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
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
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
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
may learn how excellently these Councils have consulted for the Advantage and the Salvation of Christian People The Fathers of the Council of Constance pretend to have made their Decrees in reference to this Matter (f) Sess 13. Saluti fidelium providere satagentes Endeavouring to provide for the Salvation of the Faithful The Council of Basil preface their Decree against Communion in both Kinds with a Pretence that they had honestly consulted (g) Sess 30. Quid circa perceptionem S. Eucharistiae tenendum sit agendum pro utilitate salute populi Christiani What was to be held or done about the receiving of the Eucharist for the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People The Council of Trent insinuates that she hath established this Custom because it was only such a Change in Dispensation of this Sacrament as the Church (h) Sess 21. c. 2. Utilitati suscipientium magis expedire judicaret Judged most expedient for the Benefit of the Receivers It therefore seems our Lord and his Apostles and the whole primitive Church for a Thousand Years saith their (i) Consult Art. 22. p. 981. Cassander for a Thousand and two hundred Years saith (k) Rerum liturg l. 2. c. 18. p. 862. Cardinal Bona were wickedly unmindful of the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People for our Lord instituted and in compliance with his Institution his Apostles and the whole Christian Church for the forementioned Centuries did minister the Sacrament in both Kinds till those good Souls filled with true Zeal for the Salvation of all christian People Et spiritu pietatis edocti And taught by the Spirit of true Piety forbad them to receive the Cup of Life the Apostles and all the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church were either so ignorant or heedless as that they never thought of making any Laws against Christ's Institution till the Councils of Basil Constance and Trent assisted with the Spirit of Wisdom Understanding and Counsel found it expedient so to do and for the Benefit and Salvation of the Laity to decree peremptorily that they hereafter never should receive the Cup of Blessing and Salvation That they should never drink of the Blood of the New Covenant the Blood of their Redemption the Blood shed for the Remission of their Sins They were so ignorant or so regardless of the Reverence due to the Holy Eucharist That neither the Perils which might happen to it from the long Beards of the Communicants or by growing acid or by being shed could make them think it fit to alter the Institution of our Lord or the Practice of the Church They thought so little of the Scarcity of Wine in some Countries and of the Aversation that some others had unto the tast or the smell of it that none of all these weighty Reasons though they were the same in the First Ages of the Church as in the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Centuries could move them out of Reverence to our Lord 's Institution to forbid the Practice of it till these (l) Catech. Trid. Part. 2. c. 4. Sect. 66. Gravissimae Rationes Most weighty Reasons being deliberately considered by the Roman Catholick Church She to prevent those dreadful Perils and these Scandals introduced this new Custom and confirmed it for a Law in Opposition both to our Saviour's Institution and to the Practice of the Church in which she had continued for a Thousand Years to the great Damage and the Hindrance of the Salvation of her People till these Councils so happily bestir'd themselves for their Advantage and Salvation And Thirdly Whereas these Councils in framing these Decrees style the Practice of Communicating under one Kind (m) Concil Const Sess 13. Romanae Universalis Ecclesiae consuetuod approbata The approved Custom of the Roman and Universal Church and of the (n) Consi Trid. Sess 21. Can. 2. Holy Catholick Church and the Declaration made concerning it at Basil is called Declaratio Catholicae veritatis (o) Sess 30. The Declaration of the Catholick Truth Not to observe at present how horribly Vncharitable these Councils are in excluding out of the Catholick Church and consequently from Salvation all who had not consented to the Violation of our Lord's Institution and to the Alteration of the Practice of the Church of Christ for a whole Thousand Years That is not only all who in the West refused to make so bold with our Lord's Institution but all the Greek and Eastern Churches I say not to insist on this hence it is evident That the present Practice and Judgment of what they call the Catholick and Universal Church can be no certain or sufficient Proof of Tradition Apostolical since in this Matter she hath both practised and decreed in Opposition to the plain Judgment and Tradition of the Church of Christ for Ten whole Centuries § 6 To these Considerations which concern the Definitions of these Councils touching Communion in one Kind I add these following Remarks touching these Councils and the Decrees which they confirmed in their Assemblies 1. Therefore touching the Councils of Constance and of Basil let it be considered that they constantly declare That they were Holy Synods assembled in the Holy Ghost and representing the Church Catholick The General Council of (p) Sess 8.14 Pisa which agreed with them in their Sentiments and met about the same Affairs ascribes unto it self the same great Titles 2. Note that there were present at the Council of Pisa saith (q) Council To. 7. p. 994. binius Three Patriarchs Twenty three Cardinals Thirty Arch-Bishops Two hundred and eighty Governors of Monasteries the Divines and Legats of the Princes of Europe There were present at that Council saith (r) Hist Consil General l. 2. c. 1. p. 35. Richerius an Hundred and eighty Arch-Bishops and Bishops Three hundred Governours of Monasteries an Hundred and twenty Masters in Theology Three hundred Doctors of the canon and the civil Law the Legats of Christian Princes and the Legats and Procurators of all the Universities of Europe At the Council of Constance saith (ſ) To. 7. p. 1134. Binius there were Four Patriarchs Twenty nine Cardinals Forty seven Arch-Bishops an Hundred and sixty Bishops and of Abbots Provosts and Priors and of all sorts of Clerks a very great Number To the Council of Basil saith the same (t) To. 8. p. 525. Binius came a very great Multitude of Prelates from the whole Latin World. Having premised these things I ask whether these Councils knew themselves full and entire Representatives of the Church Catholick and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost or they did not If they did know themselves to be true General Councils representing the Church Catholick c. then they undoubtedly were so And then why were they represented by the Fifth Lateran Council as schismatical seditious Councils Concilium Constantiense ubi definit Concilium esse supra Papam reprobatum est in Concilio Florentino
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
intire Sacrament is taken under either Species The Fathers and the School-Men do expresly say the contrary viz. Epiphanius §. 1. The Council held in Trullo P. Julius P. Gelasius the Council of Braga §. 2. Paschasius Corbeiensis Algerus and St. Bernard §. 3. Alexander Halensis Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure Albertus Magnus Durantus Petrus de Palude Gulielmus de monte Laudano Lyra Carthusianns Andreas Frisius §. 4. The Inferences from these Sayings § 5. WHereas the Trent Council asserts Sess 21. cap. 3. l. 4. de Sacr. Ench. c. 22. s. utraque That a true Sacrament is taken under either Species that is as Bellarmine Interprets it An intire Sacrament nothing is more repugnant to the plain Judgment of Antiquity than these Assertions And though the silence of all Antiquity in this matter is a full demonstration that they held no such Doctrine seeing no reason can be given why they had they embraced this Doctrine which is frequently inculcated by all the Roman Doctors who write upon this Subject should never say with the like plainness as they so often do That an entire Sacrament is given under one Species only or any thing to that effect or give themselves the trouble to Answer that Enquiry which so disturbs the Roman Doctors and which they see themselves so much concerned to Answer viz. Why then did our dear Lord himself distribute and institute this Sacrament to be received under both kinds I say though this be a sufficient prejudice against that Assertion of the Council of Trent and though it will more fully be confuted by an impartial Reflection on what we have Discoursed of the constant Declaration of the Church that to give the consecrated Bread dipp'd in the Cup was not to give a compleat Sacrament with many things of the like nature yet shall I wave all these Advantages at present and shew from the plain Sayings both of the Ancients the Writers of the middle and chiefly of the latter Ages or the Doctrine of the Schools that they conceived the Reception of both Species by persons capable was requisite to the integrity of this Sacrament § 1 Epiphanius speaking of the Encratites saith That in this Mystery they use only Water and wholly do abstain from Wine the censure which he passeth on them for so doing is this That having the Form they deny the Power of Godliness (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Haer. 47. §. 3. Pag. 401. for whosoever saith he doth omit one part of a work by the omission of that one part doth really omit the whole The Inference he maketh from that Rule is this That the Mysteries they celebrate by Water only are really no Mysteries but only false Mysteries in imitation of the true in which they are convinced by the Right words of our Saviour saying I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine § 2 The General Council held in Truillo being informed that the Armenians did celebrate the Mysteries in pure Wine not mixed with Water declares that the did (b) Can. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperfectly shew forth the Mystery Now let it be observed from St. Paul that it is not by offering only but by partaking of this Bread and drinking of this Cup that we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew forth the Lord's Death and then it clearly follows that if he who distributes Wine without Water imperfectly shews forth the Mystery he that gives neither Wine nor Water must do it more imperfectly When some in the Diocess of Squillaci out of some unknown Superstition would have taken the Bread without the Cup (c) Apud Ivon decret part 2. c. 89. Gelasius decrees that they should either take the entire Sacrament or be entirely driven from it he therefore evidently determined that taking of one Species only was not taking an entire Sacrament In the Fourth Century (d) See cap. 2. § 2 Pope Julius in the Seventh Council of Braga in the Eleventh Micrologus in the Twelfth Peter Lombard do with one voice deny that the Bread dipp'd in the consecrated Wine can be administred pro complemento Communionis for an entire or compleat Communion and therefore much less could they think that the Communion was entire when ministred only in dry Bread. The great Sticklers for Transubstantiation averr the same thing Sect 3. Paschasius Corbeiensis saith That (e) De Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 11. therefore we are fed with and made to drink of these two only in the way that our whole Man which consists of two Substances integrè reparetur may be entirely repaired both therefore were in his judgment needful to an entire reparation of the whole Man. Algerus in Answer to this Question Why the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated rather in Bread Wine and Water than in any other kinds of Bodies saith That because we so live by Bread and drink that we can want neither of them (f) Utrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 5. our Lord would have both be in his Sacrament least if either of them should be wanting as by this imperfect sign of Life he should seem to be represented not as full but as imperfect Life And a little after he saith This is done proptr commodiorem aptitudinem Sacrametalis perfectionis for the more commodious representation of the Sacramental perfection The Species of Bread and Wine is propounded saith (g) De coena Domini f. 321. b. St. Bernard that it might be taught that there is a full and perfect refection in taking the Body and the Blood of Christ a full refection of Meat and Drink the principal Substances of Meat and Drink being Bread and Wine § 4 But above all the School-Men do declare against this Doctrine of the Trent Council (h) In iv sent q. 40. membr 3. Art 2. q. 53. membr 1. Alexander of Hales saith That whole Christ is not under either Species Sacramentally but the Flesh only under the Species of Bread the Blood under the Species of Wine only for to the perfection of the Sacrament is required a representation according to the Institution but in one kind the matter of the Sacrament is not entirely and perfectly I say there is not a perfect Sacrament as to the Sacramental Perfection of it (i) Sum. part 3. q. 76. Art. 2. Adv. Gent. l. 4. c. 61. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Aquinas saith That though Christ is contained under both Species yet is it convenient to the use of this Sacrament that the Body of Christ should be delivered apart for Food to the Faithful and his Blood for Drink both saith he is of the perfection of this Sacrament for the perfection of refection for the representation of Christs Passion and for the effecting of the Salvation both of Soul and Body 1. For its perfection for it being a Spiritual Refection it ought to have spiritual Meat and
spiritual Drinke for corporal Refection is not perfected without both these And as he elsewhere saith because spiritual effects are done under the likeness of visible it was fit that this spiritual nourishment should be delivered to us under the Species of those things which Men do ordinarily use for corporal nourishment and therefore this Sacrament is delivered to us under the Species of Bread and Wine 2. For the signification of it for it is a memorial of the Lord's Passion whereby his Blood was separated from his Body and therefore in this Sacrament the Blood is offered by it self And elsewhere Because the Completion of our Salvation was made by the Passion and Death of Christ by which is Blood was separated from his Flesh separatim nobis traditur Sacramentum corporis ejus sub specie panis sanguis sub specie vini the Sacrament of his Body is delivered N. B. to us apart under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine that so in this Sacrament might be the memory and representation of our Lord's Passion 3. For the healthful Effect of it for the Body is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Body and the Blood is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Soul for the Soul is in the Blood. (k) In 4. Sent. dist 8. q. 2. dist 11. q. 2. Bonaventure saith That as to the signification both Species are of the integrity of this Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither of them by it self but in both together which appears thus Here Christ is signified as Meat perfectly refreshing them that eat him Sacramentally and Spiritually but a perfect Refection is not in Bread alone or Wine alone but in both he therefore is signified as perfectly refreshing not in one Species only but in both And again This Sacrament though it contains two Signs and two Words yet because a perfect Sign ordained for one thing sc the Vnion of the Body Mystical results from them therefore the Sacrament is one and the reason of this Integrity and Ordination comes from Nature for neither is Bread nor Wine apart fully Refectory but both and one full Refection in nature comes from both and so they are disposed to signifie one Refection but this is compleated by the Divine Institution which by one Institution hath appointed these two Signs to signifie one perfect Refection and so it is one Sacrament on the account of nature and of Divine Institution (l) In 4. Sent. dist 8. Art. 13. Albertus Magnus lays down this general Rule The Sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in Grace which it doth not signifie in Similitude and that the Sacraments of the New Law are the cause of nothing of which they bear not a sensible Image and thence infers That the Vnion of the Mystical Body is not perfectly caused and signified but by a double Sign and therefore by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both And in his Comment upon the Sixth of John he saith That as in the Flesh is received what is vivifying and restorative of the spiritual and divine Life lost in us so by the Blood is received the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward parts And making the enquiry why to that manducation Spiritual Drink was necessary to be added he answers it is so because Meat cannot be without Drink In his Comment on (m) c. 22. f. 321. St. Luke Some saith he more curious than devout enquire to what end was the Sacrament of the Blood instituted after the Sacrament of the Body since the Body of Christ is not without the Blood nor the Blood without the Body But to this we say that though these are as to their nature undivided yet have they different Effects for one by Christ is ordained to incorporate the Blood for the washing away of Sins whence it is said That without shedding of Blood there is no Remission And that which they say that the Body is not without the Blood is true but yet by virtue of the Sacrament the Sacramental Body is not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body That therefore we might have a Supper Sacramentally perfect it was necessary that it should be instituted that the Body and Blood should be Sacramentally had this therefore is the cause and manner of the Institution so our King and Priest saves us out of the Flour and out of the Wine-Press (n) Rat. l. 4. c. 54. f. 126. Durantus saith That the Church instituted the Sacrament to be taken after the consecration of both Species to shew that he who receives the Hoast only receives not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally For although the Blood be in the consecrated Hoast yet is it not Sacramentally there because the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine signifies the Blood not the Body wherefore because the Sacrament under one kind is not compleat according to the Sign the Sacrament ought to be compleat before the Priest use it And again (o) Ibid. c. 4â— f. 106. Although under the Form of Bread the Blood may be taken with the Body and under the Form of Wine the Body may be taken with the Blood yet according to Innocent the Third neither the Blood under the Form of Bread nor the Body under te Form of Wine is drunk and eaten because as neither Blood is eaten nor the Body drunk so neither under the Form of Bread is drunk or eaten under the Form of Wine Cassunder informs us of (p) De com sub utraque specie p. 1034. Petrus de Palude that he asserted That the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double viz. the matter of Bread and Drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be perfectly represented by the matter in a way agreeable to natural things because the Sacraments effect what they do figure but the effect of the Sacrament is full Refection of the Soul and therefore the matter representing this ought to do it by perfect Refection of the Body which only is by Meat and Drink (q) Lyturg. p. 77. Guilielmus de monte Landano as he there cites him adds That he who receives the Body receives the whole Truth but not the whole Sacrament and therefore in many places they Communicate with Bread and Wine that is with a whole Sacrament The (r) De commu sub utraque specie ibid. Dean of Lovain as he cites him saith That with respect to the Sacrament and the perfection of it it is more convenient that the Communion should be made under both kinds for this is more consonant to the Institution and integrity of it to corporal Refection to the Example of Christ and the Primitive Church And again He freely confesseth that the Laity communicating under one kind only receive not a full Sacrament which consists of two Parts This Sacrament saith (s) In 1 ad Cor.
c. xi Lyra is given under the double Species of Bread and Wine that thereby spiritual Refection may perfectly be shewed forth and because it is a memorial of Christ's Passion in which the Blood was separated from the Body And again Utrumque est de perfectione huju Sacramenti both is expressed perfectly the Passion of Christ semblably of which this Sacrament is the memorial 2dly Because both signifie nourishment perfectly Though the Body and Blood of Christ saith (t) In 1 ad Cor. c. xi Carthusian are called Sacraments in the plural yet speaking formally of their perfect and integral Vnity they are but one Sacrament for they are ordained to one end and compleat act viz. to the spiritual Refection of the Soul in which spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink is required The eating saith (u) L. 4. de emend Christianae Reipub. cap. 19. Andreas Frisius is named separately and the drinking separately by his Wisdom to which all humane Wisdom concerning the inseparability of living Blood from living Flesh ought to give place for here we are are not to dispute from humane reason but to have respect to the will of Christ which instituted convivium non mancum not a maimed Banquet but added drink to the meat If any of these Doctors do elsewhere contradict their own Assertions for that I am not much concerned it being natural and almost unavoidable for Men who maintain things contradictory to common reason to say one thing when they discourse according to the innate Notions of common reason and another thing when they serve the Hypothesis to which they are enslaved it sufficeth me to make these plain Inferences from what they have discoursed § 5 1. If both Species ae to be delivered to represent Christ not as imperfect but as perfect Life to teach us that there is a perfect and full Refection in this Sacrament to shew that Christ redeemed the whole Man and that there may be in this Sacrament a representation according to the Institution then we who do thus represent thus teach thus act according to the Institution must be blameless if the Institution hath appointed both these Species to signifie one perfect Refection they act not suitably to their appointment who use but one If the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine the Blood and not the Body and if the Sacrament under one kind be not compleat according to the Sign then seeing every Sacrament is Sacrae rei signum a sign of something sacred this Sacrament can never be compleat when it is administered only in one of the appointed signs because a sacred thing appointed to be signified must then be wanting If whole Christ be no under either Species Sacramentall if the Sacramental Body be not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body If he who receives the Body only receive not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally then they who administer the Body only do not administer the whole Sacrament Sacramentally nor as is requisite to the Sacramental Perfection of the Ordinance If both Species were given for an entire reparation of the whole Man to be Food to the Faithful and to avail to the Safety and Salvation both of Soul and Body then must they deprive the Laity of their Food and their entire reparation and hinder the Safety and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies who deprive them of one Species If the Species of Wine is to be received for the remembrance of that Redemption which was made by the Effusion of blood for the memory and representation of Christ's Passion that by it we may receive the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward Parts then must they hinder the shewing forth of our Lord's Death and the purification of the Laity who rob them of the Cup If by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both Species to have spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink if the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double and it is necessary to a Supper Sacramentally perfect that the Body and Blood should both Sacramentally be had then they who do not permit the People to have both do not what they ought And Lastly If this be more consonant to the institution to the integrity of the Sacrament to the Example of Christ and of the Primitive Church sure they must act more consonantly to the Institution and the Example of their Lord the Practice of the Primitive Church and the Integrity of the Sacrament who give both Species than they who do deprive the Laity of one though at the same time they do act less consonantly to the Decrees and Constitutions of the Church of Rome CHAP. V. The Contents In opposition to the Council of Constance condemning them as Hereticks who pertinaciously assert That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law of Communion in one kind this Practice is declared to be Sacrilegious by P. Leo §. 1. by P. Gelasius §. 2. The Evasions of the Roman Catholicks fully refuted Ibid. This is farther proved from the Sayings of the Fathers compared with the Descriptions which the School-Men give of Sacrilege §. 3. And from the School-Men §. 4. WHereas the Council of Constance Sess 13. approved by the Church of Rome declares it Erroneous to assert That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law or Custom of Communicating the Priests that do not consecrate and the Laity in one kind only and commands that they who pertinaciously so assert shall be driven away from the Communion of Christians as Hereticks and be grievously punished by the Diocesans of the place or their Officials or the Inquisitors of Heretical pravity this mutilation of the Sacrament hath by the Doctors of the Ancient Church been adjudged Sacrilege and they who only did receive the Bread but did not partake of the Cup have been pronounced Sacrilegious and as such are commanded to be expelled from the Society of Christians § 1 Thus Leo speaking of the Manichees saith (a) Comque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audent interesse Mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione fe temperant ut interdum quo tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurite omnino declinant quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines his manisestentur indiciis quorum deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi a sanctorum societate sacerdotali authoritate pelantur Serm. 4. in quadrag c. 5. Ed. Quesnel p. 271. They avoid the Sacrament of humane Salvation and believe not that our Lord Christ was truly born truly suffered was buried and raised again in true Flesh of our Nature and when to conceal their Infidelity they dare to be present at our Mysteries they so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacrament that sometimes least they should not possibly lie hid they take Christ's Body with their unworthy Mouths but they wholly decline drinking the Blood
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
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
the precious blood of Christ. (a) F. 11 12. Lanfrank informs us That sumitur quidem caro per se sanguis per se The Flesh is taken by it self and the Blood by it self the Flesh under the form of Bread and the Blood under the form of Wine They therefore seem not even in his days to have been acquainted with the new Doctrine of Concomitance Sixthly This is apparent from the Decrees of Leo and Gelasius concerning those who in their time abstained from the Cup. For of the Manichees (b) Serm. 4. in quadrages cap. 5. P. Leo saith That they indeed received the Body of Christ but they declined haurire sanguinem Redemptionis nostrae to drink the Blood of our Redemption he therefore thought that they could not drink the Blood according to our Saviour's Institution who received not the Cup. (c) Apud Ivon decr part 2. cap. 89. Gelasius saith That the declining of the Cup was the dividing of one and the same Mystery which could not truly be affirmed if by taking of the Bread alone an entire Sacrament and whole Christ Body and Blood were taken and received He also adds Let them either take the whole Sacrament or be driven from the whole clearly intimating that by receiving the Bread only they received not the whole But it is needless to proceed in confutation of this vain imagination for had it ever entered into the Heads of the Renowned Fathers of the Church they would not so unanimously have said the Cup was necessary to be received for the remembrance of our Lord's Death and Passion for the procuring of our union to Christ for the Remission of Sins for the increase of Grace for the Sanctification and Salvation both of Soul and Body they would not have concluded the Sacrament was imperfect when it was not received nor would they with such Passion have exhorted those who had received the Body to come and be partakers of the Cup or stiled it as in their Liturgies they always do the Cup of Life Redemption and Salvation as we have seen they did § 6 Mr. Condom nevertheless thus Triumphs over us Gentlemen open your own Books open Aubertine P. 356. the most learned Defender of your Doctrine you will find there in almost every Page passages taken from St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom the two Cyrils and from many others where you may read That in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his Person it self seeing they received say they the King in their Hands they receive Jesus Christ and the Word of God they received his Flesh as living not as the Flesh of a meer Man but as the Flesh of God is not this to receive the Divinity together with the Humanity of the Son of God and in a word his entire Person after this what would you call Concomitancy Answ What is all this to the purpose Is this the manner of speaking used by the Romanists since the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented and since the Sacrilegious Defalcation of the Cup Do they express Concomitance by saying You receive Jesus Christ the King the Word of God the living Flesh of God Is it not this they carefully and frequently inculcate that under that one Species alone which is distributed to them they receive Jesus Christ whole and entire Doth not the Council of Constance thus express it That (d) Sess 13. vide Basil Sess 30. Concil Tom. 12. p. 601. it is firmly to be believed and no way to be doubted that the whole Body and Blood is truly contained both under the Species of Bread and likewise under the Species of Wine Doth not the (e) Sess 13. cap. 3. can 1 Trent Council say That by virtue of this Concomitance the Body is under the Species of Wine and the Blood under the Species of Bread Anathematizing them who teach the contrary and that under one Species is contained a true Sacrament Are not the Romanists still endeavouring to possess the People with these Sentiments That in receiving one Species alone they loose nothing since by Concomitancy they receive both the Body and the Blood Is it not this which the (f) Sess 13. cap. 3. Trent Council is so concerned to teach that as much is contained under either Species as under both Let therefore Mr. Condom if he believes the Fathers held Concomitancy shew out of all their Writings any thing of this Nature which may convince us that they did assert it or let him rest assured that what the Romanists since the Twelfth Century (g) Attendant insuper Sacerdotes quod cum Communionem sacram porrigant simplicibus sollicite eos instruant sub panis specie simul eis dari corpus sanguinem Domini Concil Lambeth A.D. 1281. Concil Tom. 11. part 1. p. 1159. have been continually inculcating and obtruding upon others what filleth all their Books and their Discourses on this Subject but never was once mentioned by any Christian Writer for a Thousand Years though they were equally concerned and had all the same reason if they believed Concomitancy yea and the same occasion if they had generally practised the half Communion so to do is but a Novelty invented by the Romish Doctors only to serve a cause and justifie the Defalcation of the Cup. When the Doctors of that Church would in their suppositious Treatises make the Ancients speak in this new Dialect they do not mince the matter thus but make them speak exactly in their Roman Language Thus in that Epistle falsly said to be writ by Isidore Hispalensis to Redemptus they introduce him speaking thus (h) Cum praedictorum fuerit consecratio non ut quidam putant indocti sub panis specie sola caro Christi in Calice tantummodo sumitur sanguis sed in utroque Deus homo in corpore glorificato totus integer Christus integer Christus in calice panis vivus qui de coelo descendit totus est in utroque Epist Isidori ad Redemptum p. 696. When the consecration of the Elements is made there is under the Species of Bread not the Flesh of Christ only and in the Chalice not his Blood only as some unskilful persons think but in both there is God and Man whole and entire Christ in his Glorified Body whole Christ in the Cup the living Bread who came down from Heaven is entire and whole in both Here is plain dealing only the Language and other unquestionable circumstances as (i) De Eucharist p. 902. Aubertine well notes demonstrate that the Author could not write before the middle of the Eleventh Century because the Controversie betwixt the Greeks and Latins touching unleavened Bread which gave occasion to that Discourse began not till the year 1053. APPENDIX CHAP. VIII The Contents The Assertions of J. L. touching Communion in one kind § 1. Against whom it is proved 1. That Christ's Institution of the Sacrament is virtually a Command obliging