrated Bread and Wine as of Two Sacraments and that as really distinct as are the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrism This we may learn from all those numerous passages in which they are still stiled by the Fathers of the Western Church Sacramenta Mysteria Sacramenta Coelestia divina Mysteria The Sacraments and Mysteries in the Plural the heavenly Sacraments and divine Mysteries and by the Eastern Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Gifts the divine Mysteries the Holy Sacraments c. Thus do the Greeks speak of them to this very day thus did the celebrated Writers of the West speak and write of them till the Eleventh Century when Transubstantiation began to be established and with it the Doctrine of Concomitance The Sacraments saith (n) Sunt autem Sacramenta Baptismum chrisma corpus sanguis Orig. l. 6. c. 19. Raban M. de Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 24. Pasch cap. 9. Isidore Hispalensis are Baptism and Chrism the Body and the Blood of Christ which are therefore called Sacraments because under the veil of Corporeal things the divine Virtue doth more secretly work the Salvation of those Sacraments Which words are borrowed from Pope Gregory and are repeated by Paschasius only with this addition These are the Sacraments of the Church of Christ Rabanus Maurus hath the same words and having discoursed of Baptism and Chrism he proceeds thus Because we above discoursed as much as God enabled us of Two Sacraments Baptism and Chrism (o) De Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 31. superest ut de reliquis duobus id est Corpore Sanguine Domini diligentius investigemus It remains that we discoi se of the Two other Sacraments viz. The Body and the Blood of Christ Whence first we learn that then the Sacraments were not accounted Seven as they are now at Rome but only Four or rather Two Chrism being held as one with Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ being as to the Species in which it was to be celebrated double which Species were therefore called Sacraments by Gregory saith (p) In 4. Sent. dist 12. Art. 2. q. 2. Bonaventure yet are they but one Sacrament by virtue of the Institution and end for which both are design'd viz. The Vnion of the body Mystical Now they who do so often speak of both these Species as Sacraments the Sacraments of the Church and as Two Sacraments because they have their distinct operations towards the health or the Salvation of those who worthily Receive them and both conduced to the Union of the Mystical Body of the Lord could not imagine that by virtue of that Concomitance of which they never speak one word of syllable the virtue of both Species was contained in and was intirely conveighed by one alone For they must be supposed to hold the Cup a Sacrament of our Lord's Institution and therefore not superfluous that it was Sacrae rei Signum a Sign of a thing Sacred which did conveigh the Grace it signified and operated to the Salvation of those who worthily Received it after they had received the Body and which conduced unto the Union of the Body Mystical to their head Christ Jesus They lastly must conceive that to deprive Christ's Members of the Cup was to deprive them of one Sacrament And Fourthly this appears from those sayings of the Fathers which attribute a distinct effect unto the several species (q) Caro salvatoris pro salute corporis sanguis vero pro anima nostra effusus est In 1 Cor. xi p. 270. The Flesh of Christ was delivered saith St. Ambrose for the Salvation of the Body and the Blood was poured out for our Souls c. (r) Haym in 1 Cor. xi p. 129. Anselm ibid. Haymo and Anselm use the same words with a little variation saying That we receive the Sacraments for safety of the Body and Soul for the Flesh was offered for the Salvation of the Body and the Blood shed for our Souls that both our substances might receive the inheritance of Eternal Life (s) L. 4. dist 11. Quare sub duplici specie Peter Lombard (t) Decret p. 2. c. 7. Ivo Carnotensis (u) Tom. 5. c. 6. Hugo de Sancto Victore and (x) Sum. Theol. part 3. num 29. Art. 9. Alexander of Hales cite the very words of Ambrose to prove the same thing And Fifthly This will be farther evident from those Fathers who assert That the Body is given under the one the Blood under the other Species This Cyril of Jerusalem informs those whom he Catechised That (y) Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. in the Species of Bread is given the Body of Christ and in the Species of Wine his Blood. The (z) Lit. Chrysost Tom. 6. p. 998. Liturgies do in like manner pray That God would make this Bread the precious body of Christ and that which is in the Cup
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
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
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
purging themselves from the neglect of both Why doth he make them with as much care to plead We did not leave the meat as we left not the Cup of the Lord Having thus shewed the custom of this Age I shall consider what is from St. Cyprian suggested to the contrary viz. that he relates That the solemnities being ended the Deacon who presented the Holy Cup to the Faithful being to give it to a Child Pag. 67. she turned away her face as not able to support so great Majesty she shut her Mouth and refused the Chalice and when the Deacon had forced some of it into her Mouth she could not retain it in those defiled Entrails so great was the power and Majesty of our Lord. Whence it is argued that she received the Cup only Now to give a clear and satisfactory Answer to this Objection it will be necessary to reflect a little upon the Customs of these times as V. Gr. 1. The business of the Deacon which was not to administer the Bread but when the Priest or Bishop had administred that to follow with the Cup. So the Apostolical Constitutions order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 8. c. 13. Let the Bishop give the Oblation saying The Body of Christ And the Deacon let him hold the Cup and giving it let him say The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and accordingly here this happened faith St. Cyprian Ubi Calicem Diaconus offere praesentibus coepit P. 132. When the Deacon began to distribute the Cup to them that were present and is it then to be admired that here is no mention made of the Body if hence it follows That no Body was distributed to this Child it also follows that no Body was given to the rest of the Faithful then present for there is no more mention made of the Body given to them than of the Body given to the Child Nor could S. Cyprian regularly speak of it when discoursing of the Deacon who then ministred the Cup only 2. Note Secondly That the Children received in the Rank of the Women so the same Constitutions speaking of that order in which the Encharist was to be received saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Amongst the Women let the Diaconesses the Virgins and the Widows Receive and then the Children and this was doubtless ordered so that the Women might take care of their Children and assist them in Receiving Ibid. accordingly this Child comes in the Arms of its Mother and when she had Received Locus ejus advenit Came the time for the Child to Receive too 3. Note thirdly That the Bread was not then put into the Mouth as it is now in the R. Church but it was given into the Hand of the Receiver to eat at leasure of it whilst the Bishop or Priest went on distributing as is acknowledged by the learned Vid Dallaeum de cult lat l. 5. c. 2. Doctors of the Church of Rome and proved by innumerable Testimonies of the Ancients Now it is not to be conceived that they who had a reverence for the Holy Sacrament would put it into the Hands of little Children who might let it fall or throw it away or that the Priest should stay till he could make the Child eat or swallow it down but rather that he should give it to the Mother from whose Hands the Child more likely would receive it and who could better chew it for and put it down his Throat This being so the Bread might be given to the Mother for the Child to eat at leasure and the Priest take no notice of her refusal to receive it but then because the Cup was by the Deacon to be received again into his hands to be distributed to otehrs he must stay till the Child had participated and so he must endeavour to make it drink of it And this I verily believe is the whole Truth touching this instance which therefore is no proof at all that both the Symbols were not offer'd or distributed to this Child but only that she had not eaten of the Bread given to her Mother for her use before the Deacon followed with the Cup. Nor can this reasonably be questioned if we consider how constantly the Tradition of the Church informs us in all the following Centuries that Children received in both kinds For To omit the passage in the Apostolick Constitutions where they are reckoned amongst those who received the Eucharist when without any distinction or exception the Bishop separately gave the Bread and the Deacon the Cup to all Dionysius in the Fourth Century informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. c. 177. Eccles Hier. c. 7. p. 360 361. little Children did partake of the most holy Symbols of the divine Communion And Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia expresly notes That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they gave to Infants the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 400. Photius adds That he invented many absurd things that he might solve the question of those that asked Why do Children partake of the Holy Mysteries in the plural and that he might have found out better Solutions of that question and given better accounts of that Custom then he did he therefore Synecdochically spake of the Receiving both these Mysteries The passages of St. Austin in the fifth Century are very numerous in which he both asserts it as an universal Practice that little Children did partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ and also saith that without eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood they could not have eternal Life But having produced these already I only add his Testimony that Innocentius P. sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione corporis sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit Contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Pope Innocent the First declared That Infants could not have Life without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ. To proceed now in farther confirmation of our Assertion There is no better proof nor better interpreter of a Custom than the Custom it self nothing which more demonsrates that a Custom comes from the first Ages than when it is seen to continue successively to the last This of communicating little Children not under the Species of Wine only but of Bread also or of both is evidently such for in the 6th Century De glor Martyr l. c. 10. Gregory of Tours makes mention of a Jewish Child coming with other Children to the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood. In the 7th Century the Concil Tom. 6. p. 552. 11th Council of Toledo excuses those from censure qui Eucharistiam receptam in tempore infantiae rejecerunt who in their Infancy have cast out the Bread received into their Mouths In the 8th Century we are informed by Charles the Great that this was then the general Custom of the Church of God for against the Doctrine of the Second
46. c. 2. p. 518. in the Church of God in the Mystical distribution of the spiritual Nourishment the Body and the Blood of Christ is taken But adds That Ser. Sancto de jejun Sept. mensis Ser. 89. the Lord saying Vnless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you we ought so to communicate of this Holy Table as not to doubt of the Truth of the Body and Blood of Christ Gelasius also saith Disp de duabus naturis Christi Bib. patrum Tom. 4. p. 432. That the Sacraments we take of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine Thing whence by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature and yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be or to remain and in this Decree that the taking of both Species is the taking of one and the self-same Mystery which therefore is not celebrated by taking of one Species only and that the not receiving of the Cup when the Bread hath been taken is the dividing of one and the self-same Mystery or the destroying of its Unity so that he argues against this practice from a Reason essential to the Mystery and which respects the Unity thereof which by the practice of receiving in one kind only is destroyed Having thus demonstrated that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church till the 12th Century taught Cap. 1. That the Laity by divine Precept were obliged to receive both kinds when they were capable of doing so Cap. 2.6 That they condemned all variation from the matter of the Institution and the Doctrine of Concomitance Cap. 3.5 That they conceived the Receiving of the Cup by the Laity was requisite to their shewing forth the Lord's Death their Vnion to Christ the increase of Grace the Remission of their Sins the Sanctification and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies and lastly Cap. 4. for their receiving an entire Communion That they constantly exhorted the People having received the Bread to take the Cup also Cap. 6.5 declaring that it was Vnlawful Erroneous and even Sacrilegious to receive the one without the other if they were capable of receiving both and having fully answered and confuted all that J.L. hath offered to the contrary Cap. 8. I shall conclude in these words of Mr. Condom on this subject a little varied viz. Thus many constant practices of the Primitive Church P. 160. thus many different Circumstances whereby it appears in particular and in publick and always with an universal approbation and according to the established Law that she gave the Communion under both Species so many Ages before the Council of Constance and from the origin of Christianity till the time of this Council do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did thwart the Tradition of all Ages P. 161. when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both and that in which manner soever they took it they neither contradicted the Institution of Jesus Christ nor deprived themselves of the Fruit of this Sacrament In his Second Part P. 194. Sect. 4th he lays down this as a principle which alone carries along with it the decision of this Question P. 195. viz. That in all practical Matters we must always regard what has been understood and practised by the Church P. 196. That the true means to understand God's Holy Law is to consider in what manner it has been always understood and observed in the Church Since there appears in this Interpretation and perpetual Practice a Tradition which cannot come but from God himself P. 200. and that Sence thereof which hath always appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it self Now by this as he well saith P. 203. our Question is decided for in the sacred Ceremony of the Lord's Supper we have seen that the Church hath always believed and taught for a Thousand years and upwards that the Laity by divine Precept and for the ends forementioned were obliged to receive both Species that the Fathers exhorted them to do so and did both by express Declarations and by many Customs and determinations sufficiently condemn the contrary Practice when any Hereticks or Superstitious Persons did decline the Cup. That they did generally so Interpret our Saviour's Institution that it as well concerned the Laity as Clergy and with one voice asserted it was not lawful to vary from it or celebrate the Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and practised in the Primitive Church Behold what has been always practised behold what ought to stand for a Law in opposition to all the Definitions of the Councils of Constance Basil Trent and all their Non obstante 's to our Lord's Institution and to the Practice of the Primitive Church FINIS
you drink it in Remembrance of me for as oft as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew th Lords Death till he come Now saith he (l) Quod si a Domino praecipitur N. B. ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur ut quotiescunque biberimus in Commemorationem Domini haec saciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum est nisi eadem quae dominus secit nos quoque saciamus p. 152. if it be commanded by our Lord and the same thing be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle That as oft as we drink in Commemoration of our Lord we should do that which our Lord did we find that is not observed by us which is commanded unless we do the same things which our Lord did and mingling the Cup of the Lord after the same manner we recede not from the divine Institution Lastly If any of our Predecessors saith he out of Ignorance or Simplicity did not hold and observe that (m) Quod nos dominus facere exemplo Magisterio suo docuit c. p. 156 157. which the Lord taught us to do by his Example and command Gods Mercy may shew Pardon to him whereas no Pardon will be shewed to us being instructed and admonished to offer as our Lord did his Cup mixed with Wine if we do not so Wherefore we have directed Letters to all our Colleagues That the evangelical Command and the Tradition of our Lord should be every where observed and that there should be no receding from that which Christ both taught and did Here then is all that Protestants assert against the Definitions of the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent viz. 1. That our Lord taught both by Example and command the Ministration of the Cup or that this was enjoined by Inspiration and Command of God. 2. That Christ in ministring the Cup drank to Believers and That he commanded them to drink it by saying Drink ye all of this and that the same thing is confirmed by the Apostle saying This do as oft as you drink it in Remembrance of me 3. That this evangelical Command and Tradition of Christ is to be every where observed and that none should recede from what he did both teach and do none should recede from the divine Instruction that it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord and that he may justly fear his Anger if he do not what he hath commanded Now that St. Cyprian in this Epistle speaks not only of the Consecrution or Oblation of the Cup but also of the Distribution of it and the Participation of it by the People is evident beyond all Contradiction For 1. He expresly speaks of sanctifying the Lords Cup and vtinistring it to the People N. B. and of the Blood of the Lord (n) Epoto Sanguine Domint p. 153. drank off by them and of the Cup which in the Psalmist Phrase inebriates the Drinkers of it 2. He adds that some perhaps might plead in favour of that Practice he condemns That they used only Water least their Persecutors perceiving that they smelled of Wine in the Morning might hence conclude they had received the Sacrament and gather thence that they were Christians which could by no means be objected if he argued only for the Consecration of Wine and not for the Participation of it by Believers also seeing they could not smell of that which they did not partake of 3. P. 155. He saith That if the fear of smelling of Wine should keep Men from doing what Christ did and commanded to be done in commemoration of himself the Brother hood would be withdrawn from the Passion of Christ in the times of Persecution whilst they thus learned to be ashamed of his Blood in the Oblations Whereas if it belonged not to them to drink of the Blood of the Oblation jure communications by right of participation as St. Cyorian says it did if they were not obliged to drink of it in remembrance of him this consequence must be infirm 4. Whereas they who did celebrate this Sacrifice with Bread and Water consecrated in the Morning Sacrifice thought this a good excuse that in the Evening Sacrifice they used Wine mixed with Water St. Cyprian saith P. 136. That this excuse is not sufficient partly because the People could not be all invited to the Evening Sacrifice partly because in every Sacrifice me make mention of Christ's Passion and so must do no other thing in any Sacrifice than what Christ did which Reasons can carry no weight in them but upon supposition of an obligation on the People to communicate of the consecrated Wine and Water Lastly He adds That if the blush to drink the Blood of Christ Ibid. we cannot be prepared to pour out our Blood for Christ which not the Priest alone but all the People must be prepared to do it therefore is extreamly evident that here St. Cyprian discourseth not only of the Priest's obligation to consecrate Wine mixed with Water but also of the Peoples obligation to partake of the Cup so consecrated In the Apostolical Constitutions the Apostles are introduced § 3. giving this order (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 2. c. 57. When the Sacrifice is offered let every order of Believers receive by themselves of the Lord's Body and of his precious Blood. The Title of which Constitution is What every one of the Clergy and Laity ought to do in the Assembly In the Sacramental Thanksgiving they speak thus We give thee thanks O Father for Christ's precious Blood shed for our sakes and for his precious Body (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25. the Antitypes of which me now celebrate be having commanded us to shew forth his Death This Prayer all the Faithful make and all that are Baptized are the persons who are thus to shew forth his Death In the Prayer after the divine Oblation they say thus (q) Lib. 2. cap. 13. Let the Bishop Communicate then the Priests Deacons c. Amongst the Women the Deaconnesses Virgins and Windows then the Children then all the People in their Order and the Priest let him tender the Oblation saying The Body of Christ and let the Receiver say Amen the Deason let him hold the Cup and giving it say The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and he that drinketh it let him say Amen And in the close of these Prescriptions are these words (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. c. 15. These things we the Apostles have commanded you Bishops Priests and Deacons to observe touching the Mystical Service St. Basil is an express assertor of the same Doctrine for he spends a whole Chapter to prove that he who is regenerated by Baptism (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. ought afterwards to be nourished by the participation of the divine Mysteries
Clem. Petri Marc. Chrysost Basil Gregor they who received it might be filled with all spiritual Benediction and heavenly Grace and might receive it for Sanctification and Renovation of Soul of Spirit and of Body for the communication of eternal Life for the Remissionof Sins that they might be confirmed in Piety filled with the Holy Ghost made worthy of Christ and obtain everlasting Life § 4 This lastly even the School-men do confess that it cannot without immodesty be doubted that Christians do receive the increase of Grace by the participation of this Cup. It is not to be denied saith (l) Apud Cassand de utraque specie p. 1032. Armachanus but firmly to be asserted that the Sacramental Sumption of the Body and Blood of our Saviour much profits the Faithful to the increase of Spiritual Life The (m) Ibid. Dean of Lovain gives these Reasons why the Communion under both kinds should be more Fruitful and conferr more Grace 1. That there is one effect of Meat and another of Drink for Drink allays Thirst and Meat Hunger 2. That under both Species the Eucharist is truly a Sacrament nor is Christ less efficacious by his Blood under the Species of Wine than by his Body under the Species of Bread nor can the drinking of Christ's Blood be unprofitable if it be lawfully and worthily received 3. Because the Species of Wine is a Sacrament and all Sacraments according to the common rule conferr Grace ex opere operato The draught of Blood hath its proper spiritual effect to allay spiritual Thirst or to confirm and augment the Grace received in the Communion of the Body And though Christ be under both Species he operates only according to their signification and uses under one the Body under the other the Blood as his Instrument and since the Sacraments conferr the Grace they signifie when the signification is more compleat the Grace must be so (n) In 3. D. Thom. disp 215. cap. 2. Vasquez saith thus The Opinion of them who say more Fruit of Grace is received from both Species of this Sacrament than from one probabilior mihil semper visa est seemed always more probable to me and therefore that they who take the Cup receive an encrease of Grace And (o) Tom. 3. in 3. D. Thom. disp 63. §. 6. Suarez informs us That it was the Opinion of many Catholicks that more Grace was given by both Species than by one only and that Grave Men said That most of the Fathers of the Trent Council held that Opinion and that therefore the Council said warily That the Faithful by Communicating under one Species were not defrauded of any Grace necessary to Salvation And truly whosoever saith That no Grace is received by the due participation of the Cup doth plainly make our Saviour's Institution of it a thing indifferent and the receiving of the Cup after the Body to be the receiving of a thing of no spiritual or good effect which to affirm of the worthy receiving of the sacred Blood of Christ is horrendum dictu and somewhat like the counting of the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing CHAP. VI. The Contents In opposition to the Decrees of these Councils Damning and Excommunicating all who say That this Law of Communicating the Laity under one kind is Erroneous and Vnlawful The Fathers have declared that it is Erroneous and Vnlawful to substract the Cup. This is proved from St. Cyprian from the complaint of the Prosbyters of Edessa against Iba their Bishop §. 1. From the Council of Braga Paschasius and Algerus § 2. In opposition to the Council of Constance decreeing them to be Excommunicated who exhort the People to Communicate under both species The Fathers do exhort all People so to do §. 3. Whereas the Councils of Constance and Basil say That the Custom of Communicating in one kind was observed for a long time in the Church the contrary is plainly shewed from History §. 4. § 1 WHereas the Church of Rome in her Councils of Constance Const Sess 13. Basil 30. Trid. Sess 21. c. 2. Basil and Trent declares this practice of ministring the Communion in one kind to the fore-mentioned persons is to be received as a Law and Damns and Excommunicates all those who say this Novel Constitution of theirs is either Erroneous or Vnlawful The Fathers have declared expresly or by immediate and clear Consequence That it is Erroneous Vnlawful and of evil consequence to Religion to substract the Cup or one part of the Sacrament from Believers If any Man be in that Error saith (a) Ep. 63. p. 148. St. Cyprian viz. That it is not necessary to offer and distribute to the People Wine mixed with Water let him return to the Original of our Lord's Tradition adding (b) P. 157. That to contemn his Admonition and to persist in his old Error would be to incurr the displeasure of the Lord. And having said that Christ both by his Practice and his Precept taught the oblation and distribution of Wine mixed with Water to the People he adds (c) Caeterum omnis Religionis veritatis disciplina subvertitur nisi id quod spiritualiter praecipitur fideliter observatur P. 155. That the whole discipline of Religion and Truth is subverted unless that which is spiritually commanded be faithfully observed The Presbyters of Edessa accuse Iba their Bishop before the Council of Chalcedon on this wise That in his Church whilst the memory of the Martyrs was Celebrated there wanted Wine for the Sacrifice of the Altar to be sanctified and distributed to the people there being but little and that bad and muddy just newly pressed out of the Grape so that they who were deputed to Minister were forced to buy Six Quarts out of the Tavern which also was bad and not sufficient (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Tom. 3. Concil apud Bin. p. 382. so that they called to them who distributed the holy Body to desist because the Blood was wanting Whence we learn 1. That though it be now no fault in the Church of Rome to provide no Consecrated Blood to be distributed to the people it was then thought Crime sufficient to accuse a Bishop of before a General Council 2. That then it was not deemed lawful to Communicate the people under the species of Bread alone for if so there would have been no need of running to the Tavern to fetch Wine and much less for desisting from distributing the Consecrated Bread unto the People because they had not Consecrated Wine to minister to them afterwards This sure must manifestly shew that it was then esteemed unlawful to minister to the people one species of the Eucharist without the other § 2 The Council of Braga saith (e) Relatus est in concione nostrorum omnium Error manifestus quidam enim Eucharistiam vino madidam pro complemento Communionis credunt populis porrigendam Concil Tom. 6. p.
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
of the Body and the Blood of Christ faith Cyprian What was it that they desired and some of them invaded St. Cyprian informs us that it was Ep. 31. Sanctum Domini The Holy of the Lord it was the Eucha rist that is the Body and the Blood of Christ which St. Cyprian shews plainly by saying it ought not to be given to them till they had done penance confessed and received imposition of hands because it is written Ep. 16. He that eats the Bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. What was it that they endeavoured to extort St. Cyprian saith It was Vis infertur corpori ejus sanguini De Lapsis p. 128. the Body and the Blood of Christ being angry with and even threatning the Priests that they did not Quod non statim Domini corpus inquinatis manibus accipiat aut ore polluto Domini sanguinem bibat presently receive the Body of Christ into their defiled Hands or drink the Blood of the Lord with their polluted Mouth What was it that Trophimus a lapsed Priest was admitted to St. Cyprian saith It was Ut Laicus communicet Ep. 55. Lay-Communion Now what that was Haec erat tunc temporis cummunio Laica cujus adeo participes Euchariftica Sacramenta Speciem inquam utramque panis vini sumebant Rigaltius upon the place informs us saying That it was the participation of both Species but as a Lay-man not in the Order of Priests to which having once lapsed he was not by the Discipline of those Times to be again admitted and this was the Law established by the Councils of those Times in Rome Africa and many other places touching the receiving of Penitents This saith Hoc est apud Cyprianum lapsis pacem dari Hoc est ad communionem corporis sanguinis Domini admitti Not in Can. 11. Concil Tolet. undecimi Garsias Loaisa is that which Cyprian stiles affording them the peace of the Church even the giving them admission to the Body and the Blood of Christ. According to this Law which generally obtained Dionysius of Alexandria lest it in command to his Preshyter that if any of the Penitents who were about to depart this Life should ask is and chiefly if they had before been Supplicatns for it Hist Eccl. l. 6. cap. 44. Vide Not. in locum they should participate of the Divine Gifes and so be sent out of the World. This is that O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. old Canonical Law confirmed by the first Nicene Council that if any one who had not finished his time of Penance was about to die he shouldnot be deprived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his last and most necessary Viaticum that is say Zonaras and Balfanon he should not be deprived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the participation of the consecrated Gifts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the participation of the Divine Mysteries saith Con. Oxon. Tom 2. p. 180. Matthew Blastares This is that Law of the Fathers of which Epist Canon p. 121. Gregorius Nyssen speaks when he saith That the Philanthropy of the Fathers took care that if any departed this Life having not finished his Penance he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 participate of the consecrated Gifts that he might not be sent out of the World without his Viaticum The same we learn from the 6th Canon of the Council of Ancyra which commands If these Penitents be in danger of Death they shall then be permitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Come to full Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Communion of the Holy Gift saith Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the participation of the Divine Sacraments saith Balsamon From the 73 Canon of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Basil which Decrees That he who denies Christ in times of Peace shall be a Penitent all his Life and only be admitted to the participation of the Sacraments at his Death and from the Second Canon of Gregorius Nyssen which Decrees in like manner That such a one shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deprived of the Mystical Sacraments till he comes to die and only then partake of them Now albeit those Canons speak chiefly of such persons as were in a state of Penitence yet since as Not. in Can. 11. Con. Tolet undec Garfia Loaisa notes it was looked upon by the Ancients as an Argument of eternal Life and an heavenly Gift granted to those who were going to their eternal Rest to be worthily refreshed pabulo Corporis Sanguinis Domini with the Food of the Body and the Blood of our Lord which therefore was fitly called their Viaticum And since it cannot be imagined that the Faithful should at the close of their Life be excluded from what was granted to the Penitents these Canons must convince us that it was a standing and universal Custom of the whole Church of Christ confirmed as such by the first Nicene Council to give the Sacrament in both kinds to dying Persons And though we cannot doubt that a Custom established by so many Canons continued to be observed in the Church had we no other Evidence of its continuance to future Ages yet in this case we find great evidence of the continuance of this Custom for a Thousand Years For the 11th Council of Toledo saith That Solet humaze naturze infirmitas in ipso mortis exitu praegravata tanto siccitatis pondere deprimi ut nullis ciborum illationibus refici sed vix tandem illati delectetur poculi gratia suftentari quod etiam in multorum exitu vidimus qui optatum suis votis S. Communionis expetentes Viaticum collatam sibi a Sacerdote Eucharistiam rejecerunt non quod infidelitate hoc agerent sed quod praeter Dominici Calicis haustum traditam sibi non possunt Eucharistiam deglutire Quicunque ergo fidelis inevitabili qualibet infirmitate coactus Eucharistiam perceptam rejecerit in nullo Ecclesiae damnationi subjaceat Concil Tom. 6. pag. 552. the infirmity of humane nature was often at the time of Death depressed with such a weight of drought that they could scarce receive the Cup that they had seen this in the exit of many who desired the wished for Viaticum of the Holy Communion have cast out of their Mouths the Eucharist given to them by the Priest not out of infidelity but because they could swallow nothing besides a draught of the sacred Cup. Whence they Decree That whosoever of the Faithful by an inevitable infirmity being compelled to do it casts out of his Mouth the sacred Eucharist shall be subject to no penalty for so doing Whence we learn 1st That dying Persons then desired this Viaticum inboth kinds sdly That the Priests accordingly did attempt to give it them in both kinds 3dly That it was culpable then not to receive both except in cases of necessity unavoidable 3. This will be farther evident from the very
Forms of Communicating the Sick used in the Ancient Liturgies of the Church and from the Canons which concern this Affair For after the Vnction of the infirm Person it was the Custom to give him the Communion and that he received in both kinds is evident from the words of the Priest who ministred the Sacrament viz. Corpus sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam zeternam Amen The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Life eternal And from the following Prayer viz. Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens aeterne Deus te fideliter deprecamur ut accipienti huic fratri nostro famulo tuo Sacro-sanctum Corpus sanguinem Jesu Christi filii tui Domini noftri tum Corporis animae sit salus Ex Theodori Poeniten p. 326. Father omnipotent eternal God we faithfully pray thee that the Holy Body and Blood of our Lord received by our Brother thy Servant may tend to the Salvation of his Body and Soul. Apud Larroq Hist Euch. p. 135 136. Hugh Menard tells us from a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims That when the sacrament was ministred to such as were not extream ill it was said unto them separately the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you to Life everlasting which words make a separate and distinct reception But as for those who were at the point of Death these two Expressions were joined together The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting Life because there was given to the Sick Person in a Spoon the Body of our Lord steeped in the Holy Blood. The reason of this steeping we learn from the Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi ut veraciter Presbyter possit dicere infirmo corpus sanguis Domini proficiat tibi in vitam aeternam De Discip Eccles l. 1. can 70. Canon of the Council of Tours cited by Regino That every Priest shall have his Pyx or Vessel worthy of so great a Sacrament where the Body of our Lord shall be carefully reserved for the Viaticum of the Sick and that this sacred Oblation ought to be steeped in the Blood of Christ that the Priest may truly say to the Infirm The Body and the Blood of our Lord profit thee to Life eternal and for the Remission of Sins Now this practice and the reason of the practice here assigned and approved of do expresly shew their Faith was this That the Priest could not name them both without a Lye unless he gave both and that they who enjoined that what Christ had instituted to be received separately should rather be received together than that either Species should not be received at all did think both Species necessary to a full and entire Communion as it hath been well noted by Cassander For to what purpose should hey so carefully require this intinction if they had then believed that there was nothing wanting to the Grace or the integrity of the Communion when they received under one Species alone And though this be abundantly sufficient to shew what was the practice of the Church till the 12th Century yet it is easie to produce farther evidence of this matter A Synod held in the Region of Ticinum and therefore stiled Synodus Regio Ticinensis thus Decrees That Si is qui infirmatur publicae poenitentiae mancipatus est non potest hujus myfterii consequi medicinam nisi prius reconciliatione percepta communionem corporis sanguinis Christi meruerit Concil Tom. 8. p. 64. if who is infirm is in a state of Penance he cannot have the benefit of this Mystery viz. of Sacred Unction unless being first reconciled he be worthy of the Communion of the Body and the Blood of Christ And mongst the things which visibly and wholesomly are done in the Church In perceptione corporis sanguinis ejus infirmis Viaticum dari L. 1. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 7. fol. 18. b. Algerus mentioneth the giving the Body and Blood of our Lord for the Viaticum of the Sick In the 13th Century L. 3. contr Albing cap. 7. Lucas Pishop of Tuy informs us of an Heretick who being Sick was admonished by his Host to send for a Priest and discourse with him as a Penitent that he might receive from him Sanctissimum Sacramentum corporis fanguinis Domini the most holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Now all these Instances do plainly shew that it was far from being a received and authorized Custom of the Church to Communicate the Sick under the Species of Bread alone or to give nothing to them but one Species only On the contrary it is extreamly evident from all the Canons of the Church produced touching the case of Penitents and others that it was a thing established by the highest Authority of the whole Church of Christ that both the holy Mysteries should be exhibited to the infirm and dying Person And seeing the Ancients looked upon it as so great a benefit to dying Persons to be refreshed with the food of the Body and the Blood of Christ since they took so much care to give the Bread steeped in the consecrated Wine to them who through infirmity of Body could not sallow it down dry and to minister each Species apart to them who were not extream ill since as De Discipl eccles l. 1. c. 195. Regino doth inform us they determined that great care was to be taken least the doing this being deferr'd too long it should prove to the destruction of the Soul our Lord having said unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you I say from all these things it is extreamly evident that it was a receied and in subjects capable was deemed a necessary thing to communicate the infirm and dying person under both Species of Bread and Wine Moreover § 6. that Children also if capable of doing so received in both kinds will be evident against the precarious Assertion of J.L. 1. From the clear Testimony of St. Cyprian in his Book De Lapsis for there he introduceth the Children who by their Parents were carried to eat things offered to Idols or to offer to them thus pleading of their Cause to God Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus perdidit nos aliena perfidia parentes senfimus parricidas p. 125. We have done nothing nor did we of our own accords leaving the Meat and Cup of the Lord hasten to these prophane contagious Solemnities our Parents were our Parricides Where he affords us a plain demonstration that they then ordinarily received both the Elements for had they not as many as were capable received the Bread as well as the Cup why doth he introduce them
eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione discedatur novimus enim per se panem per se vinum ab ipso Domino traditum quem morem sic semper in Sancta Ecclesia conservandum docemus atque praecipimus praeterquam in parvulis omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt Ep. 32. De non porrigenda Communione intincta Concil Tom. 10. p. 656. Cyprian writing to Caecilius saith When any thing is required by the Inspiration and command of God it is necessary that the faithful Servant should obey his Lord. Therefore in taking the Body and Blood of our Lord according to the same Cyprian let the Tradition of the Lord be observed nor let that be departed from by any humane and novel Institution which Christ our Master commanded and did He therefore owned the taking of the Cup apart from the Bread to be a Command of Christ which no new Institution of Men could alter Our Lord Jesus saith (r) Lib. 2 de Sacram. Part. 8. Fol. 395. Hugo de Sancto Victore instituted the Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ and commanded that they should afterwards do the same thing in remembrance of himself (s) In Johan Cap. 6. Rupertus Tuitiensis informs us That our Lord prescribing the whole manner of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood saith * Vid Theoph. 〈◊〉 Matth. c. 26. p. 162. Do this in remembrance of me Arnoldus Carnotensis delivers the same Doctrine most expresly For faith he (t) Scholae Evangelicae hoc primum magisterium protulerunt Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur the Doctrine of the Sacrament is new and the evangelical Schools first brought forth this Command This Discipline was first made known unto the World by Christ our Teacher That Christians should drink Blood the Vse of which the old Law did forbid for the old Law forbids the eating Blood the Gospel commands it should be drunk In which Commands the Christian Religion ought chiefly to discern this That the Blood of Beasts in all things differing from the Blood of Christ hath only the Effect of temporal Vivification and cannot profit to eternal Life * Bibimus autem de sanguine Christo ipso jubente Inter opera Cypr. adscript p. 41. but we drink of the Blood by his Command being made Partakers of eternal Life with him and by him Christ himself is the Butler who hath reach'd forth this Cup and taught that we should not only outwardly be dashed with this Blood but inwardly by the powerful Aspersion of it should be fortified in our Souls Petrus Cluniacensis in the same Age speaks thus (u) Cum Christus imperet N. B. dicens Hoc facite hoc plane non aliud hoc idem quod accipitis ad comedendum quod sumitis ad bibendum corpus scilicet meum fanguinem hoc inquam facite in meam commemorationem quid ultra certe quaeritis Quia quod fecit eos facere praecepit quod eis distribuit hoc eos aliis distribuere voluit Ed. Erasm f. 209. Christ commands do this not another thing this which you have received to eat which you take to drink viz. My Body and Blood this say I do in memory of me That which he did he commanded them to do That which he distributed to them he would have them distribute to others Christ saith St. Bernard the Day before his Passion prescribed to his Disciples the Form of this Sacrament He gave Efficacy to it i. e. (x) Hujus Sacramenti formam praescripsit efficaciam exhibuit i. e. fieri praecepit De Caena Dom. c. qui incipit Panem Angel. f. 320. b. He commanded it to be done The Prescription of the Form was under Bread and Wine note the Order First he washes his Disciples Feet then going back to the Table He ordains the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood giving the Bread apart and the Wine apart saying thus of the Bread Take and eat this is my Body and of the Wine thus Drink ye all of this And again * De Sacramento quidem Corporis fanguinis sui nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam tam singularem alimoniam ea primum die exhibitam ea die commendatam mandatam deinceps frequentari Serm. 3. in ramis Palm fol. 30. b. Concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ there is no Man who knoweth not that upon that Day That great and singular Nourishment was first exhibited on that Day commended and commanded henceforth to be frequented (y) Hoc dicimus Quod postquam Christus exhibuit corpus suum sub specie panis tunc etiam postea exhibuit sanguinem suum sub specie vini utrumque Sacramentaliter esse celebrandum praecepit in Ecclesia per statuta Apostolica ideo Ecclesia instructa actione Christi utrumque celebrat divisim conficiendo corpus sub specie panis divisim conficiendo sanguinem sub specie vini quod autem duo haec exhibuerit celebranda instituerit Christus patet Matth. 27. Ex omnibus iftis accipitur quod Christ us sub una specie panis corpus suum tradidit sub altera specie vini tradidit sanguinem fic servandum instituit cum Christi actio sit nostra instructio pro certo haec duo nobis servanda esse praecepit ideo sub una specie corpus sub alia tradimus sanguinem Sum. de Sacr. Euch. Dist 3. tr 2. c. 5. Albertus Magnus teacheth §. 11. That after Christ had exhibited his Body under the Species of Bread he afterwards exhibited his Blood under the Species of Wine and by the Apostolical Statutes commanded both to be sacramentally celebrated in the Church and having proved from the Evangelists St. Matthew Mark and Luke That Christ celebrated both apart From all these things saith he 't is known or understood that Christ under one Species of Bread delivered his Body and under the other Species of Wine his Blood and so appointed it to be observed and since Christ's Action is our Instruction Pro certo haec duo nobis servanda esse praecepit He commanded these Two things most certainly to be observed and therefore under One Species we deliver the Body and under the other the Blood. Where we see the Practice of the Church was then to deliver both Species and that the Command of Christ was then conceived to be their Motive so to do according to that saying of Durantus (z) In primitiva Ecclesia omnes qui celebrationi Missarum intererant singulis diebus communicare solebant eo quod Apostoli omnes de calice bibebant Domino dicente Bibite ex hoc omnes Rat. l. 4. c. 53. In the primitive Church all that heard Mass used to communicate because the Apostles all drank of the Cup the Lord saying Drink ye
Paschasius what do we else but declare the Lord's Death This do saith (t) In 1 Cor. xi Anselm that is drink this Cup in remembrance of me as oft as you drink it that you may never drink it without the Memory of my Passion but may have in mind that I suffered Death for you Therefore saith the Apostle our Lord said This should be done in commemoration of him for as oft as you shall eat this Bread of Life and shall-drink this Cup of eternal Salvation you shall shew forth that is shall represent the Death Christ suffered for us till he comes to Judgment (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In 1 Cor. xi v. 25. By the Cup thou dost celebrate the commemoration of our Lord's Death saith Theophylact. (x) L. 2. cap. 8. Algerus in answer to this Question Why the Bread is consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood apart saith This was done because the Custom prevailed in the Church from Christ himself who consecrated and gave his Blood not for division of the Substance but for distinction of the Figure that whilst the Bread is grinded by the Teeth it might signifie Christ's Body broken in his Passion and whilst the Wine is poured into the Mouth of the Faithful it might signifie Christ's Blood shed from his Side nor is the Body and Blood said to be apart as if the Body were without the Blood or the blood divided from the Body but it is so said in memory of his Passion because in the Sacrament we ought to shew forth the Death of Christ When the Bread of the Lord that is the Body of the Lord is eaten saith (y) De Sacra edit Erasm fol. 212. Petrus Cluniacensis when the Cup of the Lord that is the Blood of the Lord is drunk the Death of the Lord is shewed forth that is it is then represented What he did saith (z) Comment in vi Joh. Rupertus that we well know we do in Commemoration of his Death viz. Eat his Flesh and to drink his Blood. And surely when two things are equally designed and set apart by Christ for the commemoration of his Passion when they are equally apt and proper to shew forth and bring to our remembrance the thing they were designed to signifie when Christ and his Apostles do command both should be done in prosecution of that end when the Fathers do with one voice declare without the least disparity distinction or limitation that both concurr unto that end And lastly when one naturally doth import and shew the breaking of Christ's Body on the Cross the other doth as naturally signifie shew forth and bring to our remembrance his Blood shed and separated from his Body and in both these consists the Passion of our Lord to say our Saviour's Passion is wholly and entirely represented by the Reception of one of the two Species only is to reflect unworthily upon the Wisdom of our Lord's Institution of them both and his command to do both in order to the shewing forth his Death and evidently to contradict the plain Assertions and the concurring Judgment of the Church of Christ that by drinking and receiving into our Mouths this Cup this Blood we do and ought to declare signifie represent commemorate and shew forth Christ's Death Secondly Christians saith (a) L. 2. q. 99. Art. 1. thomas Aquinas are sanctified by the Sacraments of Christ and therefore what is done to the injury of Christian People pertinet ad irreverentiam rei sacrae unde rationabiliter Sacrilegium dicitur is Sacrilege because it appertaineth to the irreverence of a sacred thing To Sacrilege saith (b) Q. 99. p. 1146. Becamus is referred omnis injuria omnisque abusio Sacramentorum all injury and abuse of the Sacraments and this is evident even from the drift of the Commandment Thou shalt not steal for that for bids in reference to temporal concerns omne nocumentum quod homini injustè infertur in rebus exterioribus All hurt done to them in external Things In reference to spirituals it therefore must for bid all spiritual hurt or injury Men suffer by the detaining of things spiritual from them Now surely if Christians can be hurt orinjured they must be so when they by others are deprived of the means of Grace and of Sanctification and spiritual Blessings Now of these say the fathers Christians are deprived as oft as they are thus deprived of the Cup of Blessing For they constantly affirm That the eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup did tend to the Sanctification both of Soul and Body (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 151. The Temperature of both the drink and the word saith Clemens of Alexandria is called the Eucharist of which they who by Faith are made partakers are sanctified in Body and Soul. In the New Covenant saith Cyril of Jerusalem there is the Heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifying the Soul and Body (d) Catech. Mystag 5. p. 245. Come to the Cup and receiving of the Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thou sanctified Who can express saith (e) Et Sacrosanctum vivifici corporis sanguinis sui Mysterium Membris suis tribuere quibus corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur In Psal vi poenit Gregory the greatness of that Mercy by which Mankind was redeemed with the Effusion of Christ's precious Blood and The sacred Mystery of his Life-giving Body and Blood was given to his Members by which the Church his Body is fed and made to drink is washed and sanctified The super substantial Bread and the Cup consecrated by solemn Benediction (f) Ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit Apud Cypr. p. 39 40. doth profit to the Life and the Salvation of the whole Man saith Arnoldus Carnotensis the Bread is Meat the Blood is Life the Bread for fitness of Nourishment the Blood for efficacy of giving Life Moreover this is written with a Sun-Beam in the Church's Liturgies in which they call the Cup received after the Body (g) Const Clem. l. 8. c. 13. Lit. S Petri p. 26. Lit. Greg. p. 22. Marc. p. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of everlasting Salvation In which they declare that Christ Blessing the Cup (h) Lit. Chrysost p. 1001. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and filling it with the Holy Ghost said Drink ye all of this and said it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fulness of the Holy Spirit that it was the Blood of the New Testament shed for many (i) Lit. St. Marc. p. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and distributed for the Remission of Sins in which they order the Deacon when he hath received it to say This hath touched my Lips and will take away mine iniquities and purge away my Sin and in which they lastly pray That (k) Lit.
561. It is a manifest Error to deliver to the people the Consecrated Bread dipped in the Chalice for a Complement of the Communion as being not agreeable to the Institution and surely for the same reason it must be a more manifest Error to give them the Consecrated Bread alone for a compleat Communion it being more dissonant from the Institution to give only one part than to give both only in another manner than was appointed by the Institution The Blood is well joined to the Flesh saith Paschasius because (f) Nec caro sine sanguine uti nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur c. Cap. 19. Bis neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated for the whole Man which consists of Two Substances is redeemed and therefore fed together both with Flesh and Blood. Algerus in answer to the Question Why Bread by it self is Consecrated into the Flesh of Christ and the Wine into his Blood saith That therefore the Blood and Flesh are seen apart in the Sacrament that because Christ dyed for redeeming our Body by his Body and our Soul by his Soul when we had perished both in Body and Soul it might be signified that his Body and Soul were in Death divided (g) Unde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 8. And therefore Austin saith That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly Communicated In a word this Constitution thus established for a Law makes it a Sin to obey and comply with the Institution of our Lord by reason of the Laws of Men and whether this be not Erroneous let any reasonable person judge from this Consideration Had our Lord instituted this Sacrament to be Received under the Species of Bread alone and had he so distributed the same to his Disciples none coming after Christ could have thought it lawful to have added Consecrated Wine and to have distributed it after the Bread Therefore by parity of Reason Christ having instituted the Eucharist in both the Species of Bread and Wine and so distributed it no man can rightly think it fawful to Give the Sacrament in Bread alone to persons capable of both Species For confirmation of this Argument let it be considered that the Trent Council declares this power was always in the Church That in the dispensation of the Sacraments (h) Sess 21. c. 2. Salva illorum substantia ea statueret vel mutaret That retaining their substance she may appoint or change those things which she doth judge expedient for the profit of the Receivers If therefore when the Cup was instituted by Christ to be Received she may change so far the Institution as to make a Law it shall not be received by the Laity if it had not been Instituted why might she not appoint it should have been received by them § 3 3. Whereas the Church of Rome by the Authority of her Councils (i) Concil Const Sess 13. commands That they be Excommunicated Who contrary to her Decree Exhort the People to Communicate under both Species of Bread and Wine and who do take upon them so to administer the Sacrament unto the People and doth require that they be treated as Hereticks if they persist without Repentance in so doing The Fathers did not only thus administer the Sacrament in publick for a thousand Years together but also did exhort all Christians so to do (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cat. Myst 5. p. 245. After the Communion of the Body of Christ come to the Cup saith Cyril of Jerusalem The Priest saith (l) Eccles Hier. c. 3. Dionysius the Areopagite shewing the Consecrated Gifts comes himself to partake of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and exhorts others so to do The Gifts he shewed them were the Bread and Cup apart of these he therefore did exhort them to Communicate after the usual manner that is apart From taking of the Blood of this Sacrifice saith (m) Q. 57. in Levit. Austin not only no Man is restrained but All Men are exhorted to drink it who will have life And again They who have no eaten and have no drunk let them being invited make haste to these Banquets (n) Accedite ad carnem domini accedite ad sanguinem domini Serm. 46. de verbo dom cap. 4. Come to the Flesh of the Lord come to the Blood of the Lord. The Deacon saith the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom bowing takes the Cup with reverence and lifting it up he shews it to the People saying (o) Tom. 6. p. 1003. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come to it with the Fear and Love of God. In the Antient Synodal form of Admonition used in the West we find one Admonition to the (p) Omnes fideles ad Communionem corporis fanguinis domini accedere admonete Apud Baluz p. 605. Ad Communionem corporis domini nostri Jesu Christi invitate 16. Not. in Reg. p. 609 p. 613. Priest to call upon all the Faithful to come to the participation of the body and the Blood of Christ Whereas in the Two New Admonitions transcribed by Baluzius from the R. Pontifical the injunction is only to invite them to the Communion of the Body of Christ which alteration seems to be occasioned by the change of the Custom of the Romish Church in this particular The Jews drank of the Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ (q) Et tu hibe ut te Christus sequatur De Sacr. l. 5. cap. 1. Drink thou also saith the spurious Ambrose that Christ may follow thee The Jews came to Crucify him saith Hincmarus of Remes (r) Tom. 2. p. 94. Let us come to him ut corpus sanguinem ejus accipiamus That we may receive his Body and Blood. (s) Sume vinum de torculari crucis expressum De tribus capitib Take the Wine pressed out of the Fat of the Cross saith Fulbertus of Chartres St. Paul doth in the like manner say Let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. And a greater than St. Paul saith Drink ye all of this for whom this Blood was shed for this is my Blood of the New Testament shed for many for the Remission of Sins § 4 Lastly Whereas the Councils of Constance and Basil to give the better colour to their absurd Decrees say That this Custom of Communicating under one kind only was ab Ecclesia diutissimè observata observed for a long time in the Church before they had assembled to make this Custom binding by their Laws and Sanctions it is matter of Surprize that two such great and numerous Assemblies should with such confidence assert these things since as Lindanus saith (t) Quod per occidentem fuerit populo utraque administrata
Nicene Council and of the Roman Church pronouncing Anathema to those who did not worship Images he and his Council of 300 Bishops argue thus that then Infantes Car. Mag. de Imaginib l. 2. c. 27. Baptismatis unda loti corporis dominici edulio sanguinis haustu satiati pereunt Infants who have been Baptized and have received the Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood must perish In the 9th Century we are told by Apud Menardum Not. in Greg. Sacr. p. 107. Jesse Bishop of Amiens That the Infant was confirmed by the Body and Blood of Christ that he might be his Member By Corpore sanguine Dominico omne praecedens Sacramentm in eo confirmatur quia haec ideo accipere debet c. De Inslit Cleric l. 1. cap. 29. Rabanus Maurus who saith That the precedent Sacrament of Baptism is confirmed in the Baptized Porson by the Body and Blood of our Lord for he therefore ought to receive these things that he may be his Member who died and rose again for us and may deserve to have God dwelling in him For he who is Truth it self saith He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood abides in me and I in him and also Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you By De Ord. Baptiz c. 18. Theodulph Bishop of Orleans That when any one is new born by Water and the Spirit he is nourished with the body of our Lord and drinks his Blood. By the old Statim autem confirmetur infans communicetur ab Episcopo ita dicente Corpus Sanguis Domini c. Baluz Not. in Reg. p. 551. Roman Pontisicial which saith That the Infant being Baptized he is presently confirmed and communicated by the Bishop saying The Body and the Blood of Christ c. In the 10th Century we are informed of the continuance of the same Custom from a Pontificial written about the year 980 saith Baluzius where it is commanded Statim enim confirmari oportet Chrismate poftea communicari si Episcopus deest communicetur 2 Presbytero dicante Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam Bal. not in Reg. p. 552. That the Baptized Infant should presently be Confirmed and Communicated by the Bishop or in his absence by the Priest saying The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee in Life eternal In the 14th Century we find the same Custom in Ne lactentur antequam communicent De Sabb. Pasch p. 64. Alcuin from the very same words which saith he were then used at the Communicating of the Infant after Baptism And in the Three and thirtieth Epistle of Lanfranck we find these words Credimus enim generaliter expedire omnes omnibus aetatibus tam viventes quam morientes dominici corporis sanguinis perceptionese munire Apud Baluz ibid. p. 657. We believe that it is generally very expedient for all Persons of all Ages living and dying to arm themselves with the Reception of our Lord's body and his blood Whence faith Nor. ad librum Sacram p. 298. Baluzius we gather That in his time is was the Custom to give to Children the Communion of the Lord's Body and his Blood. And Hugh Menard doth ingenuously confess That the Custom of giving the body of Christ to Children continued till the time of Paschal the Second and that they gave it to them then dipp'd in the Wine by reason of the wekness of their Age. That this was the Opinion of the Greek Church even almost to our present Age we learn from L. 3. de S. Euch. cap 40. Arcadius whose words are these They judge the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be required of necessity to Salvation both to Adult and Infants so teach Simeon Thessalonicensis Nicholaus Cabasilas and Gabriel Philadelphiensis who all say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion is therefore necessary because the Lord hath said If you do not eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no life in you We Baptize Infants saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. cum Virtum E. 1. c. 9. p. 85. Jeremiah their Patriarch and afterwards we give them the Communion for according to St. Basil he that is regenerated wants still spiritual Food and our Lord hath said Vnless you eat c. Eccl. ord c. 9. p. 98. Metrophanes Critopulus adds That their Infants are Baptized and that then they afterwards partake as oft as their Parents will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of both Species at the Lord's Table The Georgians Circassians and Mengrelians are of the same Religion with the Greek Church in all things and therefore must be sof the same Opinion in this Matter The Armenians minister the sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants in both kinds So do the Habassines saith Viagg de Aethiop c. 22. Alvarez and the Maronites saith P. 178. Brierwood And here let it be noted that not the latter Grecians only but the Ancient Fathers did generally hold that this was necessary to be done by virtue of that Precept Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you shall have no Life in you from whence it is extreamly evident that neither in the Fifth Age when Infants were by virtue of this Text admitted to the Sacrament nor in the following Ages of the Church could it be an established Custom to give to Children the Cup only Lastly That neither Leo nor Gelasius gave any new Precept to the Church touching this Matter §. 7. Chap. 5. §. 2. is partly evident from what hath been already said nor are there any Footsteps of this new imaginary Law to be found in their Decrees For the words of Leo only command That when the sacrilegious dissembling of the Manichees was discovered they should be driven by the Priests Authority from the Society of the Saints And the words of Gelasius do only say That they who in the Region of Squillaci were bound up by a Superstition unknown to him from receiving the Cup should either receive the whole sacrament or be kept back from the whole Where now I pray you is any appearance of this new pretended Law or First Ecclesiastical Precept That all the Faithful should from henceforth be obliged to receive under both Species unless those words of Gelasius import that the Receiving of the Bread without the Cup is not Receiving an entire Sacrament or unless his following Reason That the division of one and the same Mystery cannot happen without Sacrilege be a general Rule concerning all the Faithful But to dispute no longer in a case so plain both Leo and Gelasius sufficiently inform us of the practice of their times for Leo doth not only say That De pass domini Serm. 14. p. 284. participatio Corporis sanguinis Christi this participation of the Body and Blood of Christ is that by which the New Creature is fed and inebriated from the Lord himself That Ep.