which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be earing may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come †1 Cor. 11.26,27,28,29 Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of in the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend 〈◊〉 other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them P. 299. the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise †P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga pâ—…nitentiam vitiâ—… praesumâ—… intiuctionis importat Tertul. de paenit Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam insidae paenitentiae viro aspergiuem unam cujuslibet aquae comm odabit Ib. reprehending those who presumed upon pardon to be obtained by Baptism without repentance and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus determines That the form of Baptism by aspersion is as good and valid as by immersion and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purifications †Aspergam super vos aquam mundam Ezech. 36.25 non erit mundus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19 Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9 unde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere Cypr Ep. 96. Edit Oxon. which were onely by sprinkling It is not the manner of washing nor the quantity or the sort of Water but onely washing with Water which is essential to Baptism and unalterable and so it is not the sort of Bread or Wine or the manner of receiving them that
all the wounds he received in his body the total effusion of his blood ‖ Ib. Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded and his bloud as thus poured out in this mystical Table and why must Concomitancy joyn those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided Christ's body and bloud we say ought to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration P. 310. Is Christ then divided is his body then despoiled of bloud and blood actually separated from the body ought Christ to die often and often to shed his blood A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it Why do they then make this separation of his body and bloud when they consecrate it if that be onely mystical and representative so is it in our reception much better for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and bloud as they do to consecrate them but onely his mystical body and bloud which is always to conserve this figure of Death and the character of a Victim not onely when it is consecrated but when it is eaten and drunk which it cannot otherwise be 'T is this errour of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildred and entangled themselves in this matter and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament they have run themselves into endless difficulties and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given without being thus explained Surely so wise a Law-Giver as our blessed Saviour would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easie to be understood by them it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself and as they are necessary to be observed by us that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by This practice must begin some where and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it antecedent to their own practice There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law and not the Law the Rule of Practice and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away if they are lest wholly to the mercy of men to explain them For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meaux's must not be admitted without some caution and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law it self and from the divine Institution of them as I have all along shewn in this Treatise It would have been a great reflection upon the Church if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ though so plain and express a Law ought neither to loose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ as Communion in one kind and I have therefore fully shewn that its Practice has always agreed with this Law in opposition to de Meaux who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to and founded upon the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ ought to take place and is antecedent both to the Churches Practice and the Churches Authority As to Tradition which was the main thing which de Meaux appealed to I have joyned issue with him in that point and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that but there is another more considerable plea which is prior to Tradition and which as de Meaux owns †P. 201. Is the necessary ground work of it and that is Scripture or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture which is so plain and manifest that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case onely I would set it in its right place and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition but Tradition upon the Law of Christ and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases with this reasonable Proviso That it does not interprete us out of a plain Law nor make void any Command of God that may be known without it I have therefore prevented de Meaux in all he brings for Tradition and the Practice of the Church unless he will lay so great stress upon that as to make it null and supersede a divine Law nor am I at all concerned in all the instances he brings for it out of the Old and New Testament ‖ §. V. §. VI. unless he can bring one to prove that either the Jewish Synagogue or the Christian Church did ever make void a Divine Law by a contrary Practice and Tradition of their own I can never allow any Church to have a power and Authority to do this and I am willing to allow it all Authority that is kept within those bounds It was boldly and openly done indeed by the Council of Constance when it owned That Christ instituted the Sacrament and administred it to his Disciples under both kinds * Licet Christus post caenam instituerit
which God had not determined could they therefore void the Law it self or transgress and violate it in any of those things which God had particularly appointed Thus the Christian Church may order many things relating to Divine Worship and even to the Sacraments themselves which no Law of Christ has ordered or determined as the time the place the outward form and manner of administring them and yet these as de Meaux says Are absolutely necessary for the observation of the Divine Law which cannot be observed without some of those circumstances thus as to Baptism it may appoint it to be performed by sprinkling or dipping because neither of those are commanded by the word Baptize but onely washing with Water as I have shewn before against de Meaux but to do this in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is absolutely necessary because this is commanded though whether with that form I baptize thee or Be thou baptised which is used in the Greek Church is indifferent Thus as to the Eucharist the Church may command it to be taken kneeling or standing which was an ancient posture of receiving it it may use such a form of words in the consecrating the Elements and in blessing the Bread and Wine or another for it is plain one was not always used and St. Gregory tells us That the Apostles consecrated onely with Lord's Prayer †Epist 63. ad Syr. It may use such a sort of Bread and Wine or another for no particular sort is commanded but it is necessary to bless and to give both because both are instituted and both are commanded and the Ministers who are the Stewards of the Mysteries of God ‖ 1 Cor. 4.1 these alone have the ordinary power of blessing and distributing them to the people but they may do this by the hands of the Deacons or by suffering the people to take them and divide them among themselves Such things as these which de Meaux offers to us as great difficulties are onely indifferent things left undetermined by the Divine Law in which the Church has a power to appoint what it thinks most proper for decency and order and edification and thus the greatest knots with which he designed to entangle us are easily resolved and untied and yet not any one of the Divine Laws are in the least loosened or dissolved One of the greatest things he urges for the necessity of Tradition and the Practice of the Church is the Baptism of Infants for which he says we can produce nothing from Scripture but must be forced to resolve it wholly into Tradition as to that I am not willing to begin another Controvesie with him here and therefore shall onely send him to Bellarmine for his satisfaction who proves Infant Baptism from Scripture * Bellarmin de Sacram. Baptismi c. 8 9. as well as from Tradition and says It may be clearly gathered from Scripture it self †Tamen id colligitur satis apertè ex Scripturis But if it were not does it follow because the Church may make a Law which is not contained in Scripture that therefore it may break a Law which is and because it may appoint some things which God has left indifferent that therefore it may forbid what he has absolutely commanded 2. Other instances produced by de Meaux relate not onely to matters Ecclesiastical but to those that were Civil or at least mixt and so belonging to the Power of the Magistrate as the Lex Talionis and the prohibition of Marriage with the Moabites and Ammonites The Civil Magistrate was to see all possible Justice done by the one according to God's own command and it was a commendable act in him to prevent all mischief that might have come by the other though this was done without a Divine Precept by a general Power vested in the Magistrate or a particular and immediate direction perhaps given by God to Esdras and Nehemiah But how these can any way serve de Meaux I cannot imagine in the present Controversie unless he would prove the Magistrate not bound to execute the Lex Talionis at all or that the Jews might have dispensed with the Law in Deuteronomy which forbad Marriages with the Canaanites because upon the same ground and reason they forbad those also with the Ammonites and Moabites afterwards 3. Some cases he mentions were excused upon the account of necessity which when it is notorious and unavoidable dispences with a positive Law. Thus David's eating the Shewbread which it was not lawful but for the Priests ordinarily to eat is approyed by our Saviour Matth. 12.4 not upon the account of Tradition or the judgement of the High-Priest but the extream hunger which he and his Companions were then pressed with and which made it lawful for them them to eat of the hallowed Bread when there was no other to be procured But did this make it lawful afterwards for the High-Priest or the Sanhedrim to have made the holy Bread always common to others when there was no such necessity Thus if some Christians lived in a Country where it was impossible to have any Wine this might excuse them from taking the Cup but does this justisie the making a general Law to take away the Cup when there is no such necessity for it and the same may be said of many other like instances 4. In other cases when a Law was founded upon a particular reason the ceasing of that made the Law to cease which was wholly grounded upon it as in the prohibition of eating Bloud and things strangled and Meats offered to Idols this being to avoid giving any scandal to the Jews at that time when the reason of it ceased so did the Law and it is not so much Tradition which makes it void as those general sayings of Christ and the Apostle that nothing which enters in at the mouth defiles the man and that whatever is sold in the shambles may be eat without asking any question for conscience sake As to the Jews defending themselves upon the Sabbath on which they were commanded so strictly to rest it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable and not any Tradition or any sentence of the Sanhedrim and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath does not reprove them for keeping it as it was commanded or otherwise than Tradition had explained it but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week this was not done by Tradition but by the Apostolical Authority and whatever obligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven it can neither be proved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now or I may adde if they were
Priests by those words Hoc facite as well as they After the recital of the Institution in which he observes no difference between the Priests and Laics he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup they shewed forth the Lord's death till he come So that they who were to shew forth Christ's death as well as the Priests were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup and indeed one of them does not shew forth his death so well as both for it does not shew his Blood separated from his Body He goes on to shew'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking for he all along joyns both those Acts as a phrase signifying the Communion and he expresly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter But in some Copies say they instead of and he uses the particle or in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drinking without doing both which is such a shift and cavil as nothing would make a man catch at but such a desperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it If the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were used in that place instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet he has but little skil either in Greek or Latine Authors who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both to use that disjunctive for a copulative as to Abraham or his seed for to Abraham and his seed ‖ Ro. 4.13 Of which it were easie to give innumerable instances both in the Bible and profane History The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses and all along in this Chapter and having joyned eating and drinking cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive and to separate them but after all there are Copies of as great Credit and Authority for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles as to make it worth our while to examine them for if the Apostles did disjoyn them it was onely to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking which though they both go together yet are both very great Sins and I see no manner of consequence that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily that therefore he should onely eat and not drink at all or that the Apostles supposed it lawful to eat without drinking or drink without eating But the Apostolical practice and the Institution of our Saviour for Communion in both kinds though it be very plain and clear in Scripture and being founded upon so full a Command and a Divine Institution I know no Power in the Church to alter it or vary from it yet it will be further confirmed and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church and of the purest Ages after the Apostles and by the general consent of Antiquity for a thousand years and more after Christ in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful who came to the public Worship and to the Communion in both kinds without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety as to this matter which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author till after the Twelfth Century in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in struck men with such horror and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols which they believed to be turned into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins and now by a miraculous way was conveyed into the Chalice Hence at first they used Pipes and Quils to suck it out of the Cup and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine and afterwards the same superstition increasing they came to leave off and abstaine wholly from drinking the Cup which was reserved onely to the more sacred lips of the Priests who were willing to be hereby distinguisht from the more unworthy and prophane Laiety The Council of Constance first made this a Law in the Year 1415 which was before a new and superstitious custom used only in some few places and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latine Communion for it never was in any other nor is to this day of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas who lived in the Thirteenth Age and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time * In aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicetsanguine reliqui vero Corpore Comment in Johan c. 6. v. 53. In some Churches it is observed that onely the Priest Communicates of the blood and others of the Body †In quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur sum p. 3. q. 80. In quibusdam in Aliquibus Ecclesiis shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds and never varied from what Christ and his Apostles had commanded and delivered to them as the Church of Rome now does I shall fully prove that so according to Vincentius Lirinensis his rule against all manner of Heresies the truth may be establisht First ‖ Primo scilicet divinae legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholice traditione by the authority of a divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church which Tradition being well made out does more fully explain the Law and shew the necessity of observing it The Universal practice of the Catholic Church being a demonstration how they understood it contrary to the new Sophistry of our Adversaries and how they always thought themselves obliged by it And because none are more apt to boast of Tradition and the name of the Catholic Church upon all accounts than these men I shall more largely shew how shamefully they depart from it in this as they do indeed in all other points of Controversie between us and how they set up the Authority of their own private Church in opposition to the Universal as well as to the Laws of Christ and Practice of the Apostles Their Communion in one kind is such a demonstration of this that we need no other to prove this charge upon them and as I have showed this to be contrary to the Institution and command of Christ
make it true And since I have so largely proved that Communion in both kinds was the Practice of the Primitive and the whole Catholick Church for above Twelve hundred years and have disproved all the instances of de Meaux to the contrary so that no manner of question can be made of the truth of this matter of fact unless where as de Meaux says Passion makes prevaricated persons undertake and believe any thing * P. 164. I have sufficiently answered that part of de Meaux's Book wherein the strength of the whole lies and that which is the ground and foundation of all the rest being destroyed the other falls of its self I might therefore spare my self the trouble of Examining the Principles which de Meaux layes down as the Reasons of the Churches practice for if the Practice of the Church be against him the reasons of that Practice will be so too and I may turn those upon him as I have done the other His third Principle which is the most considerable and which alone he says carries along with it the decision of this question †P. 194. namely That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual Practice this is wholly for us who are assured that we have the constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for so many Ages for the Communion in both kinds and therefore though the Law of Christ which is so clear in it self that it needs nothing to explain it be the main thing upon which the decision of this matter depends yet the Tradition and Practice of the Church is a farther confirmation of the Law to us and we shall be willing to joyn with de Meaux in whatever he can say for Tradition provided it be so certain and general and authentic as we have proved it to be for Communion in both kinds and provided that it do not destroy a plain Law of Christ nor make void the Commandment of God which we can never believe that an universal Tradition of the Catholic Church ever will do What a vain and empty flourish some are used to make with a name of Tradition and the Church I have shewn in this question of the Communion in one kind in the managing of which I have as de Meaux speaks Attacked our enemies in their own Fortress ‖ P. 254. and taken this Goliah weapon out of their hands and though the disarming de Meaux of that in which his whole strength lies is entirely to overcome him yet since some of the reasons he lays down to justifie his pretended Tradition may without that considered meerly by themselves carry a seeming plausibleness if not real strength in them to defend the Communion in one kind from those apparent difficulties under which as he owns it labours and which he would willingly take off from it I shall in the last place consider all those principles and arguments from Reason which are laid down by him to this purpose His first principle is this That in the administration of the Sacraments we are obliged to do not all that which Jesus Christ hath done but onely that which is essential to them This we allow and this principle as he says Is without contest No Church nor no Christians did ever think themselves obliged to all those circumstances with which Christ celebrated the blessed Eucharist at its first Institution and as to Baptism Christ himself did not perform but onely command that Sacrament I cannot think that Monsieur Jurieux should propose this for a rule as de Meaux charges him * P. 349. To do universally all that Jesus Christ did in such sort that we should regard all circumstances he observed as being of absolute necessity What to do it onely at night and after supper and in an upper room and the like This could never enter into any mans head of common understanding much less into so learned a mans as Monsieur Jurieux They who are so zealous for unleavened Bread because Christ probably used it for there are disputes about it at his Paschal Supper though if he did it was onely by accident yet do not think fit to enquire what was the particular sort of Wine which he blessed and gave his Disciples nor think themselves obliged to celebrate only in that which yet they might do with as much reason and though the putting Water into the Wine which was very ancient and used very likely by the Jews and others in those hot Countrys is not remarked in the first Institution yet I know none that make any great scruple at it As to the posture of receiving which has been the most controverted yet the stiffest Contenders in that have not thought it necessary to keep exactly to the same in which Christ gave and the Apostles received at first which was discumbency if these circumstances indeed had been commanded as a great many of the like nature were very precisely to the Jews in their eating the Passover then they ought to have been observed in obedience to the Divine Law but the Command of Christ Do this does not in the least extend to these but onely to the Sacramental Action of blessing Bread and eating it blessing Wine and drinking it in remembrance of Christ For that was the thing which Christ did and which he commanded them to do and the very same thing may be done with quite other circumstances then those with which he did it with other words for we know not what were the words with which Christ blest the Bread or the Wine with other company more or less then twelve men in another posture then that of lying and in another place and time and the like he that does not plainly see those to be circumstances and cannot easily distinguish them from the thing it self which Christ did and commanded to be done must not know what it is to eat and to drink unless it be with his own family in such a room of his own house and at such an hour of the day 't is certainly as easie to know what Christ instituted and what he commanded as to know this and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and appointed as to know what it is to eat and to drink and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty P. 239 257 349. To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament and what does not and to distinguish what is essential in it from what is not And by this means he endeavours to darken what is as clear as the light and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command The Institution says he does not suffice since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Institution Jesus Christ not having distinguisht them Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening at the beginning of the night in
suis Discipulis administraverit subutrâque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum Et similitèr quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à â—idelibus sub utrâque specie Concil Constant Sess 11. and that the faithful received it under both kinds in the Primitive Church Yet to command it under one by its own power and authority and by its own Prerogative to give a Non obstante to Christ's Institution this was done like those that had a sufficient plenitude of power and were resolved to let the World see they had so and that Christ's own Institution was to give way to it they had not then found out the more sly and shifting subtilties that Christ gave the Cup to his Disciples onely as Priests and made them Priests just after the giving them the Bread this was a late invention found out since that Council by some more timerous and wary Sophisters who were afraid of setting up the Churches Power against a Divine Institution neither did they then offer to justifie the Communion in one kind by the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church as de Meaux and others have done since but they plainly gave up this and onely made a late Custom which was afterwards introduced to become a Law by vertue of their present Power notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church to the contrary Here the Case truly lies though de Meaux is willing to go off from it there must be a power in the Church to void a Divine Institution and to null a Law of Christ which can be no other than an Antichristian power in the strictest sense which may by the same reason take away all the positive Laws of Christianity or else Communion in one kind is not to be maintained and this power must be in a particular present Church in opposition to the Primitive and the Universal or else this Communion is not to be maintained in the Church of Rome De Meaux must be driven to defend that post which he seems to have quitted and deserted or else he can never defend this half-Communion which is contrary as I have proved and as the Council of Constance owns to the Institution of Christ and to the Practice of the Primitive Church The new Out-work he has raised from Tradition in which he puts all the forces of his Book and the main strength of his Cause this I have not beat down or destroyed but taken from him and his cause can never hold out upon his own principles of Tradition and the Practice of the Church which is a very strong battery against it as I have largely shewn so that all that he says for Tradition is in vain and to no purpose since this Tradition he pleades for is utterly against him and if it were never so much for him yet no Tradition can take away a Divine Law. He seems to own and I think he dare not expresly deny that what is essential to the Sacraments or belongs to the substance of them cannot be taken away by Tradition or the Power of the Church but he utterly destroys this by making onely Tradition and the Practice of the Church to determine what is thus essential to the Sacraments for if nothing be essential but what is made so by them and may be known by them then they have a power to make or to alter even the very essentials of the Sacraments which are hereby made wholly to depend upon the Church and Tradition We are willing to own that nothing is unalterable in the Sacraments but what is essential to them and that all other indifferent things belonging to them may be altered by the Church or by Tradition but then we say that what is essential is fixt and known by the Institution and by a Divine Law antecedent to Tradition and if it were not so then there were nothing essential in the Sacraments at all but all would be indifferent and all would depend upon Tradition and the Churches Power and then to what purpose is it to say That the Church has power onely in the Accidentals and may alter whatever is not essential or belongs not to the substance of the Sacraments this onely shews that they are ashamed to speak out and they dare not but grant with one hand that which they are forced to take away with another they dare not openly say That the Church has power over the essentials of the Sacraments but yet they say That there are no essentials but what are made and declared to be so by the Church So the streight they are in obliges them in effect to revoke their own concessions and Truth makes them say that which their Cause forces them to unsay again and they are put upon those things in their own necessary defence which amount in the whole to a contradiction If the Bishop of Meaux can shew us that any Divine Institution was ever altered by the Jewish or Christian Church or any Law of God relating to Practice and Ceremony was ever taken away by a contrary Practice and Tradition then he says something to the purpose of Communion in one kind but if the many Instances which he brings for Tradition out of the Old and New Testament do none of them do this they are then useless and insufficient they fall short of what they ought to prove and come not up to the question in hand but are wholly vain and insignificant and to shew they are so I shall reduce them to these following heads 1. They chiefly relate to the Churches Power in appointing and determining several things which are left indifferent and undetermined by the Law of God and here we acknowledge the Church to have a proper Power and that it may oblige even in Conscience to many things to which we are not obliged by the Law of God and may determine many things for the sake of Peace and Uniformity in Divine Worship which are not so precisely determined by God himself Thus the Jewish Church might settle the time of Vespers on which their Sabbaths and Feasts were to begin the evening being to them the beginning of the next day so they might appoint also the manner of observing the new Moons thus they might also settle the times of the Three Sacrifices the Daily the Sabbatical and the Paschal when they were all to be offered the same day upon one Altar and determine which of them should be offered first though God himself had not determined it But could they take away any one of these Sacrifices which God had commanded upon a pretence that the other were sufficient without it could they have neglected either the New Moons or the Evening-Oblations which God had appointed because they might appoint what God had not done namely the manner of observing them because they could regulate several things relating to the Law and necessary to the observance of it
that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law. All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up are very short of proving that and though I have examined every one of them except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead which is both false and to no purpose yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down If any instance could be found by de Meaux or others of any Tradition or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution and to a plain Law of God they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ‖ Mat. 15.3 Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law so as to make it of none effect was truly ancient and authentic and derived to them from their fore-Fathers but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void and was contrary to a Divine Law. There is no Tradition nor no Church which has ever broke so plain a Law and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution as that which has set up Communion in One Kind the true reason why it did so was not Tradition no that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it but onely some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first the danger of spilling the Wine and the difficulty of getting it in some places and the undecency of Laymens dipping their Beards in it These were the mighty reasons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie as he calls it of Communicating in both Kinds †Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt or that men wore Beards or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance and therefore he takes very little notice of them and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine because he all along pleades for either of the Species and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament because both are commanded and both instituted and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament and so to the essence of it and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament because that is annext to both by the Institution and cannot warrantably be expected without both To conclude therefore Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament which is to represent the Death of Christ and his Blood separated from his Body a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them to wit His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us and which it is the peculiar priviledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of and lastly a robbing them of that Grace and Vertue and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part but to the whole of it and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life to be tainted and poysoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace and the Cement of Unity among all Christians and to make them all one Bread and one Body may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil be made a means to divide and separate them from each other and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve FINIS A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1. A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion 2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith being an Answer to Three Questions I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sence of Scripture II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession can teach the true Sence of Scripture III. Whether the Church of England can make out such a visible Succession 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such a one as is Infallible 6. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England 8. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with Respect to the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome In two Parts 9. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship or a Scripture-Proof of the Unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the one Supream God. 10. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 11. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject and to Monsieur Bocleau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. 12. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 13. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome 14. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue 15. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession as it is Prescribed by the Council of Trent and Practised in the Church of Rome With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately printed in France called Historia Confessionis Auricularis 16. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints with an Account of the Beginnings and Rise of it amongst Christians In Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition and his Pastoral Letter 17. A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise of Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English
suppose think they were not to drink with him too and that he was not to provide Wine as well as other Victuals neither did Joseph's own Brethren suspect he would send them away dry and thirsty when they onely heard that they should eat bread there v 25. Notwithstanding this alone is mentioned yet they met with plenty of Wine too as may be seen at the latter end of the Chapter where in the vulgar Latin it is said Biberunt inebriati sunt cum eo The Greeks thought Wine and Drinking so considerable a part of the Feast that they called the whole from that one part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet when they thus drank together at their Entertainments they did no doubt eat too though if we will as strictly insist upon the phrase and not allow a Synecdoche here as well as in the Jewish one of breaking or eating Bread we must make their Feasts to be all of Liquids and the other all of Solids But the phrase is so clear and so usual that nothing could make men deny its being so but their being willing to stick to any thing however weak and little it be that seems in the least to favour a bad cause which is forced to call in the help of a Phrase used in a short History and that against its usual meaning to combat with a plain Command and clear Institution I would only ask these Gentlemen and Monsi Boileau with whom I am especially concerned whither he does not think the first Christians when they met together to break Bread allowing thereby it was to receive the Sacrament did not also at the same time feast together at their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether those were not joyned with the Sacrament and whethese also are not meant here and included in their breaking of Bread together Which I think he or any one versed in Antiquity will not deny And if so he must either say that at those Love-feasts they used no Wine or Drink because none is expresly mentioned here though it is plain they did in the Church of Corinth even to excess or else that this Jewish phrase of breaking Bread is to be here taken as it is in other places by a Synecdoche for both eating and drinking together and that either at the Lord's Table or at any other But in the 3. Third place I have an undeniable Argument to prove either that this must be so meant or else that the Sacrament cannot be meant either in these places or any other where there is onely mention of Bread without Wine For it is universally owned by all the Popish Writers as well as by all others that to the making a Sacrament there ought to be both the Species Consecrated though they are not both given So that in this says Boileau †Hoc enim convenit nobis cum Protestantibus semper debere sacerdotes Eucharistiam conficere sub utraque specie p. 207. we agree with the Protestants that the Priests always ought to Consecrate the Eucharist in both kinds and Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 182. when he pretends that he finds upon several occasions in Antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body which I shall examine by and by yet confesses that never one of them was Consecrated without the other and it would be Sacriledge says Valentia * Si enim una species absque alterâ conficiatur Sacrilegium committitur De usu Sacram. c. 13. if one Species were Consecrated without the other and after they are Consecrated Bellarmine †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei sumptio necessariaestex parte Sacramenti de Euch. c. 4. owns That the sumption of both Species is necessary to the Priests who Consecrate and that upon the account of its being a Sacrament as well it seems as both ought to be Consecrated to make it a Sacrifice Now in all these places of the Disciples at Emmaus of those in the Acts of St. Paul at Troas which is another but too slight to be particularly considered there is no mention of any thing but breaking Bread not one word said of any other Species either as consecrated or as received by any one So that if these places do prove any thing for Communion in one kind they prove as much for Consecration in one kind and for the sumption of one kind even by the Priest that consecrates So that as it was wisely declared in the Council of Trent ‖ Soave's History of the Coun. of Trent l. 6. These places and the reasons from them must be laid aside because by them it would be concluded that it was not Sacriledge to Consecrate one kind without the other which is contrary to all the Doctors and meaning of the Church and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament So that Monsieur Boileau's strongest Argument is too high charged and recoils upon himself and his own Church and his friends are obliged to take it out of his hands least he do more harm to them by it than execution upon his enemy But he is a bold man that dare face the mouth of a Cannon who dare undertake to prove the Communion in one kind out of the eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians which is such a perfect demonstration against it that a man must out-face the Sun who offers at any such thing St. Paul as the best and truest means to correct the abuses got into the Church of Corinth about the Eucharist recurs to the Institution which he received from Christ himself and which he delivered to the Church of Corinth in which there is so full an account of both the species and such a command of both as is sufficient to shew the Apostolical practice conformable to the Institution of Christ and to let us see what Tradition they left in their Churches about it Had there been any difference between the Priests and the Peoples receiving the Bread and Wine St. Paul who wrote to the Laiety would no doubt have taken notice of it and told them their respective duties but he delivers the Institution to them just as Christ did to his Apostles says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup but on the contrary adds that command to it which is in none of the Evangelists Do this in remembrance of me Gives not the least intimation that this was given to the Apostles as Priests or that they were made Priests then but what is observable does not so much as mention the Apostles or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution and to whom the words Do this were spoken So that so far as appears from him they might be spoken to other Disciples to ordinary Laics nay to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament as well as the Apostles and so must have been made
which we shall have occasion to consider afterwards In the Council of Braga in the seventh Age * Concil Bracarense this Custom which it seems continued was prohibited in the very words almost of Pope Julius so that some learned men mistake the one for the other Afterwards in the Council of Clermont as it is given by Baronius The Twenty Eighth Canon forbids any to Communicate of the Altar unless he take the body separately and the blood also separately unless through necessity and with caution †Ne quis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatìm sanguinem similitèr sumit nisi per necessitatem per cautelam Canones Concilii Claramont apud Baron Annal. An. 1094. §. 25. This Intinction was generally forbid unless in some cases as of the Sick and the like to whom the Council of Tours ‖ Quae sacra oblatio intincta esse debet in sanguine Christi ut veracitèr Presbyter possit dicere infirmo Corpus sanguis Domini proficiat tibi Apud Burchard l. 5. c. 9. Cassand Dialog p. 5. commands that the Sacrament be thus given Steeped and dipped and that for a most considerable reason That the Priest might truly say to the person to whom he gave it the body and blood of Christ be profitable to thee for remission of Sins This it seems could not have been truely said to them unless they had some way or other given them both kinds That this Intinction was also in use in private Monasteries appears from several Manuscripts produced by Menardus * Not. in Gregor Sacrament and it is notorious that the whole Greek Churches do use it to this day in the Communion not onely of the Sick and Infants but of all Laics I am not concerned to defend or justifie this Custom nor to say any thing more about it but onely to observe this plain inference from it That they who thus used Intinction or the mixing and steeping of the Elements together did hereby plainly declare that it was necessary to give the Sacrament in both kinds and not in one I might make also the same remark upon the several Heretical Customs of using Water or Milk instead of Wine as it appears in St. Cyprian and Pope Julius to have been the manner of some who though they were very blameable and justly censured for so doing yet they hereby confest that there ought to be two species given in the Sacrament a liquid one as well as a solid The Romanists and the Manichees are the onely Christians that ever thought otherwise When the Doctrine of Transubstantiation began to creep into the Church in the time of Berengarius and some Christians were thereupon possest with a greater fear of spilling the Blood of Christ they did not however at first leave drinking the Cup for that reason but they brought in another custom to prevent spilling which was to fasten little Pipes or Quills to the Chalices they then used and through them to suck the consecrated Wine This appears in the order of Celebrating Mass by the Pope taken out of several Books of the Ordo Romanus in Cassander's Lyturgics The Arch-deaconreceives of the Regionary Sub-deacon a Pugillaris with which he confirms the people †Archidiaconus accepto à Subdiacono regionario pugillari cum quo confirmet populum Cassander Lyturg in ordine celebrat Miss per Romanos celebrante pontifice Cassander in his Notes upon the word Pugillaris says They were Pipes or Canes with which the Sacramental Blood was suckt out of the Chalice ‖ Fistulae seu cannae quibus sanguis è Dominico calice exugebatur Ib. And he says he had seen several of these in his time So that in those times when the fear of effusion was greater than it was in the time of the Apostles and Primitive Christians who yet had as much reverence no doubt for the Sacrament as any after-Ages they were so unwilling to be deprived of the precious Blood of their Saviour in the Sacrament that though their superstition made them contrive new ways to receive it yet they could not be contented to be wholly without it But 5. The custom still remaining in all other Churches of the Christian World except the Roman of Communicating in both kinds is a demonstration of its Apostolical and Primitive Practice and of an Universal and Uninterrupted Tradition for it we see plainly where this Practice was broke and this Tradition violated in the Roman Church after above 1200 years till which time it bears witness against it self and condemns its own late Innovation which is contrary not onely to all former Ages but to the present practice of all other Christian Churches I need not produce witnesses to prove this the matter of Fact is plain and undeniable and none of their Writers can or do pretend the contrary as to public and general Communion concerning any Christians except those few that they have lately brought over by their well-known Arts to submit to the Roman Church as the Maronites and the Indians of St. Thomas All the other vast number of Christians over all the World the Greeks the Muscovites the Russians the Aethiopians the Armenians the Assyrians the Nestorians the Georgians and others do all administer the Eucharist to the people in both kinds There is some little difference indeed among them in the manner of doing it as some of them take the two Species mingled together in a Spoon as the Greeks and Muscovites others dip the Bread in the Wine as the Armenians but they all agree in this that they always receive both the Species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and never give the one without the other Cassander has collected several of their Rites and Orders in their public Lyturgies as of the Syrians the Aethiopians the Armenians the Abyssins in the Kingdom of Prester John of whom he says That as many as Communicate of the Body Communicate of the Bloud also * Quotquot communicant de corpore totidem communicant etiam de sangine Casand Lyturg. Reliquis omnibus nationibus Christiani nominis ut Graecis Ruthenis Armeniis Aethiopibus priscum institutum porrigendi populo sanguinis in hunc usque diem retinentibus Id. Dialog But we need not call in any other Churches to vouch for the universal and primitive practice of the Communion in both kinds We have in the last place 6. The most learned of our Adversaries who cannot but confess this and therefore are forced to take other measures to defend themselves and their cause namely by the Authority of the present Church and not by the Tradition or Practice of the Primitive as de Meaux vainly attempts to do which they freely give up and acknowledge to be contrary to the Communion as it is now practiced in one kind Cassander has fully and plainly declared his mind in a particular Treatise on this Subject among his Works printed at Paris and in his
capable of the one as the other and therefore the Council of Trent which has condemned all those who say the Eucharist is necessary for Infants has herein determined against the general sence and practice of the Church and put no less men than St. Austin and Innocent a Pope of their own notwithstanding his Infallibility who were notoriously of this Opinion under an Anathema which how they can reconcile with their other principles of following Tradition and of the Churches Infallibility in all Ages I shall leave to them to consider and make out if they can But as to our present question when the Communion was thus given to Infants I utterly deny that it was onely in one kind I cannot indeed produce so many proofs that it was in both as in the Sick because there was not so much occasion in any History to make mention of the one as the other but that which was the very ground and foundation of this Practice of Communicating Infants and the reason why they thought it necessary to their Salvation namely those words of our Saviour John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you these do suppose an equal necessity to drink the Bloud as to eat the Flesh and to do both as well as one And hence St. Austine who denys as he says all Catholics do with him That Infants can have Life without partaking of the Eucharist expresses it in such words as suppose plainly their partaking of both kinds viz. * Parvulos sine cibo carnis Christi sanguinis potu vitam non habituros sine participatione corporis sanguinis Domini Ep. 106. Their distinct eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ as other Authors also do who mention this very thing in relation to Infants †Non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Hipogn l. 5. Corporis Dominici edulio ac sanguinis haustu satiatos Liber Catoh magni de Imag. c. 27. and Pope Paschal the Second who in the eleventh Century allows the mixing the two species for Infants by this means appoints them to take both and supposes it an original custom to do so and if we had nothing else yet the remaining custom in the Greek and Eastern and in all Churches that still continue the Communion of Infants to Communicate them in both kinds is as full an evidence of this as can be expected And de Meaux has not been able to offer any one example to the contrary but that poor one out of St. Cyprian which if it proves any thing it proves that the whole Christian Assembly received onely the Cup in their public and solemn Meetings as well as the Infant he mentions which he is not so hardy as to venture to say nor dare any one that understands any thing of St. Cyprian's time but the Story he would improve to his purpose is this ‖ Cyprian de Lapsis p. 132. Edit Oxon. A Child who had been carried by its Nurse to an Idol Temple and had there tasted of a little Bread and Wine that was Sacrificed this was afterwards brought by its Mother who knew nothing of this matter to the Christian Assembly and there it discovered the strange misfortune had befallen to it For all the time of the Prayers it was in great trouble and uneasiness it cried and tost and was impatient as if it had been in a fit and an agony and seemed to confess that by its actions which it could not by words thus it continued whilst the Solemn Offices were performed and towards the end of them when the Deacon bringing the Cup about to all the rest at last came to that it turned away its face and kept its lips close and would not receive it but the Deacon poured in a little into its mouth against its will which it quickly brought up again not being able to retain what was so holy and sacred in its impure and polluted stomack This was a miraculous and extraordinary warning to others not to partake with any part of the Idol Worship or Offerings which they were in that time greatly tempted to and for this purpose St. Cyprian relates the thing of his own knowledge he being an eye-Witness of it But Monsieur de Meaux would have this serve to shew that the Child had the Cup onely given to it there being no mention of the Bread and therefore that it received but in one kind and consequently that it was the custom for Infants to receive but in one kind in St. Cyprian's time if so then it was the custom also for all Christians in their Religious Assemblies to receive onely in one kind for St. Cyprian mentions nothing at all of the Bread in this place given to the rest any more than to the Child and if de Meaux or any one that pretends to any thing of Learning will assert this That in St. Cyprian's time Christians in the public Communion received but one Species and that this Species was that of Wine I 'll willingly give them this instance of the Child and take them up upon the other where I am sure I have all the learned men that ever read St. Cyprian or understand any thing of Antiquity on my side But why does not St. Cyprian mention any thing of the Bread if that were then given to the Child or others Because he had no reason to do it in this short relation which was not to give an account of all that was then done by the Christians in their Religious Offices but onely of this accident which happened to the Child at that time it being his business in that Discourse to deter men from joyning in the Pagan Idolatry from the terrible Judgements of God upon several who had done this and after this remarkable instance of the Child he relates another of a man who had received the Bread in the Sacrament * Sacrisicio à sacerdote cetebrato partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter accipere sanctum Domini edere contrectare non potuit cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invenit Cyp. Ib. de Laps so that they received that it seems as well as the Wine which was as miraculously turned into Ashes But why was not the Child as much disturbed at the receiving the Bread if that was given it as at the receiving the Wine Why so it was during the whole time of being there at the Prayers and at the whole Solemnity it was under the same trouble agitation and discomposure but most remarkably at the end and conclusion of all when it had taken the whole Sacrament If the other Christians received the other part of the Sacrament though it be not mentioned so might this child and as I think none will from hence attempt to shew that all Christians were then deprived of the Bread so it is plain they all had the Cup and that the Children
Species contains both the Body and Bloud together and so conveys the whole vertue of both which is truely Superstition as having no foundation in Scripture or in the Institution of Christ which gives the Sacrament its whole vertue and and annexs it not to one but to both Species And whatever the Superstition be Gelasius declares it is Sacriledge to divide the Mystery or to take one Species without the other the reason which he gives against taking one kind is general and absolute because the Mystery cannot be divided without Sacriledge so that however our Adversaries may assoile themselves from the Superstition in Gelasius they can never get off from the Sacriledge How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark which de Meaux aims at I shall let him see from one of his own Communion whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way inferiour to his own and his honesty much greater who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit nam ex iis manifestè constat horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâque specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fuisse Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur quod ingredientes Ecclesiam percepto cum reliquis corpore Domini à sanguine Redemptionis abstinerent nisi calix Dominici sanguinis distributus fuisset quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus non igitar ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontifices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos evitandos bic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censuit Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant Cassand de Com. sub utrâque p. 1026. The Conjecture says he which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo and the Decrees of Gelasius does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends for from them it manifestly appears that in the time of these two Popes the Communion was onely used in both kinds for how should the Manichees be known by this mark that when they came to the Churches they abstained from the Bloud of our Redemption after they had with others taken the Body of the Lord unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed and how should they be convicted of Superstition who took a portion of the Lord's Body and abstained from the Cup unless the Cup of his sacred Bloud had been offered to all in the Church These holy Popes did not therefore as some imagine appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree but those who neglected this solemn and received custom of taking the Cup one of these Popes would have them avoided and markt as those who were a-kin to the Manichean Heresie the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament or else to be wholly kept from all Communion for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely that is in both kinds There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind than such improbable Guesses and forced Conjectures whereby plain and full evidences are rackt and tortured to get that out of them which is contrary to their whole testimony sense and meaning Let us enquire then whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact which will make it appear that the Church ever used onely one kind in its Public Communions this de Meaux attempts to shew in the last place and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his otherwise vanquisht cause He brings both the Latine and Greek Church to his assistance though the latter he owns appears not for the most part very favourable to Communion under one Species but yet this manner of Communicating is practised however and consecrated too by the Tradition of both Churches If it be but practiced in both Churches this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church though neither of those Churches singly nor both of them together do make the Catholic But let us see how this is practiced in those two great though particular Churches Why in the Office of Good-Friday in the Latine Church and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday at those times it seems these two Churches have the Communion onely in one kind as appears by their public Offices if they have it so at those times at other times then I suppose they have it in both or else how come those particular times and those particular Offices to be singled out and remarked as distinct and different from all the rest then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds according to the Tradition of both those Churches and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches is violated by the Roman Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church But the Priest himself who officiates takes but in one kind in the Missa Parasceues as they call it or the Mass on Good-Friday as appears by the Office this custom then will shew that the Priest himself or the Minister Conficiens may receive onely in one kind in the Public Communion as well as the People which I think they ordinarily think unlawful and call it Sacriledge if he should ordinarily do so and if I remember Bellarmine himself says * Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti nam quia Sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est utraque species necessariò ab aliquibus sumenda est Bellarm. de Euchar. c. 4. c. 23. The Sumption of both Species is necessary for the Priest who officiates as it is a Sacrament as well as a Sacrifice for since the Sacrament was Instituted under both kinds it is necessary that both kinds be taken by some-body to make it a Sacrament This Communion then of the Priest in one kind must be no Sacrament and the Missa Parasceues must be a very imperfect one and I think themselves are pleased so to call it it must be but equivocally call'd a Mass as Cardinal de Bona phrases it †Missam illam non nisi aequivocè ita dici Bona rer Lyturg. l. 1. c. 15. and consequently such an unusual and extraordinary