Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	appear_v	church_n	scripture_n	1,617	5	6.0260	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96332	A demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her councils have erred by shewing, that the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their decrees touching communion in one kind, contradicted the received doctrine of the Church of Christ. With an appendix, in answer to the XXI. chapter of the author of A papist misrepresented, and represented.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1688 (1688)	Wing W1721A; ESTC R226161	116,790	130

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

A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE Church of Rome AND HER COUNCILS HAVE ERRED BY SHEWING That the COUNCILS of Constance Basil and Trent have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ WITH AN APPENDIX In ANSWER to The XXI Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black-Swan in Ave-Mary-Lane MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Apr. 11. 1688. Guil. Needham THE PREFACE TO THE READER The Contents of the Preface This Discourse plainly overthrows all the Foundations of the Romish Faith shewing 1. That the Romish Councils and the Church of Rome cannot be the sole authentick Interpreters of Scripture or the true Judges of Tradition § 1. 2ly That they were not assisted by the Holy Ghost in making this Decree touching Communion in one King § 2. 3ly That the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent were not true General Councils or that such Councils must be subject unto Error § 3. 4ly That there is no Certainty of the Romish Faith by oral Tradition § 4. 5ly That these Councils ridiculously do assert That they made their Decrees touching Communion in one King consulting the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People § 5. 6ly That the Decrees of the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil concerning the Superiority of a Genral Council over the Pope and their Authority to decree matters of Faith without him must be allowed to be valid or we can have no Assurance of the Validity and Infallibility of any of their Councils § 6. BY way of Preface to this Discourse I shall endeavour briefly and plainly to demonstrate 1. That it plainly overthroweth all the Certainty of the Romish Faith and that if they have made these Definitions and Decrees in opposition to the plain Sence of Scripture and the Interpretations of it by the Holy Fathers and to the full Tradition of the Church in former Ages these their received Councils cannot be by Gods Appointment the Judges of our Controversies the authentick Interpreters of Scripture or assisted by the Holy Ghost in making these Decisions nor can they be Assertors of or Adherers to primitive Tradition but rather plain Desertors of it And First Whereas they challenge as their undoubted Right Authority to be the sole authentick Interpreters of the Sence of Scripture and the true Judges of the Tradition of the Church of Christ Hence we may learn what excellent Interpreters they are of Scripture and Tradition For whereas the Trent Council hath in General defined that it belongeth to the Church alone (a) Sess 4. Judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Sanctarum Scripturarum To judge of the true sence and meaning of the Holy Scriptures And particularly That being taught by the Holy Spirit (b) Sess 21. c. 1. Atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta And following the Judgment and Custom of the Church she made the forementioned Decrees touching Communion in one Kind Secondly Whereas the Council of Constance saith That they made their Decrees concerning the same Matter (c) Sess 13. Plurium doctorum tam divini quam humani juris deliberatione praehabitâ After mature Deliberation had with many Doctors skilful both in divine and humane Laws And lastly whereas the Council of Basil hath declared That they determined the same Matter (d) Sess 30. Post diligentem perscrutationem divinarum Scripturarum sacrorumque Canonum doctrinarum à Sanctis patribus Doctoribus traditarum in hac Synodo longis temporibus habitam After a diligent Search made in this Synod for a long time of holy Scriptures of the sacred Canons and of the Doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers I say Whereas they do expresly and confidently pretend these things I think it will be evident from this Discourse That in those Matters they plainly have decreed against the clear and formerly received Sence of Scriptures against the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and by the sacred Canons and against the Judgment and Custom of the Church of God in former Ages So that if it belong unto the Church alone to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of the Holy Scriptures these Councils and those Churches which have embraced their Interpretations of the Scriptures concerned in this Dispute could not be the Church Representative or Catholick but falsly did and do pretend to these Titles If it belong unto the Church to teach us what is Tradition they who assert these things as suitable to the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and to the Judgment of the Church cannot deserve that Title § 2 Again Thirdly Whereas the Trent Council saith That in making these Decrees she was (e) Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto qui est Spiritus sapientiae intellectus Spiritus consilii pietatis edocta Sess 21. c. 1. Ibid. Instructed by the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Wisdom and of Understanding of Counsel and of Pieyt whereas the Council of Constance and of Basil in making their Decrees touching this Article Declare they were a Holy General Synod in Spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata Met rightly together in the holy Ghost Hence it is evident that 1. They falsly pretended to the Assistance of the Holy Spirit who being the spirit of Truth the Inditer of the Sacred Scripture would not assist them to determine contrary to the Truth delivered there and being also the Spirit promised to assist his Church and guide her true and living Members into all saving Truth could not assist them to Decree against the Practice and the Judgment of the Church of Christ for a Thousand years 2. Hence also it must follow that these Councils tho as to these Definitions they are own'd as truly General by the whole Church of Rome were not true General Councils or that true General Councils confirmed by the Pope and owned by the whole Church of Rome may erre in Matters of Faith in the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in their Judgment of Tradition 3. And whereas our late Roman Disputants have laid the whole Certainty of their Faith upon the Infallibility of oral Tradition §. 4. Mr. G. Mr. M. delivering to them the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Saviour it must be as evident they have no Certainty of Roman Faith as it is evident from this and other late Treatises That they have varied from the Tradition of the Church in the Practice of latin Service the Veneration of Images and the Substraction of the Cup and we desire nothing more of the most wavering Persons than that they would not go over to that Church till they see greater Evidence that they have never varied from what was once taught and delivered in the Church of Christ than these Discourses offer to evince that they have actually done it § 5 4. Moreover hence we

Lateranensi ultimo Bellar. de Concil l. 1. c 7. de Concil partim Reprobatis and of no Authority Why are they stiled Concilia Reprobata Reprobated Councils by the greatest Part of Roman Catholicks in reference to some of these things which they profess to have decided under this Majestick Character Why is it yet left free for any Romanist to reject their Authority and Decrees in many Matters Moreover if they were true General Councils representing the whole Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost either such Councils must have erred in what they have decreed as matter of Faith and therefore cannot be Infallible and then the whole Church Representative and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost may erre in matters of Faith or if they did not erre it must be matter of Faith That a General Council is superior to the Pope Secondly That General Councils may infallibly determine matters of Faith without him yea against him Thirdly That the pertiancious Resisters of this Doctrine were Hereticks and therefore that Eugenius the 4th Julius the 2d Leo the 10th and the 5th Lateran Council were Heretical If they did not know the Truth of what they thus assert how shall private Persons be able to discern what such Assemblies and so many Universities and Churches throughout the World consenting with them and owning them as such could not discern That is how shall they know when Councils are truly General when they truly represent the Church Catholick and they are assisted by the Holy Ghost Was not this one of their Decrees That for the future Quilibet in R. Pontificem eligendus Every one that was to be chosen Pope should in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Heart and Mouth Profess to God Almighty and to blessed Peter firmy to believe and hold as long as he lived the holy Catholick Faith according to the Traditions of the Apostles the general Councils and in particular of the general Councils of Lateran Lyons Vienna Constance and Basil and to keep that Faith to a tittle unchanged (a) Consil Const Sess 39. Basil Sess 23.37 Et usque ad animam sanguinem confirmare defensare praedicare And to preach confirm and defend it with their Life and Blood Did not the following Popes till after the Time of Eugenius the 4th make this Profession Yea were not the Inquisitors of Hereticks obliged by the Council of Constance to enquire of any who lay under Suspicion of Heresy (b) Vtrum credaet teneat asserat quod quodlibet Concilium Generale etiam Constantinense Vniversalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item utrum credat quod illud quod Sacrum Concilium Constantienense Vniversalem Ecclesiam Repraesentans approbavit approbat in favorem fidei salutem animarum quod hoc est abuniversis Christi fidelibus approbandum tenendum Et quòd condemnavit condemnat esse fidei bonis moribus contrarium hoc ab eisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Sess 45. apud Binium Tom. 7. p. 1124. Whether he believed held and asserted That every general Council and particularly that of Constance represents the Universal Church and whether he believed that what that Council representing the whole Church approved in favour of Faith and the welfare of Souls was to be approved by all the Faithful and what it condemned as contrary to Faith and good Manners was as such to be condemned And after this Profession of these Popes this Inquisition made by all concerned to find out and prosecute Persons suspected of Heresy could they be doubtful whether these Councils were truly General or no Would they condemn Men of Heresy for not believing these Articles if they themselves did not believe them What Hppes can private Persons have that they shall surely know when Councils represent the Church and are accepted by it if the Agreement of so many Nations so many Universities so many Cardinals Arch-Bishops Bishops Divines and Doctors the Profession of so many Popes the Practice of so many Inquisitors do not prove that these Councils were once accepted by the Church Again Was there any Scripture or Tradition of the Church which plainly taught the contrary if not there can be none now and so no Man can hve just Cause from Scripture or Tradition to doubt the Infallibility of these Councils That they represented the whole Church and were assisted by the Holy Ghost That they were above the Pope and Representatives of the Church Catholick without Dependance on him If either plain Scripture or Tradition contradicted these their Assertions and Determinations then must these great Assemblies and all the Universities Nations and Churches which owned them as true general Councils be accounted ignorant of what plain Scripture or Tradition delivered touching a Matter of Faith of so great Import to the Vnion the Peace and Reformation of the Church and why then may not others be ignorant of other Matters plain in Scripture or Tradition without Peril why may we not suppose or at the least suspect That other Councils less numerous have been so Again These Councils of Constance and Basil have declared and decreed That (a) Concil Basil Sess 2. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 22. Sess 18. p. 55. general Councils have Authority immediately from Christ which every one of whatsoever State or Dignity though it be Papal is obliged to obey in things pertaining to Faith the Extirpation of the said Schism and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members That the Pope himself is bound to stand to the Declaration and Definition of these Councils Whatsoever Christian saith the (b) Sess 45. Council of Constance refuseth to profess That he believes asserts and holds this he shall be proceeded against as one suspected of Heresy This saith the Council of Basil is (c) Sess 33. p. 95. Veritas fidei Catholicae A Truth belonging to the Catholick Faith and whosoever pertinaciously resists it censendus est Haereticus Is to be deemed an Heretick It is an Article of Faith which cannot be neglected say they Sine interitu saluts Without the Loss of Salvation They also decreed That it was not in the Power of the Pope to dissolve prorogue or transfer a general Council to another place without the Consent of the said Council And this Decree is also stiled (a) Ibid. Sess 33. p. 59. Sess 38. p. 101. An Article of Faith which he who pertinaciously doth resist is to be deemed an Heretick They also urge in Confirmation of these Decrees 1. That they were established by Martin the Fifth confirming the Decrees of the Council of Constance and by Eugenius the Fourth confirming that of Basil and particularly that of the Eighth Session That (b) P. 33. during that Council there could be no general Council assembled elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council assembled

Scripture and Tradition as in the bowing down to Images the Celebration of the Mass in Latin where it is a Tongue unknown to the Generality of them that hear it yet in none of them hath she so openly affronted and defied both the Institutions of the H. Scripture and the continual Practice and declaration of the Church of Christ as in her practice of the Substraction of the Cup from Lay Communicants and in the Propositions Assertions and Decrees she hath established to excuse that practice In that of Honorary Worship of the Images of Saints her second Nicene Council doth very frequently though say the Fathers met at Frankford * Praefat. p. 10. very impudently pretend to Apostolical Tradition The Trent Council usher in their Decree concerning the Honour and Veneration to be imparted to them with an insinuation that it is made juxta Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum † Sess 25. According to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church received from the first Ages of Christianity But when they come to settle as a Law this Defalcation of the Cup they do it without any of these colours or pretences yea with confessed deviation both from our Saviour's Institution and Tradition and from the constant practice of the first and purest Ages of his Church Declaring and defining as the Trent Council doth That (a) Sess 21. c. 1 2. although our Redeemer and our Lord in his Last Supper did institute this venerable Sacrament and deliver it to the Apostles in both species yet (b) Ibid. Can. 2. if any person say the Holy Catholick Church was not by just causes and reasons moved to give it to the Laity and Priests not consecrating in one species only let him be accursed And as the Council of Constance doth That * Quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo viz. communicandi Laicos tantummodo sub specie panis habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Concil Constant Sess 13. although in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was received by the Faithful under both species yet is the Custom of receiving it by Lay-Men and by Priests not consecrating to be received as a Law. That these Decrees are evidently repugnant to the institution of our Lord and Saviour and to the practice of the whole Church of Christ for above a Thousand Years hath been proved beyond all possibility of contradiction in a late excellent Treatise in Answer to a Discourse of Mr. Condom on this Subject That the same Decrees and almost every proposition declaration and assertion which have been advanced and invented by the General Councils of Constance Basil and of Trent in favour of them are manifestly opposite and repugnant to the received Traditions of the Church of Christ and to the Sence and the Expressions of the Fathers of the Christian Church I undertake by God's Assistance in the ensuing Pages to demonstrate by shewing First What these Councils have determined in this matter And Secondly What hath in contradiction to them been asserted and declared by the Fathers which flourished in the Church of God. Now the Church of Rome hath by the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent declared and defined as followeth 1. First (c) Sancta Synodus declarat docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Syn. Trid. Sess 21. c. 1. That the Laicks and Priests who do not consecrate are not obliged by divine Precept to receive the Sacrament in both kinds That (d) Et cap. 3. though Christ in his Last Supper instituted this veverable Sacrament under the species of Bread and Wine yeet do not that institution and delivery bind all the Faithful by the Law of Christ to receive both species and that they who assert the contrary speak rashly and presumptuously 2. That (e) Neque nullo pacto dubitari posse salva fide quin illis alterius speciei communio ad salutem sufficiat Ibid. Et Sess 13. Can. 3. it cannot be doubted without prejudice to the Christian Faith but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation Whosoever doth affirm the contrary to either of these Declarations saith the Trent Council let him be Anathema 3. That (f) Sancta mater Ecclesia gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendum decrevit quam reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licet Concil Trid. Sess 21. c. 2. the Church of Christ for just and weighty reasons hath approved the Communion of Laicks and Priests not consecrating under one kind only and hath defined it for a Law That (g) Concilium S. Generale Constantiense in Spirite Sancto legitime congregatum declarat decernit definit quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit sub untraque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum similiter quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula c scandalaest rationabiliter introducta quod a conficientibus sub utraque specie a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia Sanctis Patribus rationabiliter introducta diutissime observata sit habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libitu mutare Concil Constant Sess 13. although Christ himself did minister this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples in both kinds the species of Bread and Wine and though it was so received by the Faithful in the Primitive Church yet the contrary Custom that the Priests who do consecrate should receive in both kinds and the Laity should receive only the species of Bread was rationally introduced and is to be received as a Law which none must change or reject at his pleasure without the Authority of the Church 4. That to say that it is (h) Quapropter dicere hanc consuetudinem aut legem observare sit sacrilegum aut illicitum censeri debet erroneum pertinaciter asserentes oppositum praemissorum tanquam Haeretici arcendi sunt graviter puniendi Ibid. Sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this Law or Custo is to be deemed Erroneous and they who pertinaciously do so assert are to be punished and driven from the Church as Hereticks they acting damnably who endeavour to reprove this custom as Sacrilegious That (i) Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini Item ipsa Sancta Synodus decernit declarat super ista

(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98. the Blessed Apostles in their Gospels had delivered that Christ commanded them to do so for be having taken Bread and given thanks is by them declared to have said Do this in remembrance of me this is my Body and also when he had taken the Cup and given thanks to have said This is my Blood and to have given it to them alone Where note first that Justin Martyr speaks here of a command of Christ which cannot possibly relate unto the consecration but to the participation of the Elements the command being Do this Take eat Drink ye all of this Secondly he had said before that only (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98. Believers did communicate this he now proves because Christ delivered the Elements to them alone commanding them to partake of them He therefore clearly speaks of delivering the Bread and Wine to the Communicants Moreover speaking of the service performed by Christians on the Lord's Day he saith Prayers being finished we offer Bread P. 98. Wine and Water and the President gives thanks and Praise and the People say Amen and there is made a Distribution of those things which have been consecrated and every one partakes of them and then he thus concludes that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 99. B. Christ rising upon this day appeared and taught those things which we have now laid before your Eyes He therefore must have taught according to Justin Martyr the distribution of the Bread and Wine to every Communicant Here then observe to the confusion of the Trent Council First That it was the Tradition of the Apostles that Christ commanded that the Eucharist under both kinds should be given to every one present at the Sacrament and that the distribution of those things which were consecrated so that every one should partake of them is that which Christ taught Secondly That they declared that Christ gave this commandment in his Gospels whence it is evident that the Apostles and all the Christians of their times and of the times of Justin Martyr did interpret the Institution of the Sacrament by Christ as a command that every faithful Person present should partake both of the consecrated Bread and Cup and that both should be distributed to them St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Cacilian complains of some § 2. who out of Ignorance or Simplicity in sanctifying of the Cup of the Lord and (f) In calice Domini sanctificando plebi ministrando Ep. 63. ed. Oxon. p. 148. in the Ministration of it to the People did not that which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of that Sacrifice did and taught because they used only Water and mixed not Wine with it in the Cup they consecrated and distributed among the People Where note that this they did not out of any prophane Opinion of the Wickedness of drinking Wine as the Aquarii and Encratitae and the Tatiani did but only out of Ignorance and Simplicity and therefore he informs us That they did this only in their morning Sacrifice that the Heathens might not conclude that they were Christians and so hale them away to Martyrdom because they smell'd of Wine And that (g) Cum ad coenandum venimus mixtum calicem offerimus p. 155 156. in their evening Sacrifice they offered a Cup mixt according to Custom Now against this humane and novel Custom he argues First From the Custom of (h) Quanquam sciam Episcopos plurimos Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto mundo divina dignatione praepositos vangelicae ritatis ac minicae traditionis tenere rationem nec ab eo quod Christus magifter praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere Ibid. p. 148. most Bishops in the Church of Christ Who says he keep to the evangelical Truth and the Tradition of our Lord and do not by any new and humane Institution recede from that which Christ our Master hath commanded and performed Whence it is evident that in the Judgment of St. Cyprian Christ both commanded That the Cup mixed with Water should be administred to the People and did so administer it Secondly From the Necessity of obeying Christ's Institution and Command for saith he (i) Religiosum pariter necessarium duxi has ad vos literas facere ut siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur veritatis luce perspecta ad radicem atque originem traditionis dominicae revertatur Quando aliquid Deo inspirante mandante praecipitur necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet excusatus a pud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat qui offensam domini timere compellitur nisi faciat quod jubetur ib. I thought it both Religious and Necessary to write these Letters to you That if any be yet held under this Error seeing the Light of the Truth they may return to the Root and Original of the Tradition of our Lord. For when any thing is injoined by the Inspiration and Command of God it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord and he will be excused of all Men That he arrogantly assumeth nothing to himself who is compelled to fear the Anger of the Lord if he do not what he hath commanded St. Cyprian therefore did believe that Christ required That the Cup offered in Remembrance of him should be mixed with Wine and Water and being thus offered should be distributed to the People and that he who did not so Administer did arrogantly assume unto himself and had just Cause to fear the Indignation of his Lord. Thirdly This he proves also from the Exhortation and Command of Wisdom * Prov. ix 5. Come eat of my Bread and drink of the Wine that I have mingled Where by mixed Wine the Cup of the Lord mixed with Wine and Water is saith he prophetically spoken of adding That we could not drink the Blood of Christ had not He first been pressed and trampled upon and (k) Nisi Christus calicem prior biberet in quo credentibus propinaret p. 150. had not be first drunk the Cup in which he drunk to Believers Moreover as Christ saith he commanded the Water of eternal Life to be given to Believers in Baptism so also by the Example of his Mastership he taught the Cup was to be mingled with Wine and Water For about the Day of his Passion taking the Cup He blessed it and gave to his Disciples saying Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins And the Apostle Paul saith the Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and giving Thanks he brake it and said This is my Body which shall be delivered 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 this do as oft as