Constance proceeded in their Decree upon a Custome rationally as they say introduced for the avoiding dangers and scandals or offences But 1. why they should insist on and commend a Custome as rational which was in truth but an Innovation because contrary to the first Institution of the Sacrament by Christ and to the first and general use in the Churches of Christ and therefore unreasonable I cannot understand Certainly the Council had shew'd the Prudence and Gravity of Fathers if they had condemn'd this Custome as a Novel abuse and had done that Right to the Sacrament as to have restor'd the Administration to what it was at the Beginning But perhaps 2ly The Avoidance of certain dangers and Scandals may be some excuse Now what those dangers and Scandals might be I should not have thought but that I find Card. Bellarmin who (d) De Euchar Lib. 4. Cap. 24.6 neque ad hoc incommodum confesseth that Christ instituted the Eucharist under both kinds and that the Ancient Church administred in both kinds yet alledging (e) Ibid. Sect. Sexta ratio sumi potest ab incommodis some Inconveniences which he says would follow upon a necessity of the use of both Species As 1. Because of the Numerousness of some Congregations where yet there may be but one Priest 2. Danger of Irreverence in casual spilling the wine 3ly Some cannot drink wine 4ly Vines do not grow nor is wine made in some Countreys This is the sum of the four Incommoda Inconveniencies in which I conceive there is not much For 1. If the Congregation be any where so very large and there be but one Priest he may procure an Assistant at the Sacramental Seasons or the more days may be assigned for Communicating There be many great Congregations among Protestants each of which have but One Incumbent and yet they do not find the administration of the Bread and Cup both to the People to be unpracticable 2ly To avoid spilling the Priest may put the less wine into the Chalice and tread the more carefully this is an easi prevention of Irreverence 3ly The persons who have an Antipathy to wine are but few and it is unreasonable that a rare and extraordinary case should wholly suspend the force of a Law and supersede a Practice with respect to All and even Extra casum extraordinarium where there is no such extraordinary occasion 4ly 'T is known that wine is common and sufficiently cheap in those places where it is not made Or if there be any odd Corner where wine cannot be had the third answer may serve So much for Expediency and the avoiding dangers and scandals (a) Con. Constant Ibid. They of the Council add That it is most firmly to be believed and not at all to be doubted that the whole Body of Christ and his Blood are truly contain'd as well under the species of Bread as under the species of Wine 'T is likely that they meant this pretended concomitancy as an Argument for the no necessity of the Laieties having the Cup Administred to them because as they say the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contain'd under the Bread alone But as they went upon a supposition that there 's a real Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ which we deny and can never be prov'd so They boldly reflect upon the Wisdom of Christ who did Ordain and Administer Wine as well as Bread and that to the same Persons and best knew how he was present in the Sacrament and would be to the end of the World best knew what was necessary what superfluous in his own Ordinance Certainly Christ having declared his Pleasure by what he said and did at his Institution and Administration of the Eucharist concerning Communicating in both kinds Christians without puzling their heads about an imaginary Concomitancy or the like needless Subtleties are to judge that then they partake of whole Christ in a Sacramental way i. e. enjoy Communion of his Body and Communion of his Blood also whenas they drink of the Cup of Blessing as well as eat of the Bread broken conformably to our Lord 's own Institution and accordingly as his Apostle (a) The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 sorts them out each respectively to the other Nay suppose this fancied Concomitancy yet it can't be a Salvo for the denial of the Cup to the People in the Eucharist For there Christ is represented and Christians partake of him as (b) 1 Cor. 11.26 dying partake of his Body as (a) 1 Cor. 11.24 broken and of Blood (b) Math. 26.28 as shed i. e. separated from his Body but what is separated from his Body is not Concomitant with it Hence (c) Par. 3. Qu. 76. Article 2. â— Thomas Aquinas says That if this Sacrament had been Administred at the very time of Christ's Passion and Death then the Body of Christ Administred under the species of Bread would have been without the Blood as also the Blood under the species of Wine would have been without the Body Why and so it must be understood still For things Arbitrarily Instituted as the Eucharist was must be consider'd and us'd answerably to the Will and Intent of the Ordainer It having then been Christ's pleasure that his Sacrament should exhibit him not as he was before or after his Death but as dying and parting with his Blood Christians accordingly are to participate of his Body and Blood considered under such circumstances as then were when he hung bleeding on the Cross i. e. When his Body and Blood were divided from each other and therefore significantly of this Separation in point of congruity as well as precept Christians are to receive the Wine as well as the Bread I shall annex but one thing more It is (a) The Title of the Dialogue is whether and how Communion in both kinds is Faith And toward the end of it Besides that the present Practice viz. administring in one kind though universal doth not deciare the Church's Faith as in this particular the Council of Trent shews declaring that the Pope may dispence upon just occasion which could not be in matters of Faith Enchiridion of Faith Dial. 14. pag. 75. By Fran. Covent Tho. White as is supposed Printed at Douay 1655. said the more I suppose to alleviate the Church's denial of the Cup to the Laiety when as yet the Author confesses that among the Antients they did more frequently and publickly give the holy Eucharist in both kinds that this is a Practice but not a matter of Faith But 1. Antient Divine Practices and Usages such as the Sacramental Administration as well as Divine Doctrines should be held sacred and be kept inviolate by Christians 2ly Faith is truly concern'd in this
me morable and large Periods of Time I proceed to the Christian Church SECT IV. Being come to the Christian Church let us first take some account of the more early Ages of it As soon as the good Seed was sown the Enemy came and sow'd Tares among the Wheat Tradition was not so viligant but that many corrupt Doctrines and Practices quickly arose and spread in the Church Else St. August might have spar'd his Book of Heresies or the Catalogue would have been shorter But I shall insist on two or three Opinions only which have been antiently countenanced by great Names and have been of considerable continuance in the Church and are now generally rejected by the Church of Rome as well as by others 1. That after the Resurrection Jerusalem should be new built adorn'd and enlarg'd and that Believers in Christ should Reign with him there a thousand years was very early believed Papias the Scholar of St. John Irenaeus Apollinarius Tertullian Victorinus Lactantius Severus and a great multitude of Catholick Persons were of this Judgment St. Hierome tho' he did not hold yet neither would he condemn this Opinion because many Ecclesiastical Persons and Martyrs had own'd it And St. Augustine thought the Tenent tolerable if abstracted from any carnality of Pleasures and confesses that he himself once held it We have all this in (a) Bibl. Stae Lib. 5. Annot. 233. Lib. 6. Annot. 347. Sixtus Senensis But (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Contra Tryphonem p. 307. Justine Martyr Elder than either St. Hierome or St. Augustine speaks of the Millenarian Doctrine as that which was embrac'd by all thorough Orthodox Christians of his time which affirmation whatsoever is oppos'd out of him elsewhere to the diminution of it must mean that at the least a very great number of Christians were thus Opinion'd And though the Judgment of more sober Christians was more clean and inoffensive concerning the Millenarian Reign yet the apprehensions of many were more gross and sensual as were those of the Cerinthians as (a) Cerinthiani mille quoque annos post resurrectionem in terreno regno Christi secundum carnales ventris lihidinâ—s voluptates futuros fabulantur unde etiam Chiliastae sunt appellati De Haeres Cap. 8. St. Augustine tell us and that they were call'd Chiliasts According to (b) In Johan cap. 6. Maldonate St. Augustine's and Innocent's the first Opinion of the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants prevail'd in the Church about six hundred years This practice of Communicating of Infants is acknowledged by (c) Ut enim sanctissimi illi patres sui facti probabilem causam pro illius temporis ratione habâ—erunt ita certè ecs nullâ salutis necessitate id fecisse sine controversiâ credendum est Trid. Conc. Sess 5. Can. 4. Caranz Summa Concil the Council of Trent But they deny that the Practisers of it had any Opinion of its necessity but us'd it upon some probable Motive only And so they (d) Siquis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiae Communionem Anathema sit Sess 5. Can. 4. De Communione sub utraque specie parvulorum Caran Anathematize them only who shall affirm that the Eucharist is necessary to Children before they come to years of discretion Thus the Trent-Fathers But if Tradition Antient and even Apostolical and also Holy Scriptures can make a Practice necessary then particularly St. Augustine judg'd the Communicating of Infants to be necessary For he (a) Vnde nisi ex antiquâ ut existimo Apostolicâ Traditione Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participationem Dominicae Mensae non solum ad regnum Dei sed nec ad salutem vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire And presently after two or three Quotations out of Scripture he adds Si ergo ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeterna sine Baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam spectanda est frustra sine his promittitur parvulâ—s Porro si a salute aâ— vitâ aeterna hominem nisi peccata non separant per haec Sacramenta non nisi peccati reatus in parvulis solvitur S. August De peccati merit remiss Contr. Pelag. L. 1. discours'd for it both from Tradition and Scriptures For when he had asserted upon the strength of both those Topiques that without Baptism and partaking of the Lord's Table none can be saved he concludes that therefore without these Salvation is in vain promis'd to Children Without these i. e. Baptism and the Eucharist also So that tho' the Sanctissimi Patres have good words given them yet the holy Augustine and the rest who were of his mind must fall under the Trent-Anathema And considering the clearness of the passage in St. Augustine it is strange it should be said There is an Objection That S. Austine and Innocentius with their Councils held that the Communion of Children was necessary for Salvation and their words seem to be apparent But who looks into other passages of the same Authors will find that their words are Metaphorical and that their meaning is that the Effects of Sacramental Communion to wit an Incorporation into Christ's Body which is done by Baptism is of necessity for Childrens Salvation Rushworth Dial. 3d. Sect. 13. What passages they are which do thus interpret those Authors meaning we are not told But 1. It is strange that if St. Aug. and Innoc. intended Baptism only and by that an Incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body to be necessary to Children for their Salvation They should at all mention the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood and the partaking of the Lord's Table to be necessary to Children for that purpose what needed such a disert and repeated conjunction of Baptism and of the Eucharist in expressing that necessity if there was no necessity of the Communion but of Baptism only What reason for it except they should be thought to have a mind to darken their Sense with Words Nay if they meant one of the Sacraments only to be necessary to Childrens Salvation tho' they explicitly mention both why may it not be said that they intended the Communion only and not Baptism to be necessary for that end seeing they are in words as express for the Communion as for Baptism 2ly As for St. Augustine his word in the Margent will not without extremity of injury admit of such a Construction as the Author above-named would in his commenting way obtrude upon them For certainly when he says That without Babtism and partaking of the Lord's Table and of the Body and Blood of the Lord no man can be saved he meant properly and without a figure why therefore when he adds in way of Inference si ergo if therefore both these Sacraments Baptism and the Body and Blood of the Lord be necessary to Salvation
alter in the administrations of the Sacraments as should be judg'd expedient for the Communicants profit and the Veneration of the Sacraments according to the variety of Circumstances Before this the Council of (b) Hoc generale Concilium declarat decernit definit quòd licèt Christus post caenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante sacrorum Canonum Authoritas approbata comuetudo Ecclesiae servavit servat Et similiter quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesià hâ—jusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utâ—â—âque specie tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula scandala est rationabiliter introducta quòd a conficientibus sub utrâque specie a laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur Sess 3. Apud Eundem Constance had acknowledg'd That Christ after Supper Instituted and Administred the Venerable Sacrament to his Disciples under both kinds of Bread and Wine and likewise that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds Yet licet although this was so and hoc non obstante notwithstanding this the Council declar'd decreed and defin'd that the Bread only should be received by the Laiety And this Council thus defin'd by virtue of certain Canons and because of a Custom rationally introduc'd for the avoiding certain dangers and scandals We have had a clear and express acknowledgment of the Institution and Primitive use of the Eucharist in both kinds of the generality and very long continuance of the Practice We have this granted by two Councils and by others who were of the Roman Communion How came it to pass then that a Primitive Institution and Usage and that so long perpetuated should be laid aside nay decreed against by those very Councils and that they who should say that the Communicating under one kind only were Sacrilegious and Vnlawful should be dealt with as (a) Concil Constan lbid Hereticks VVhy we may observe two Reasons given in those Councils 1. The Church's Authority 2ly Expediency Both these shall be considered of 1. Of the Authority of the Church in the Case I confess that the Church has Authority in determining and altering things indifferent as Edification Decency and Order shall require But Governours of the Church must beware how they deal with That which was so remarkably honoured with our great Lord's and good Saviours solemn Institution and first Administration of it in his own Sacred Person and that in Commemoration of no less than of the breaking his holy Body and of the shedding his pretious Blood and for to shew the Lord's death till he come In this August Ordinance Times Place and Gesture are Circumstances but surely Bread and Wine are Substantials For to the substance and integrity of a Sacrament do concurr the (d) Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum ut Sacramentum sit sacrum signans sacrum signatum Pet. Lumb Lib. 4 Distinct 1. B. outward sensible Signs as well as the inward retired things signified and the Eucharist consists as (e) Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ caelesti Adversus haereses Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Irenaeus says of something earthly and of somthing heavenly And 't is the Trent Fathers caution that (f) Salvâ illorum substantiâ Conc. Trid. suprà the substance of the Sacraments be preserv'd safe Now I desire to know of our Adversaries whether they think that the Church has power to lay aside the Wine and Bread both I believe they would answer negatively Then with what reason and by what Authority do they dismiss One of them i. e. the Wine and afford the whole Laiety but a dry Communion Did the Soveraign Ordainer permit any such halving and mutilation of his Sacrament There is no such Permission to be found in the first Institution and Administration of it by Him nor in the Doctrine and Practice of his Apostles afterwards How then should the Subjects and Councils and Popes too are no bigger dare to make any distinction where the Supreme Lawgiver Himself has made none Let things be scan'd and it will be plain that the Sacramental Bread and Wine in the Administration of them to the Faithful have the same bottom and that there is no reason why if the One be alterable the other may not be so likewise For 1. There is the same express command of Christ for the One as for the Other 'T is said (a) 1 Cor. 11.24 25. Do this in the administration of the Wine as well as of the Bread And that it may not be catch'd at that it is said (b) As for the words of our Saviour do this in remembrance of me they do no ways inser a precept of receiving in both kinds First because our Saviour said these words absolutely onely of the Sacrament in the form of Bread but in the form of Wine onely conditionally do this as oâ—t as y shall drink in remembrance of me not commanding them to drink but in case they did drink that then they should do it in memory of Christ Dr. Vane's lost sherp c. pag. 311 312. of the Body Simply Do this but of the Cup Do this as oft as ye drink it as if there were a tacit intimation of a greater necessity of communicating of the Bread than of the Cup and that therefore it were sufficient if the Bread be received tho' the Wine be not to preclude I say any such Evasion St. Paul presently applys the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bread as well as to the Cup (c) 1 Cor. 11.26 For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew c. 2ly Both these were administred to the same Persons 3ly There is the same end expresly and distinctly assign'd to both Do this in remembrance of me 4ly There 's as much spiritual benefit and comfort which redound to the Communicants by the participation of the One as of the Other The Wine appears to have the advantage rather of the other sacred Element For the Substance colour and manner of the delivering the Wine separately from the Bread have a peculiar Aptness to represent Blood and Bloodshed and consequently to impress the quicker apprehensions and spiritual sense of our blessed Jesus's bloody death upon and to excite the smarter affections in the Communicants By what has been said there is evident an Equal necessity of the use of both the Sacramental Elements and therefore the Wine is as little mutable and dispensable with in the Eucharistical Administration by the Churches and Canons Authority as the Bread As for Expediency of withholding the Cup from the Laity and the Inexpediency of the contrary it is not safe or consequential upon such grounds to discourse against what is divinely instituted and commanded But let us attend to what is pleaded The Council of