of this for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins JESUS took bread and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it And he said unto them This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after supper saying This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you The LORD JESUS the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new testament in my blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me From all these it evidently appears that our Saviour appoints the Cup as well as the Bread and commands that to be drunk as much as the other to be eat And two of the Evangelists remark that particularly of the Cup which they do not of the Bread that they all drank of it and that Christ said expresly to them Drink ye all of it As if the infinite Wisdom of God which foresaw all future events and all the after-errours that should arise about this Sacrament had had some especial regard to this very thing and designed to prevent the abuse and mistake of those who would not have all Christians drink of this Cup as well as eat of the Bread. What other reason there should be of those particular and remarkable words in St. Mathew and St. Mark relating to the Cup more than to the Bread I believe it will be hard to find out for Christ gave them the Bread just as he did the Cup and there was no more danger that any of them at that time should omit drinking the one any more than eating the other nor did there need any greater caution that we know of or more particular command in reference to themselves for the one more than the other and yet no doubt there was some great and peculiar reason for St. Matthew and St. Mark 's adding of those words of which there can be no such probable account given as their having a respect and relation to after Ages as many other things in the Scripture have which was written for the use not onely of the present but all times of the Church and if these were spoken to the Apostles onely as Priests as the Roman Sophisters pretend though without any ground as we shall shew by and by there cannot then be given any reason for them as yet for there is no such corruption yet got into any part of the Christian Church as to forbid the Priests to drink of the Cup and therefore it cannot be said that this remark or precaution was upon their account unless the Romanists will think fit to take it to themselves upon the account of their not allowing their very Priests to Communicate of the Cup unless when they Minister and Consecrate and so will have it regard onely that other abuse of theirs which is unjustifiable even upon their own grounds to wit That the assistent Priests are not to receive it though Christ by their own confession said to the Priests who were present Drink ye all of it Which is the best way that I know for them to come off of those words by their own Principles For to avoid the force of those words and to elude the plain Command and Institution of our Saviour about the Cup 's being given to all Christians they say The Apostles received it onely in the capacity of Priests and that our Saviour's Command Drink ye all of it belongs onely to Priests and was given to the Apostles meerly as such nay Monsieur Boileau says ‖ Igitur haec verba S. Matthei bibete ex hoc omnes haec S. Marci biberant ex illio omnes neminem hominem praeter duodecim Apostolos spectant aut attinent Boileau de pracepto divino Commun Sub utrâque specie p. 188. that those words in St. Matthew Drink ye all of it and in St. Mark they all drank of it Respect no man whatsoever nor belong to no other man but to the twelve Apostles and Monsieur de Meaux tells us P. 237. that these words were addressed to the Apostles onely who were present and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunk of it Then it seems none but the Apostles themselves no other Priests have a right or a command to drink of the Cup but onely the Apostles And this they might say if they pleased upon as good grounds and defend with as much reason as that the Apostles onely drank of it as Priests but I suppose they do not intend to improve this notion so far but mean onely the same with their Brethren who say that those words concern the Apostles not onely in their own persons but as Priests and as bearing the persons of all Christian Priests in which capacity alone they received the Cup and were commanded by our Saviour to drink of it whereas they received the Bread as Lay-men and as representing the whole body of private and ordinary Christians What a sudden change is here in the Apostles they who sat down as Lay-men and as Lay-men took the Bread just before have their capacity altered in a trice and are made Priests in a moment Yes say they so they were at that very time they were made Priests whilst they were sitting at Table with Christ and Celebrating this his last Supper the first and only ordination that ever was either in the Jewish or Christian Church in the time of eating and siting at Table And they may set up I dare say for the first Authors among all the Christian Writers that ever were of this Opinion that is now held by them That Christ at his last Supper appointed not onely one but two Sacraments that of Orders as well as that of the Eucharist and the first without any proper Solemnity for such a purpose without any outward Action or any Words one would think importing any such thing But they were made Priests say they by vertue of those words Hoc facite Do this which Christ spake to them after he had given them the Bread. This is a very short and a quick form of Ordination and had it been known to be one sooner for 't is a very late discovery I suppose the Roman Church would have kept to that in the Ordaining Priests as they do to Hoc est Corpus in Consecrating the Sacramental Bread But this
the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing †P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened †P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near
and certain Does not our Saviour do it more than once at other times The Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 26.45 before he was so though Judas was then nigh and coming about it So John 10.17 I lay down my Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he was ready to do so as he was to have his body broken and his blood shed when he was prepared as a victim to be offered the next day so St. Paul says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I now offer up my self 2 Tim. 4.6 when as we translate it he was ready to be offered That Christ here used the present tense for the future is owned by Cardinal Cajetan †In Luc. 22. and other Learned men †Sa. Barrad of the Roman Church and Jansenius * Concord 131. sayes the pouring out of the blood is rightly understood of the pouring it out upon the Cross Christs body was not broke nor his blood poured out till the next day nor did he offer up himself as a sacrifice to his Father until then Christ did not then command his Apostles to offer him up in the Eucharist when he bad them do this hoc facite does not signifie to sacrifice nor will it be supposed I hope our Saviour did then use the vulgar Latin the phrase in Virgil cum faciam vitula which is always quoted to this purpose shows it only to be so meant when the occasion or subject matter does require it but in our Saviours words it plainly refers to those acts of taking bread and breaking it and taking Wine and Blessing it then giving or distributing of them as he had done just before and as he commanded then to do in remembrance of him and that it does not relate to sacrificing is plain from St. Paul who applyes it particularly to drinking the Cup do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.25 That the Apostles were made Priests by Christ at his last Supper by those words hoc facite do this is so precarious and senseless an opinion that it only shows what wonderful streights and extremities our adversaries are driven to who are forced to espouse this to support their ill-framed Hypothesis about the Holy Eucharist in those two doctrines of the Communion in One Kind and the Sacrifice of the Mass There is not one Father or Antient Interpreter that gives any the least countenance to it and many of their own Authors are ashamed of it as may be seen in a late Discourse of the Communion in One Kind †pag. 15. where this is so fully exposed that I shall here say no more of it but that if those words make the Apostles Priests it makes them so twice for they are twice repeated by our Saviour after giving the Cup as well as after giving the bread as St. Paul witnesses 1 Cor. 11.25 and so the character of Priesthood must be double and they must be twice ordained at the same time when there is nothing appears like any Ordination at all but if they were then made Priests they were not made so to sacrifice Christs Body and Blood or to do more then he did at that time and so this is nothing to the purpose if he himself did not then truly offer and sacrifice himself which is the plainest thing in the World he did not And what should make any man imagine that Christs body was broke and his blood shed at his last Supper or that he then sacrificed and offered up himself I cannot conceive Had he been no otherwise sacrificed nor his body any otherwise broken nor his blood in any otherway shed besides this the Jews had been liable to much less guilt but mankind had bin a more wretched condition for Christ had not Redeemed them had he not dyed for them upon the Cross If the sacrifice of Christ at his last Supper the night before his crucifixion was a true proper and propitiatory sacrifice what needed he have suffered the next day if that was of the same nature and value with the other as they say and did truly propitiate God and procure pardon and remission of sins for mankind what need was there of the Cross of Christ it was hereby made void and of none Effect or at least of no necessity If Christ had done the work without it his sacrifice upon the Altar or the Table might have excused his sacrifice upon the Cross and thus the bitter Cup might have past from him and he might have been Crucifyed only in Effigie and slain mystically and sacramentally and his body might have been thus broken and his blood shed and yet the one have been still whole and the other in his veins For these Reasons one of their own Bishops in the Council of Trent denyed openly That Christ offered up any proper sacrifice at his last Supper * Cornelius Episcopas Bitontinus in concilio apud Tridentum qui dixerit Christum in caenâ non suum corpus sanguinem obtulisse Canus in loc Theol. l. 12. But if he did not then there was no ground for them ever to offer any in the Eucharist and therefore the Council was forced to declare he did though no such thing appears in the Evangelical History nor could any collect it from thence but it was a necessary after-thought and a groundless supposal to help out and establish the sacrifice of the Mass Secondly There is no Scripture ground for any such sacrifice but 't is expresly contrary to Scripture to sacrifice Christ over again and to have any other propitiatory sacrifice besides that of the Cross and to offer up Christs body and blood every day which was to be but once offered and that by himself I have already shown that the greatest foundation of this their sacrifice out of Scripture which is Christ offering up himself at his last Supper and commanding others to offer him there is a mistake and if it be so all their other Scriptural pretences are vain and to no purpose and must be so acknowledged by themselves for there is none other that does institute and appoint any such sacrifice or can with any colour or shadow be pretended to do so and I hope they will own that without a divine institution there cannot be a proper and much less a propitiatory sacrifice and this indeed they do they confess that it is not in the power of the Church to institute a sacrifice ‖ Non est in potestate Ecclesiae instituere Sacramentum Salmeron Tom. 9. Tract 28. And that the very being and Essence of this sacrifice depends upon the Institution of Christ * Tota Essentia Sacrificii pendet ex institutione Christi Salmeron ib. Suarez Tom. 3. Disp 75. If that be then taken away and there be no such thing in Scripture as I have shown there is not then whatever other places they can produce to establish this
presume he will not say they have the same right to it or interest in it that Christians have and yet I own they ought as much to have the Cup as they ought to turn Christians that is they ought to do both But yet first I think to become Christians and be Baptized before they have ordinarily a right either to Christ's Blood or to the Sacrament and it must seem very strange and grate very much upon all Christian ears to have it said that Turks and Infidels have a right to the Cup and Blood of Christ as well as Christians from this reason here of our Saviour to his Disciples concerning which it is I think very observable that to partake of the Sacrificial Blood and to drink that Sacramentally which was shed for the expiation of our Sins is a peculiar and extraordinary priviledge allowed to Christians The Jews were forbid all blood for this reason given by God himself ‖ Levit. 1◠10 11. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls The life of the Beast which was given and accepted by God for the life of the Offender that was forfeited by the Law was supposed to be in the Blood as 't is there added the life of the flesh is in the blood and therefore the Blood of the Sacrifice was poured out and so given to God at the Altar the peculiar vertue and atonement of Christs Sacrifice is attributed to his Blood We have redemption through his blood * Eph. 1.7 We are justified by his blood †Rom. 5.9 In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins ‖ Coloss 1.14 And without shedding of blood either under the Law or under the Gospel there was no remission to be had * Heb. 9.22 Now for Christians to partake and Communicate of that Blood in the Sacrament which was shed and sacrificed for them and by which they have atonement and expiation of Sins this is a peculiar favour and singular priviledge which Christ has vouchsafed to Christians and which he takes notice of at his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins The Author of the Treatise de caenâ Domini in the Works of St. Cyprian ‖ Nova est hujus Sacramenti doctrina scholae Evangelicae hoc primum Magisterium protulerunt doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina ut biberent sanguinem Christiani cujus esum legis antiquae auctoritas districtissimè interdicit Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet Evangelicum praecipit ut bibatur has remarked this as first brought in by Christ and as a new thing belonging to the Sacrament of the Gospel That Christians should drink Blood which the old Law did absolutely forbid but this says he the Gospel commands and St. Chrysostome †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. observes It is not now as it was formerly when the Priest ate of that which the People might not partake of but now one Body and one Cup is offered to all So it was it seems in his time and they had not then learnt the way of drinking the Blood by eating the Body which now they pretend to do in the Church of Rome we do say they partake of the Blood and the Body both together for the Blood is in the Body and necessarily joyned with it but besides that this depends upon that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon which this and a great many other things are built when it is yet too heavy and ruinous to bear its own weight yet this cannot here do the business for we are to drink the Blood and not to eat it that is we are to partake of it as separated from the Body as shed for us or else it is not a Sacramental partaking of it we are to receive Christ's Body as it was a Sacrifice for us but it was not a Sacrifice but as the Blood was poured out and separated from it and we cannot any other way partake of the Sacrificial Blood which is to be drunk by all Christians 5. It is a most groundless fancy and an Opinion perfectly precarious to suppose the Apostles were made Priests at our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament by those words Hoc facite and that they received the Cup onely as Priests None of the Ancients who write upon this Sacrament or upon these words of its Institution ever thought so nor did it ever enter into the head of any man till a few late School-men invented this new subtilty that they might have something to say against the clearest cause and to shift off if they could the plainest Evidence in the World and though they now generally take up with this Sophistical Evasion which Monsieur Boileau †Creavit instituit Sacerdotes his verbis hoc facite p. 189. insists upon yet some of the wisest men among them are ashamed of it Estius owns that this appears not at all solid nor agreable to ancient Interpreters * Nobis parum solidum videtur nec apud veteres interpretes Dist 12. §. 11. and confesses that Hoc facite belongs to the common People eating and drinking of this Sacrament and that St. Paul refers it to them ‖ Et Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illad facere etiam ad plebem refert edenter bibentem de hoc Sacramento quando ait hoc facite quotiescunque Suarez acknowledges it is not convincing †Hoc argumenti genus per se non convincere Disp 74. Tom. 3. And Alfonsus à Castro * Contra haeres Tit. Euch. p. 99. would not make use of it because he says it does not appear whether those words were spoken by Christ before or after he gave the Eucharist to the Apostles and he rather thinks after and that they took it not as Priests * Ib. He was aware of a difficulty if the Apostles took the Cup onely as Priests and by the right of Priests at the first Institution then it would be contrary to that to have any but Priests receive the Cup And then why is it ever given to the Laiety as it is sometimes by the Pope's favour and concession if it belong onely to Priests and the Priests onely have right to it from the first Institution because the Apostles received it only as Priests But so inconsistent are they to their own Principles that they do not give the Cup even to their Priests unless when they themselves Consecrate and Officiate None but the Minister Conficiens is to receive that though never so many other Priests be by so much at variance are they between this their pretence and their own practice and so do they fight even with their
199. without any difference and all along mentions both the Symbols by the words Sacramenta Mysteria Dona in the plural number and concludes with this Prayer That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace * Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur p. 198. The three other are lately published by Mabillon and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church before that Nation had received the Roman Office in all which also there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds in the old Gothic one after the Lord's Prayer follows this †Libera nos à malo Domine Christe Jesu Corpus tuum pro nobis crucisixum edimus sanguinem sanctum tuum bibimus fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem sanguis sanctas tuus in remissionem peccatorum hìc in aeternùm Missale Gothico-Gallicanum apud Mabillon de Lyturg. Gallic p. 300. Deliver us from evil O Lord Jesus Christ we have eaten thy Body crucified for us we have drunk thy holy Blood which was shed for us Let thy sacred Body be unto us for Salvation and thy sacred Blood for the remission of Sins here and for ever And in the Missa Dominicalis after the Communion there is this Prayer Thy body O Lord which we have taken and thy Cup which we have drunk let it stick in our entrails ‖ Corpus tuum Domine quod accepimus calicem tuum quem potavimus haereat visceribus nostris Ib. p. 297. An expression used now in the Canon Missae In the Missale Francorum which is but short the Sacramenta and Mysteria and Sacrosancta Mysteria are used in the plural which may denote the two parts of the Sacrament but in the old Gallican Missal it is as plain as can be in the Collect after the Eucharist We have taken from the holy Altars the body and blood of Christ our Lord and our God Let us pray that we being always filled with Faith may hunger and thirst after Righteousness * Sumsimus ex sacris altaribus Christi Domini Dei nostri corpus sanguinem oremus ut semper nobis fide plenis esurire detur ac sitire justitiam Ib. p. 331. And in another Collect after the Communion upon Easter day We beseech thee O Lord that this wholsome food and sacred drink may bring up thy Servants †Quaesumus Domine famulos tuos salutaris cibus sacer potus instituat Ib. p. 366. There are several old Missals produced by Menardus at the end of his Notes on Gregory's Sacramentary which are supposed to be written about the Tenth and the Eleventh Century and though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation creeping in in those dark and ignorant times made them begin to have a superstitious fear of spilling the Wine and so brought them in order to prevent that to mix the two Elements together yet they never gave the one without the other as appears in all those Masses The Sacramentary of St. Gregory is alone a sufficient Authority for Communion in both kinds in which the Priest who Celebrates prays that as many as shall take the sacred Body and Blood of thy Son may be filled with all heavenly blessings ‖ Quotquot ex hâc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti repleamur Gregor Sacram. and we who take the Communion of this holy Bread and Cup are made one body of Christ * Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem hujus sancti panis calicis unum Christi corpus efficimur Ib. So that the Body and Blood of Christ were plainly to be taken by more than himself and were so by all the Faithful who were thereby to be made the Body of Christ so we are fed with his flesh we are strengthned by his bloud †Cajus cane pascimur reboramur sanguine Ib. Thou hast refreshed us with the body and bloud of thy Son ‖ Corpore sanguine filii tui nos resecisti Ib. and we beseech thee that we may be numbred amongst his members whose body and bloud we do Communicate * Quaesumus ut inter ejus membra numeremur cujus corpori communicamus sanguini Ib. I have before considered the Ordo Romanus as an ancient Ritual of the Latine Church and both that and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory which are the most ancient Writings at least next to Gelasius that give us an account of these things in the Roman Church do bear witness to the custom of giving the Cup in the Communion as well as the Bread which Cassander also observes †Quem morem sanguinis Domiai porrigendi antiqua Sacramentaria B. Gregorii libellus Ordinis Romani apertè testantur Cassand Consult de commun sub utrâ que who had as great skill as any man in these matters but yet had not seen the Gelasian Sacramentary since published out of the Queen of Sweden's Library which is a further confirmation of this 3. As to the Testimony of the Fathers or ancient Writers some of those have been already given upon the two former heads I shall add several others to them who bear witness to the Communion in both kinds Ignatius in one of his Epistles says One Bread is broken to all one Cup is distributed to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph And here I cannot but admire the Confidence and Folly of Monsieur Boileau * De solitario pane mentionem facit Ignatius Boileau de praecept Divin Commun sub utráque p. 216. who brings this very passage One Bread is broken for them all as a proof that it was onely the Bread that was given and leaves out what is immediately added One Cup is distributed to all which not onely confutes but shames him †Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus says The flesh is fed by the body and bloud of Christ and that of the Cup and the Bread the substance of our flesh is increased and consists ‖ Quando ergo mixtus calix fraclus panis percipit verbum Det fit Eucht istia sangutnis corporis Christi x quibus augetur consistit carnti nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donatio is Dei. qui est vitae aeterna quae sanguine corpere Christi nutritur membrum ejus Id. l. 5. c. 2. And from hence he there proves the Resurrection of the Body against those Hereticks that denied it because the body is nourished by the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him He must mean this of
separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and slain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with 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 Is Christ then divided P. 310. 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 left 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
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 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 ‖ Mar. 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
the same sacrifice and continuing daily to offer it shows that it was not sufficient nor did do the business at once offering as the frequent using the same medicine shows that it has not fully cured the wound nor yet perfectly done its work Secondly The sacrifice of the Mass they say is only to apply the vertue and merit of the sacrifice of the Cross for though the sacrifice of the Cross like a powerful medicament have sufficient vertue in it yet what does that signifie unless it be applyed to us which it is by the sacrifice of the Mass But is there not another way to apply that to us Is it not applied to us by Faith and by the common means of Christs own institution the Christian Sacraments and especially by the Worthy Receiving of the Lords Supper wherein as the Apostle says The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 We do hereby communicate and are made partakers of Christs Body as it was sacrificed for us that is of all the vertues and benefits of his sacrifice by being as the Apostle adds verse 17. Made partakers of that One bread that is surely by eating it sacramentally and religiously as Christ has appointed for it would sound very hard and be a very odd expression to say we are partakers of that one bread by the sacrificing or offering up of that bread when they will not own that the bread is sacrificed or if it were could we well be thereby partakers of it but 't is the eating of that bread which makes us partakers of it and 't is the eating Christs Body and drinking his Blood in the blessed Sacrament that communicates and applies the vertue of his sacrifice of the Cross to us and not the sacrificing of that again as the Apostle goes on verse 18. Are not they who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the Altar 't is eating and communicating that makes us partakers of Christs sacrifice We do then eat of the sacrifice and so partake of it as the Jews did of their sacrifices the communion is a feasting upon a true oblatum the body and blood of Christ as is excellently made out by a Learned man of our own we do not there sacrifice Christs body but only sacramentally eat of it as being already sacrificed and offered once for all by Christ himself upon the Cross It is not at all necessary that it should be sacrificed again by us to make us become partakers of it for cannot a sacrifice be applyed without being sacrificed again It seems a very strange and uncouth way to sacrifice the same thing over and over in order to applying the vertue of it as if the Jews when they had slain the Paschal Lamb must have slain another Lamb in order to the partaking the vertue of it no they were to eat of it for that purpose and so are we of Christs sacrifice and this is the way whereby we do communicate of it and have its full vertue applyed to us It was the weakness and insufficiency of their sacrifices that made them so often repeat them and sacrifice them anew but Christs sacrifice being perfect is to be but once offered though it be often to be eaten and partaken of by us which it may be without being again sacrificed Thirdly The Authour of this Epistle makes not the least mention of Christs sacrifice being offered again upon Earth or of its being repeated in the sacrifice of the Mass but after he himself had once offered it upon the Cross he immediately speaks of his presenting it to God in Heaven and there by vertue of it interceeding and mediating with him for us that by his own blood he entered into the holy place having obtained eternal Redemption for us chap. 9. ver 12. as the Jewish high priest on the great day of expiation after he had offered the sacrifice of atonement for the whole Congregation upon the Altar carried the blood of it into the Holy of Holies and there sprinkled it before the mercy-seat Levit. 16.15 This great Anniversary sacrifice for the whole Congregation was the great Type and Figure of Christs sacrifice for all mankind and the Holy of Holies was the Type of Heaven and the High Priest of Christ as is confessed by all Christ therefore our great High Priest to whom alone it belonged to offer this sacrifice of Atonement and Expiation for the whole World having done this upon the Cross he entred not into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true but into heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us chap 9. ver 24. To appear there as our Advocate and Mediator and by vertue of his own blood there presented to his Father to make a very powerful intercession for us Now from this discourse of the Apostle we have a full account of Christs sacrifice that it was to be once offered upon the cross and then to be carried into the Holy of Holies in Heaven and no more to be offered upon Earth for this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God chap. 10. ver 12. The Apostle speaks not one tittle nor gives the least hint or intimation of this sacrifice being offered again by others upon Earth this lyes cross to the whole tenour of his discourse and the similitude and agreement which he represents between the Jewish sacrifice of Atonement and Christs is quite altered and destroyed by it for besides the High Priests offering this sacrifice this makes every lesser Priest to be still offering the same sacrifice upon the Altar when the High Priest is entred with the blood of it into the Holy of Holies and though he cannot go in there upon which the vertue and the perfection of the sacrifice does in great measure depend yet still to offer the same sacrifice and besides it makes this sacrifice like to the Jewish where every priest standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which for the reason shewed they could never take away sins chap. 10. ver 12. in opposition to which he says this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God verse 13. that is Christs sacrifice was never to be repeated as the Jewish were for if it had been to be offered by others though not by Christ himself and the Christian Priests were to stand daily ministring and offering the same sacrifice both they and their sacrifice would have been the same upon this account with the Jewish and there had not been that difference between them which the Apostle does there plainly mean and declare Further it cannot but seem very strange that when this Divine Author does so largely and copiously and designedly treat of
The Three Grand CORRVPTIONS of the Eucharist THE THREE GRAND CORRVPTIONS OF The Eucharist IN THE CHURCH of ROME VIZ. The Adoration of the Host The Communion in one kind The Sacrifice of the Mass In Three Discourses LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST As it is Taught and Practiced in the CHURCH of ROME Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1685. right Charge of the Church of England of which no honest man can be a Member and a Minister who does not make and believe it I might give several Instances to shew this but shall only mention one wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion in which are these remarkable words It is hereby declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Ware there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Here it most plainly declares its mind against that which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration if they do remain as we and all Protestants hold even the Lutherans then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements they worship meer Creatures and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry as I shall show by and by and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood be not corporally present there neither with the Substance nor Signs of the Elements then the Adoring what is there must be the Adoring some things else than Christs body and if Bread only be there and they adore that which is there they must surely adore the Bread it self in the opinion of our Church but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it and declared that to be false and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration and it continued of the same mind and exprest it as particularly and directly in the Canons of 1640 where it says a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonies That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass all Popish Altars were demolisht so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point than our Church has done It recommends at the same time but with great Temper and Moderation the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist and in it and in neither a Ib. Cans 7. 1640. Vpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table or in the mystical Elements but only to give outward and bodily as well as inward Worship to the Divine Majesty and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling b Rubric at Communion in a posture of Adoration as the Primitive Church used to do with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaks c Cyril Hierosolym Catech. Mystag 5. and as I shall shew is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to but at the Sacrament so far are we from any unbecoming or irreverent usage of that Mystery as Bellarmine d Controv. de Eucharist when he is angry with those who will not Worship it tells them out of Optatus that the Donatists gave it to Dogs and out of Victor Vticensis that the Arrians trod it under their Feet that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body as is used by them in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire or into the Air or Water to stop a Tempest or Inundation or keep themselves from drowning or any the like mischeif to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions 'T is out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful and Abuse and so gross an Idolatry We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God and are set apart to his Worship and Service to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell and to be more immediately present to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated to the Holy Vessels that are always used in those Administrations to the Holy Bible which is the Word of God and the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is his Body and the New Testament in his Blood to the Font which is the Laver of Regeneration wherein we put on Christ as well as we eat him in the Eucharist and if we would strain things and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these it would go as far and look as like to adoring them as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament as I shall afterwards make appear in Answer to what the a Jacob. Boileau Paris De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist has culled or rather raked together out of the Fathers It seems from that Declaration of our Church that some were either so silly or so spiteful as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere b Boil p. 145. outwardly Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as outwardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are
be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest for since they have made a God of the Sacrament they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it nor take it into their hands and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament this is now to serve for another use to be adored as a God and it would be as true heresie in the Church of Rome not to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored as not to say that Christ himself is to be adored But what according to them is this Sacrament It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine and the natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration which they call Sacramentum for Christs body without those Species and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine would not according to them be a Sacrament they being the outward and visible part are according to their Schoolmen properly and strictly called the Sacramentum and the other the res Sacramenti Lombard sentâ—li 4. dist 19. and to this external part of the Sacrament as well as to the internal they give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration to these remaining Species which be they what they will are but Creatures religious Worship is given together with Christs Body and they with that are the whole formal Object of their Adoration Non solum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adorari says Suarez a In Th. Quaest 79. disp quia est unum constans ex Christo Speciebus Not only Christ but the whole visible Sacrament which must be something besides Christs invisible Body is to be adored with one and the same Worship because it is one thing or one Object consisting of Christ and the Species So another of their learned men b Henriquez Moral l. 8. c. 32. Speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist because of Christ whom they contain Now Christ whom they contain must be something else than the Species that contain him Let him be present never so truly and substantially in the Sacrament or under the Species he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present and as subtil as they are and as thin and subtil as these Species are they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them and they can never be left out but must be part of the whole which is to be adored totum illud quod simul adoratur de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. as Bellarmine calls it must include these as well as Christs Body Adorationem saies Bellarmine a Bellarmine de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. ad Symbola etiam panis vini pertinere ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent Adoration belongs even to the Symbols of Bread and Wine as they are apprehended to be one with Christ whom they contain and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him and may be Worshipt together with Christ as T. G. c Cathol no Idolaters p. 268. owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary and are the very term of Adoration as Gregory de Valentia d De Idol l. 2. c. 5. says who further adds that they who think this Worship does not at all belong to the Species in that heretically oppose the perpetual customand fence of the Church Qui censeunt nullo modo ad Species ipsus eam Venerationem pertinere in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum sensum Ecclesiae de Venerati one Sacram. ad Artic. Thom. 5. Indeed they say That these Species or Accidents are not to be Worshipt for themselves or upon their own account but because Christ is present in them and under them and so they may be Worshipt as T. G. says d Ib. with Christ in like manner as his Garments were Worshipt together with him upon Earth which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine the Magazine not only of Arguments and Authorities but of Similitudes too it seems which are to Defend that Church Quemadmodum saies he e de Euch. Venerat qui Christum in terris vestitum adorabant non ipsum solum sed etiam vestes quodam modo adorabant And are Christs Garments then to be Worshipt with Latria as well as Christ himself or as the Sacrament I think they will not say this of any of the Relicks they have of Christ or his clothes Did they who Worshipt Christ when he was upon the Earth worship his clothes too Did the Wise men worship the blankets the clouts and the swadling-cloths as well as the blessed Babe lying in the Manger Might it not as well be supposed that the People worshipt the Ass upon which Christ rode not for himself but for the sake and upon the account of Christ who was upon him as that they worshipt his clothes or his Sandals on which he trod or the Garments which he wore Bellarmines quodammodo adorabant shews his heart misgave him and that he was sensible the Similitude would not do when he used it but T. G. is a man of more heart and courage or front at least and he found the cause was in great need of it and so he saies boldly without any trembling quodammodo that they worshipt his Garments The humane Nature it self of Christ considered alone and being a meer Creature is not an object of Worship as St. Augustin saies a St. Aug. Serm. 58. De verbis Dom. Si natura Deus non est filius sed Creatura nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus Adorandus Ego Dominicam carnem imo perfectam in Christo humanitatem propterea adoro quod a divinitate suscepta atque Deitati unita est Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo ut Photinus vel Paulus Samosatenus illi ego nunquam credo nec servio but only as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it as to make one Person with it with God himself one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so one Object of Worship and if the Sacramental Symbols or Species are to be adored with true latria not per se or upon their own account but by reason of the intimate Union and Conjunction which they have with Christ as they say not only with Christs body for that alone is not to be worshipt much less another thing that is united to it but with Christs Person and then there must be as many Persons of Christ as there are consecrated Wafers then these Species being thus worshipt upon the same account that Christs humanity is
that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance God we know is present in all his Creatures but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them unless where he makes a sensible Manifestation of himself and appears by his Shechinah or his Glory as to Moses in the burning Bush and to others in like manners and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God which appears without any Alteration just as it was before it was made such and especially to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do that Christ is present in it not only in the action and solemn Celebration but extra usum as they speak and permanenter even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over that he should continue there as a praesens Numen as Boileau expresly calls it a de Eucharistiae Adorat p. 140. and be showed and carried about and honoured as such and dwell in the Species as long as they continue as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh before that was crucified this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament but not so as the Papists believe nor so as to be worshipped I mean the Lutherans But to bring the matter to a closer issue the Papists themselves are forced to confess that if the Bread remain after Consecration and be still Bread and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that they are then Idolaters So Fisher against Oecclampadius l. 1. c. 2. in express words So Coster in his Enchiridion de Euch. c. 8. In tali errore atque Idololatria qualis in orbe terrarum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam aut alterius materiae imaginem quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur vel panum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii quam eorum qui frustum panis Coster Ench. c. 8. S. 10. Longe potiori ratione excusandi essent infideles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt Ib. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacrament then they are left in such an Error and Idolatry as was never seen or heard for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable who Worship a golden or silver Statue for God or any other Image or even a red Cloth as the Laplanders are said to do or living Animals as the Egyptians than of those who worship a piece of Bread. And again Those Infidel Idolaters would be more excusable who worshipt their Statues To whom I shall add Bellarmine a Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum Idololatriam appellant ejusmodi Adorationem neque id mirum videri debet cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse praesentem panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. who saies It does not seem strange that they call the Adoration of the Sacrament Idolatry who do not believe that Christ is there truly present but that the Bread is still true Bread. If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host and the Elements in the Eucharist are not substantially changed into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ then it is confest Idolatry and it is not strange according to Bellarmine that it should be so and then sure it will be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bread-worship too if that be Bread which they Worship and be not the natural Body of Christ that which is there present that they adore and if that be only Bread then they adore Bread. And here I should enter that controversie which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errors about the Eucharist the making both a God of it and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament which Christ intended it and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation but a great man has spared me this trouble by his late excellent Discourse against it to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present Controversie and shall take it for granted as any one must who reads that that unless in Boileau's Phrase a Homo opiniosus cui tenacitas Erroris sensum communem abstulit Boil p. 159. he be such a Bigot whose tenaciousness of his Error has quite bereaved him of common Sense which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends that Doctrine is false and therefore that the charge of Idolatry in this matter is by their own Confession true But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them who out of very just and reasonable Fears and Suspicions that Transubstantion should not prove true and that they may happen to be mistaken in that have thought of another way to cover and excuse their Idolatry and that is not from the Truth but meerly from the Belief of Transubstantiation As long say they as we believe Transubstantiation to be true and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account tho we should be mistaken in this our belief yet as long as we think that Christ is there present and design only to Worship him and not the Bread which we believe to be done away this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry To which because it is the greatest and the best Plea they have and they that make it have some misgivings I doubt not that Transustantiation will not hold I shall therefore give a full Answer to it in the following Particulars 1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken belief and a false supposal of the mind which being gross and unreasonable will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it there were never any Idolaters but might plead the excuse of a mistake and that not much more culpable and notorious one would think than the mistake of those who think a bit of Bread or a Wafer is turn'd by a few words into a God. They all thought however blindly and foolishly that whatever it was they worshipt ought to be worshipt upon some account or other that it was a true and fit Object and that Adoration rightly belong'd to it Idolatry tho it be a great Sin and a great injury and affront to God yet arises not so much from the malice of the will as the blindness and darkness of the understanding there were hardly ever any such Idolaters as maliciously and designedly intended to affront the true God by worshipping false Gods or Creatures as if a Subject should pass by his Prince out of ill will and a purpose to affront and defie him and give the Reverence and
Gentleman however taking he was lest I should consequently adore him or because I am not to abuse him therefore it would follow that I must worship him 2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church as I shall show 1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians 2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms 3. From some very antient Customs 1. Those most ancient Writers 1. Justin Martyr 2. Justin Marty 2. Apolog. versus finem Apostol Constitut l. 8. c. 11 12 13 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol Cateches mystagog c 5. The Author of the Apostolick Constitutions And 3. St. Cyril of Hierusalem who acquaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist which was generally then one constant part of their publick worship they give no account of any Adoration given to the Sacrament or to the consecrated Elements tho they are very particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use the Kiss of Charity in token of their mutual Love and Reconcilliation this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apol. 2. In St. Cyril's time z Catech. mystagog 5. Apostol Constit l. 8. c. 11. the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon and the Priests washing their hands in it to denote that purity with which they were to compass Gods Altar and then the Deacon spoke to the people to give the holy Kiss then Bread was brought to the Bishop or Priest and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Martyr Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries and after Prayers and Thanksgivings by the Priest to which the people to joyned their Amen b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Martyr Ib. The Deacons gave every one present of the blessed Bread and Wine and Water and to those that were not present they carried it home this says Justin Martyr we account not common Bread or common Drink but the Body and Blood of Christ c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. the blessed Food by which our Flesh and Blood is nourisht that is being turned into it which could not be said of Christs natural Body nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that as there present or to any of the blessed Elements The others are longer and much later and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgivings that were then used by the Church of the Sursum Corda lift up your heart which St. d Cyril Hierosol mystagog Cat. 5. Cyril saies followed after the Kiss of Charity of the Sancta Sanctis things holy belong to those that are holy then they describe how they came to Communicate how they held their hand e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. when they received the Elements how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and manner of receiving the Sacrament no account is there of their adoring it which surely there would have been had there been any such in the Primitive Church as now is in the Roman We own indeed as Boileau objects to us f L. 2. P. 106. that from these it appears that some things were then in use which we observe not now neither do the Church of Rome all of them for they are not essential but indifferent matters as mixing Water with Wine the Priest's washing the Kiss of Charity and sending the Sacrament to the absent but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion but Adoration to the Sacrament if it be ever a Duty is always so and never ought upon any account to be omitted nor would have been so by the Primitive Christians had they had the same Opinion of it that the Papists have now 2. From the oldest Lyturgies and the Eucharistick Forms in them it appears that there was no such Adoration to the Sacrament till of late for in none of them is there any such mention either by the Priest or the People as in the Roman Missal and Ritual nor any such Forms of Prayer to it as in their Breviary Cassander g Cassandri Lyturgic has collected together most of the old Liturgies and Endeavours as far as he can to shew their agreement with that of the Roman Church but neither in the old Greek nor in the old Latin ones is there any instance to be produced of the Priests or the Peoples adoring the Sacrament as soon as he had consecrated it but this was perfectly added and brought in a new into the Roman Lyturgy after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was establisht in that Church which has altered not only their Lyturgy but even their Religion in good part and made a new sort of Worship unknown not only in the first and best times of the Church but for above a thousand years after Christ Boileau finding this tho a negative Argument press very hard upon them and sure it cannot but satissie any reasonable man that there is no Direction in the ancient Lyturgies for adoring the Sacrament and it is very hard to require us to produce a Rubrick against it when no body thought of that which after-Superstition brought in He would fain therefore find something in an old Liturgy that should look like that of their own and no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn Office of the Christian worship the blessed Sacrament and therefore out of the Liturgy called St. Chrysostomes which he owns to be two hundred years later then St. Chrysostome he produces a place h Boil l. 2. p. 74. ex Chrysost Liturg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein it is said That the Priest and the Deacon worship in the place they are in and likewise the people but do they worship the Sacrament Is that or only God and Christ the object of their worship there Is there any such thing to determine this as they have taken care there should be in their Missal where it is expresly several times they shall worship the Sacrament i Sacramentum Adorare Rom. missal Cooperto calice Sacramentum adorare genuflexus Sacramentum adorare but here in St. Chrysos Liturgy 't is God who is to be worshipt God be merciful to me a Sinner k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Lyturg. but in the Roman 't is the Sacrament is prayed to l Stans oculis ad Sacramentum intentis precari and they would reckon and account it as true Irreligion not to worship and pray to that as not to worship God and Christ So in the Lyturgy that goes under the name of St. James the Worship is only before the Holy Table m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. St.
the Church of Rome generally demurs to that we shall not fear to allow them to bring all the Fathers they can for their Witnesses in this matter and we shall not in the least decline their Testimony Boileau Musters up a great many some of which are wholly impertinent and insignisicant to the matter in hand and none of them speak home to the business he brings them for He was to prove that they Taught that the Sacrament was to be adored as it is in the Church of Rome but they only Teach as we do That it is to be had in great reverence and respect as all other things relating to the Divine Worship that it is to be received with great Devotion both of Body and Soul and in such a Posture as is to express this A Posture of Adoration that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this Office especially as well as he is in all other Offices of our Religion that his Body and his Flesh which is united to his Divinity and which he offered up to his Father as a Sacrifice for all Mankind and by which we are Redeemed and which we do spiritually partake of in the Sacrament that this is to be adored by us but not as being corporally present there or that the Sacrament is to be worshipt with that or for the sake of that or that which the Priest holds up in his Hands or lyes upon the Altar is to be the Object of our Adoration but only Christ and his blessed Body which is in Heaven To these four Heads I shall reduce the Authoriâ—ies which Boileau produces for the Adoration of the Host and which seem to speak any thing to his purpose and no wonder that among so many Devout Persons that speak as great things as can be of the Sacrament and used and perswaded the greatest Devotion as is certainly our Duty in the receiving it there should be something that may seem to look that way to those who are very willing it should or that may by a little stretching be drawn further than their true and genuine meaning which was not to Worship the Sacrament it self or the consecrated Elements but either 1. To Worship Christ who is to be adored by us in all places and at all times but especially in the places set apart for his Worship and at those times we are performing them in the Church and upon the Altar in Mysteriis as St. Ambrose speaks w De Spir. St. l. 3. c. 12. in the Mysteries both of Baptism and the Lords Supper and in all the Offices of Christian Worship as Nazianzen x Orat. 11. de Gorgon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said of his Sister Gorgonia that She called upon him who is honoured upon the the Altar That Christ is to be honoured upon the Altar where we see the great and honourable work of mens Redemption as 't was performed by his Death represented to us is not at all strange if it had been another and more full word that he was to be worshipt there 't is no more than what is very allowable tho it had not been in a Rhetorical Oration 't is no more than to say That the God of Israel was worshipt upon the Jewish Altar or upon this Mountain For 't is plain She did not mean to worship the Sacrament as if that were Christ or God for She made an ointment of it and mixt it with her tears and anointed her Body with it as a Medicine to recover her Health which she did miraculously upon it Now sure 't is a very strange thing that she should use that as a Plaister which She thought to be a God but She still took it for Bread and Wine that had extraordinary Vertue in it and it is so called there by Nazianzen the Antitypes y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. of Christs Body and Blood which shews they were not thought to be the substance of it and she had all these about her and in her own keeping as many private Christians had in those times and there was no Host then upon the Altar when she worshipped Christ upon it for it was in the night z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. she went thus to the Church So St. Chrysostom a Vid. Boileau c. 7. l. 1. ex Chrysost in all the places quoted out of him only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Saviour and our coming to the Sacrament with all Humility and Reverence like humble Supplicants upon our Knees and with Tears in our Eyes and all Expressions of Sorrow for our Sins and Love and Honour to our Saviour whom we are to meet there and whom we do as it were b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c. see upon upon the Altar which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him That we do not truly see him upon the Altar the Papists must own tho they believe him there but not so as to be visible to our Senses and he is no more to be truly adored as corporally present than he is visibly present St. Ambrose c In Sermone 56 Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo says of St. Stephen that he being on Earth toucheth Christ in Heaven just as St. Chrysostom says Thou seest him on the Altar and as he and any one that will not resolve to strain an easie figurative Expression must mean not by a bodily touch or sight but by Faith d Non corporali tactu sed fide and by that we own that we see Christ there and that he is there present 2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ which tho considered without his Divinity it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria says e In actis Concil Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet as it is always united to his Divinity 't is a true object of Worship and ought to be so to us who are to expect Salvation by it f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 108. even from the Blood and the Body and Flesh of Christ and therefore as we inwardly trust in it so we ought to adore it as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion tho that be in Heaven yet we are to worship it upon Earth and especially when it is brought to our minds and thought by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it the blessed Sacrament there and in Baptism especially when we put on Christ and have his Death and Rising again represented to us and have such great benefits of his Death and Incarnation bestowed upon us in these Mysteries we are as St. Ambrose g Caro Christi quam hodie in Mysteriis adoramus Ambros l. 3. de Sp. San. c. 12. apud Boil p. 32. says to Adore the Body and the Flesh
substance of Christs Body is plain from what immediately goes before and utterly destroys what they would catch from half his words for he says That the Elements or the mystical Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own but remain in their former substance w 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Thus their best Witness that seems to speak the most for them yet speaks that against them which destroys their whole cause as he must own whoever reads the Dialogue and considers the design of it which was to answer the pretence of those who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension turned into a Divine substance and lost the true nature of Body x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are changed say those Hereticks into what they were not before Yes saies he Now ye are taken in your own net for they remain in their former nature and substance afterwards and so does Christs Body If then the change of these sacred Elements be only as to their use and vertue but not as to their substance according to Theodoret then he could not mean that they should be adored but only reverenced by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as the Holy Bible y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturg. Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Concil Ephes is said to be reverenced and the Priest themselves by the very same word z. 4. Some of the Fathers words imply that when we come to the Sacrament it should be with the greatest lowliness both of Body and Mind and as the Primitive Church used to do and as the Church of England does in a posture of Worship and Adoration in the form and manner of Worship as St. Cyril of Hieros speaks a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 5. or as St. Chrysostome In the form of Supplicants and Worshippers b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 7. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. de Phil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. in c. 10. Ep. 1. ad Cor. of Christ as the Magi were when they came to bring their presents to him do thou then present him with humility and a lowly and submissive heart and be not like Herod who pretended he would come to worship him but it was to murder him but rather imitate the Magi and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour than they did This is the whole design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom c Boil c. 7. l 1. And this is the plain meaning of Origen d Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur tu ergo humilians teipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum menm that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament we should do it with all Humility for consider says he That then the Lord enters under thy roof do thou therefore humble thy self and imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence looking upon and e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom in Serm. 31. in natal Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Johan Hieros apud Chrysost apud Boil p. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Ibid. adoring his Saviour who died for him upon the Cross prostrating his Soul and his Body before him and exercising the highest acts of Devotion to him and with Tears in his Eyes and Sorrow in his heart standing like a Penitent before him trembling and afraid as sensible of his own guilt with his Eyes cast down and with dejected Looks considering that he is but Dust and Ashes who is vouchsafed to this Honour and inwardly Groaning and Sighing and Panting in his Soul saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof and the like And thus they may find all devout Communicants in our Church behaving themselves during the whole Solemnity and Celebration of that blessed Sacrament in which Mystery they always adore Christ and that Flesh of Christ which was crucified for then as St. Ambrose and St. Austin speak when their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout Affections and they are performing all the inward and outward Acts of the highest Devotion to God and their Saviour then they are upon their Knees offering up most ardent Prayers and Thanksgivings but not to the sacred Symbols which are before them or the Sacrament it self as the object to which but as the Circumstance at and in which all this Devotion and Worship is performed And there is a great deal of difference from all this in the Church of Rome when they direct all this to the Sacrament it self and to the consecrated Elements when they terminate their Worship upon what is before them and direct their Intentions to that as an Object and therefore whenever they have this Object appear to them they immediately fall down and worship it not only in the time of the Communion when it finds them at their Devotion but at all other times when they are standing or walking in the Streets and are in no present Temper or Posture of Devotion yet all of a sudden as soon as they see the Host coming by they must put themselves into one and Adore that very Object that appears to them The Fathers always speak of Persons as coming to the Sacrament and partaking of it and worshipping Christ and the Body of Christ in the Celebration of those Divine Mysteries but it never enter'd into their minds or thoughts to perswade or encourage their hearers in their most devout Discourses to Adore the Host as the Church of Rome does either in or especially out of the time of that sacred Solemnity and tho it be very easie to make a Book out of the Fathers and to heap Authorities out of them to little purpose yet it is imposible to prove by all the places produced out of them by T. G. f Chap. 1. Of the Adoration of the blessed Sacrament or more largely by Boileau that they meant any more than what we are very willing to joyn with them in that Christ is to be worshipt in the Sacrament as in Baptism and the other Offices of our Religion and that his Body and Flesh which he offered for us and by which we expect Salvation is also to be adored as being always united to his Divine Nature and that the Sacrament it self as representing the great Mystery of our Redemption is to be highly reverenced by us and that we should come to receive it with all Humility and in the most decent Posture of Worship and Adoration as the Primitive Christians did But that the Sacrament it self is to be adored as
and to the belief of Lies as most Idolaters generally were but may it please him who is the God of Truth to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived in this or any other matter in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church which is much better than Cursing and Anathematizing its Adversaries I hope as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THere are several mistakes of the Press but most of them are so Plain and Obvious that it is hoped that every Reader will immediately see and correct them without any trouble and without any particular account of them Five Sermons of Contentment one of Patience and one of Resignation to the Will of God By Isaac Barrow D. D. late Master of Trinity Colledg in Cambridg Never Published before in Octavo Printed for Brabazon Aylmer Licensed Aug. 3. 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind IN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OF THE BISHOP of MEAVX's OF Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVII AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE of the Publisher THe Translatour of the Bishop of Meaux's Book of Communion under both Species having told us why he made choice of this Author whom he stiles The Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age and in brief to speak all in a word the Great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Having thus brought forth this great Champion of the Roman Church he makes a plain Challenge with him to us of the Church of England in these words If this Author write Reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted By this I perceived he expected that we should be so civil as to take notice of so great a Man as the Bishop of Meaux or any thing that bears his Name and not let it pass unregarded by us after it was for our benefit as he tells us made English and besides I did not know but some unwary persons among us might believe the reason he writes however bad and therefore I thought he deserved to be confuted and ought by no means to go without the civility and complement of an English Answer This I doubt not might have been very well spared had the Publisher been pleased to have gone on a little further with his Work of Translating and obliged us who are strangers to the French Tongue with one of those Answers which are made to de Meaux's Book in that Language but since he has not thought fit to do that I must desire him to accept of such Entertainment as our Country will afford him though it is something hard that we must not only treat our Friends at home but have as many Strangers as they please put upon us But we who cannot Translate so well as others which is a much easier part than to Write at ones own charge must beg leave of our French Adversaries if we sometimes speak to them in plain English and the Bishop of Meaux must excuse me if Truth has sometimes made me otherwise answer him then if I were a Curé in his own Diocess Whoever has so great an opinion of the Bishop of Meaux's Vertue and Learning as to take matter of Fact upon his word which the Translatour's mighty Commendations were designed no doubt to beget in his Reader must believe the Communion in One Kind was the Practice of the Primitive and the Catholic Church which if it were true would be a very great if not sufficient excuse for the Roman This the Bishop asserts with all the confidence in the World and this his Book is designed to make out and whoever will not believe it must necessarily question either the Learning of this great Man or else his Sincerity I shall not dare to do the former but his late Pastoral Letter has given too much reason to suspect the latter He that can now tell the World That there has been no Persecution in France and that none has suffered violence either in their Persons or their Estates there for their Religion may be allowed to say That the Primitive Church had the Communion but in one Kind a great while ago But the one of these matters of Fact deserves more I think to be confuted than the other I suppose it was for the sake of the Author that the Translatour chose this subject of Communion in One kind though he says It is a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants this being the main Stone of Offence and Rock of Scandal and it having been always regarded since the Reformation as a mighty eye-sore and alledged as one sufficient Cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the Pre-existent Church of Rome When this Pre-existent Church of Rome fell into her Corrupt Terrestrial and Vnchristian State among other Corruptions this was one that gave just offence and was together with many more the Cause of our separating from it That it gave the Eucharist but in one kind contrary to Christ's Institution and took away the Cup of Christ's precious Bloud from the People But yet this point of highest concern is in the judgement of the Translatour but a bare Ceremony and upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman seems to him reducible in great measure to meer Form and Ceremony If it be then I hope it may be easily compromized and agreed for I assure him I am as little as he for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the Spirit of those who tear Christ's seamless Garment for a meer Form and Ceremony but we who are sometimes thought fit to be called Heretics and to be Censured and Anathematized as differing in Essential matters from the Church of Rome at other times are made such good Friends to it that we differ but very little and there is nothing but Form and Ceremony between us But what is to Accomodate this matter and Reconcile this difference between the two Churches Why the Doctrine of the Real Presence in which Both Churches he says agree that Christ our Saviour is truly really wholly yea and substantially present in the Sacrament This is to close up the difference not onely of Communion in one kind but of the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Mass too in the Translatour's judgement But does the Church of England then agree with the Roman in the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body and Bloud in the Sacrament Does it not expresly say the contrary namely That the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here and that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one * Rubric after Office
of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all
own shadows if the Apostles received the Cup as Priests Why then do not all Priests receive it as well as the Priest who Consecrates if onely he that Consecrates be to receive it then by this rule the Apostles should not have received it at the first Institution for they did not then Consecrate Christ was then alone the Minister Conficiens and so according to them he ought onely to have received it and not the Apostles and yet 't is most probable that Christ did not himself receive either the Cup or the Bread so that if they will keep close to this whimsical Notion of theirs the Minister Conficiens is not to receive at all but to Consecrate and give to the other Priests that are present but further if the Apostles were made Priests by those words Hoc facite which they so earnestly contend and spend so much Critical learning to show that facere signifies to Sacrifice then they were twice made Priests at the same time for those words were said by our Saviour as St. Paul Witnesses not onely after giving the Bread but repeated again also after the Cup so that the Apostles were doubly Consecrated and the Character of Priests was twice Imprinted upon them at the same time which is another difficulty with which they must be encumbred according to their own principles for though this Opinion be wholly Imaginary yet like the Night-mare 't is a real weight lying upon them and I shall leave them to sweat under it and get it off as well as they can 6. Whatever be the effects and benefits which we receive by partaking of this Blessed Sacrament they depend upon the Institution of it and are not ordinarily to be had without observing of that I say ordinarily because Cases of Necessity dispence with positive precepts as if a sick man cannot swallow the Bread about which there is a Provision in the Eleventh Council of Toledo if the natural Infirmity of anothers Stomack be such that he cannot drink Wine which the French Discipline speaks of and which Monsieur de Meaux †P. 181. makes an Objection against them if the place be such that no Wine is to be had or procured as in Norway where Pope Innocent the Eighth allowed them to Celebrate without Wine in those extraordinary Cases God has not so tied the inward Grace to the outward Signe but that he can give it without it as if a Catechumen willing and desirous of Baptism die without it because he could not have it yet the Church has always supposed he may have the benefit of it and so I charitably hope that the Pious and Religious Laiety in the Church of Rome shall have the benefit of the Blood of Christ though they are deprived of it in the Sacrament and through the meer fault of their Governours and of their Priests are excluded from it and forced to violate the Divine Institution which is all that Calixtus and others which Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 277. is willing to take advantage of charitably allow as not being willing to exclude any one for Salvation for what he cannot help but this is no manner of prejudice to the cause that we defend and no excuse in the World for breaking the Institution of Christ and altering his positive precept without any necessity for though God can give the inward Grace and no doubt but he will do it in extraordinary Cases without the Sacrament without either the whole or any part of it yet he will not ordinarily do this nor is it ordinarily to be had or to be expected without keeping to that Institution by vertue of which God has annexed and promised such inward vertues and benefits to such outward signs and holy Symbols and Ceremonies which he himself has appointed and therefore though God if he had pleased might have annexed the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament to the eating the Bread or to the drinking the Wine alone or might have given it without either of them yet he having by the Institution appointed both parts of the Sacrament hath annexed the grace and vertue to both and not to one only Monsieur de Meaux will needs have the whole fruit and vertue and essential effect of the Sacrament to be given by one species which is the great principle he goes upon which I shall more fully examine afterwards but if the vertue and essential effect depend upon the Institution and it can depend upon nothing else and if both species be instituted by Christ as I have shown then the vertue and effect depends upon both species and not upon one Monsieur de Meaux asks Whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received all the effects be not likewise received * P. 328. I answer No because all that is required in the Institution is not then received He farther asks Whether the blood can add any thing essential I answer Yes because that also is in the Institution if one of the Apostles had stopt our Saviour when he had given them the Bread and told them this was his Body and askt him this very question I ask whither he thinks this would have hindred him from going on with the Cup because they had already received the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament without that and nothing essential could be added by that Christ it seems by the Institution did go on to the Cup after he had given the other species and to say he did not give any essential vertue or efficacy by the Cup is an unwarrantable boldness and blasphemous impudence which may as well deny that he gave any by the Bread this is to make the Cup a very empty signe and naked figure devoid of all inward vertue and efficacy and to serve as de Meaux would have it onely for Representation and a more full and express Signification * P. 176. in which he joyns us to the Cup with those his Adversaries who have the meanest thoughts of the Sacrament and indeed it is to make the Cup wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the conveying or exhibiting any real Vertue or inward Grace which is to be received thereby and as Monsieur de Meaux is forced to own when he answers that demand to what purpose then was the Institution of both species ‖ P. 179. to make it only a more full Image and Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ but not to give us any of the vertue or efficacy of it Christ he says cannot separate the vertue or effect that any other Grace should accompany his blood then the same in ground and substance which accompanys his body †P. 182. but he can make the whole Vertue and Grace accompany and depend upon both the Sacramental Body and Sacramental Blood together and so he has done by his Institution according to which the Sacramental Grace is not to be expected ordinarily without both but he may deprive
that we mean this when we pray for our daily Bread and when we say a man wanteth Bread and so to break our Bread to the hungry Isa 58.7 and by the young childrens asking bread and no man breaketh it unto them Lament 4.4 the same is imported To break Bread was an usual Hebrew expression for giving all manner of food as appears by those instances so that when Bread which is but one part of food is expressed yet the other is included and meant also as when Christ went into the house of one of the chief Pharises to eat bread Luke 14.1 we cannot suppose that he had only such a dry Banquet as not to drink with him too and when Joseph told the Steward of his house that he should prepare an entertainment for his brethren for they are to eat with me at noon Gen. 43.16 hodie sunt mecum comesturi as in the Vulgar he did not I 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 consicere 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 necessaria est ex 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 Evangolists 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 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 Catholicae 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 and the writings of the Apostles so I shall evidently make it out to be contrary to the whole Primitive and Catholick Church in all Ages and this First From the most ancient Rituals or the earliest accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in Christian Churches Secondly From the most ancient Lyturgies Thirdly From the Testimony and Authority of the Fathers or antient Writers Fourthly From some ancient Customs Fifthly From the Custom still remaining in all Christian Churches of the World except the Roman Sixthly From the Confession of the most learned of our Adversaries 1. From the most ancient Rituals or the earliest accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in the Christian Church The first and most Authentic of which is in Justin Martyr's second Apology where he describes the publick Worship of Christians upon Sundays according to its true Primitive Simplicity and as to the Eucharist which was always a part of it * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justia Martyr Apolog. 2. There was brought he says Bread and Wine with water according to the custom I suppose of the Greeks and Eastern Countries who generally drank their Wines so mixt and these being offered to the chief Minister he receiving them giveth Honour and Glory to the Father of all things through the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost and rendreth thanksgiving to him for these things and having finished his Prayers and giving of Thanks to which the People that were present joyn their Amen The Deacons give to every one that is present to partake of the blessed Bread and Wine and Water and to those that are absent they carry them Having discoursed of the nature of this Sacramental food and shewn the Institution and design of it out of the Gospel and from the words of our Saviour he again repeats their manner of Celebrating in the same words almost which he had used before and says †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. propè fiaem That the distribution and participation of what is blessed by the President is made to every one which every one belongs plainly to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that just goes before Nothing is more evident than that all the Elements were given to the People and to every one of them and no man I think ever had the impudence to question this or make the least doubt of it before Monsieur Boileau who if ever he read this place may be ashamed to say as he does ‖ Haec Sti. Justini verba perperà m assumuntur ad concludendum verè castigatè aetate sancti Martyris Eucharistiam plebi administratam fuisse sub utraque specie Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utraque specie p. 215. That it cannot be truely and strictly concluded from hence that the Eucharist was Communicated to the People under both kinds in the Age of this Holy Martyr And what man of modesty or creticism besides Monsieur Boileau would have observed that both the Elements were not then carried to the absent which Monsieur de Meaux * In the example of S. Justinus the two Species 't is true were carried p. 112. owns were though it is plainly said they carried the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same things that were blessed and that those who were present did partake of yet it is not said that they †Non dicit ta conjunctìm vel alternatìm ad absentes perferunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed tantummodò ad absentes perferunt Ib. p. 214. carried both together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He might as well have pretended that though they carried yet they carried nothing at all And they that make such answers to such plain places had I am sure better say nothing at all Next to Justin Martyr St. Cyril of Hierusalem gives us the fullest account of the manner of Celebrating the blessed Eucharist in his Mystagogic Catechisms they are called wherein having discoursed of all the Christian Mysteries to those who were newly Baptized and so fit and capable to be instructed in them he comes at last to the highest Christian Mystery that of the Lord's Supper and in his fifth Catechism largely describes the performance of it with a great many more particular Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer then were used before And having told his young Christians in the foregoing Homily †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Catech. Mystag 4. That in the Species of Bread is given the Body of Christ and in the Species of Wine his Blood that so by partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ he may become one body and one bloud with him he bids him come with firm Faith and great Devotion and tells him how he should receive the Holy Bread very particularly and directs him to the very posture of his Hands and Fingers and afterwards he as particularly orders him how and in what manner he should come to receive the Cup ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ic. Catech. 5. of the Lord's Blood not stretching out his hands but bending and in the posture of worship and adoration and whilst the moisture is upon his lips * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. he bids him take it with his finger and touch his eyes and forehead and other parts and so sanctifie them However superstitious that was for I cannot but think this use of the Sacrament to be so as well as many others that were yet very ancient it is plain that the newly baptized Christians did then receive the Eucharist in both kinds and were commanded †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. to come to receive the Cup and to drink of the Wine as well as to partake of the Bread. To St. Cyril who lived towards the latter end of the fourth Century I shall joyn the Apostolic Constitutions as they are called which I suppose not to be ancienter and in these in one place ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constit Apostol l. 2. c. 57. The Sacrifice or
Eucharist is ordered to be celebrated the People standing and praying silently and after the oblation every order to wit of young and aged of men and women into which they were ranged before at their Religious Assemblies as appears in that Chapter severally and by themselves take the body and blood of Christ and when the women do it in their order they are to have their heads covered * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. So that 't is plain all orders both of Men and Women were to receive both the Body and Blood In another place †L. 8. c. 13. where is a more perfect account of the Eucharistic solemnity and of the Prayers and Ceremonies used in it at the latter end he describes the order in which they Communicated first the Bishops then the Presbyters and Deacons and other Inferior Orders then the Religious Women the Deaconesses the Virgins the Widdows and their Children and after that the whole People with great Reverence and without any tumult or noise The Bishop gives the Bread saying The Body of Christ and he that receives it sayes Amen The Deacon gives the Cup and says The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and he that drinks it says Amen And when they have all Communicated both men and women the Deacons take the remainders and carry them into the Pastophory or Vestry St. Dennis the Areopagite I put after all these because I doubt not but that the Book under his name was later than any of them there is this passage of Celebrating the Eucharist in those Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the Priest praying that all who partake of the Sacrament may do it worthily The Bread which was covered and whole he uncovers and divides into many parts and the one Cup he divides to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dyonys Eccles Hlerat c. 3 p. 103. and afterwards he speaks particularly of the Priests first taking himself that which he gave to others * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and mentions nothing else taken by him then what the others do partake of I shall to these add the famous Ordo Romanus which de Meaux calls the antient Ceremonial of the Roman Church neither the time nor the Author of it is certainly known it concerns not me to inquire whether it belong to the Eighth or the Eleventh Age which is upon other accounts a dispute between the Reformed and Roman Divines I suppose it to be made at several times and to have had several Additions made to it by several Popes one after another for all Missals and Eucharistic formes were at first very short and afterwards increased by further compositions Pope Gregory who had the greatest hand in it speaks of one Scholasticus who composed the Prayer to be said over the Oblation †Vt precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Greg. l. 7. ep 64. before him who that Scholasticus was Strabo and Berno and the other Writers upon the Ordo Romanus have owned themselves ignorant and other Learned men have anxiously enquired the Learned Colomesius thinks it as clear as the light that this was Pope Gelasius ‖ Ex quo meridianâ luce clariùs patet quis fuerit Scholasticus ille Gregorio M. l. 7. ep 64. laudatus Colomesius in Paralipom ad Chartophyl Eccles verb. Gelasius But whoever were the Authors of it and whensoever it was composed as we now have it it is sufficient to my purpose that the Communion is there distributed in both kinds and the manner of it is thus prescribed * Deinde venit Archidiaconus cum calice ad cornu altaris refuso parum in calicem de scypho inter manus acolyti accedunt primùm Episcopi ad sedem ut commmunicent de manu Pontificis secundum ordinem sed Presbyteri omnes ascendunt ut communicent ad altare Episcopus autem primus accipit calicem de manu Archidiaconi stat in cornu altaris ut confirmet sequentes ordines Deinde Archidiacono accepto de manu ill is calice refundit in scypho tradit calicem subdiacano regionario qui tradit ei pugillarem cum quo comfirmet populum Quos dum confirmaverit Postea Episcopi communicant populum post eos Diaconi confirmant Presbyteri jussu Pontificis communicant populum ipsi vicissim comfirmant nam mox ut Pontifex caeperit communicare populum psallunt usque dum communicato omni populo etiam in parte mulierum Ordo Romanus p. 6. Edit Hittorp Paris Then cometh the Arch-deacon with the Cup at the side of the Altar and pouring a little into the Chalice out of the Flaggon in the hands of the Acolyte the Bishops first come to their Seat that they may Communicate from the hand of the Pope acccording to their order and the Presbyters also ascend to the Altar that they may Communicate the Bishop first takes the Cup from the hand of the Arch-deacon and stands at the side of the Altar that he may confirm the following orders then the Arch-deacon taking the Chalice from his hand pours it again into the Flaggon and gives the Cup to the regionary Sub-deacon who gives him a hollow Pipe with which he may confirm the people Whom when he hath confirmed afterwards the Bishops communicate the people and after them the Deacons confirm them the Priests by the command of the Pope communicate the people and they also confirm them for as soon as the Pope begins to communicate the people the Antiphone begins and they sing till all the people have communicated even on the womens side However Rome has thought fit of late to depart from their own Ordo Romanus yet there is a very remarkable story of one of their own Popes Pope Martin the Fifth who after the Council of Constance did in a solemn Office at Easter Communicate the people in both kinds according to the Roman Order which was not so alter'd and changed at that time as it was afterwards Cassander in his Consultatio †Martinus Sanctus etiam post tempora Constantiensis synodi in solenni Paschae officio juxta praescriptum ordinis Romani universum populum corpore sanguine D ni communicasse legitur Consult de Com. subutr and Lindanus in his Panoplia ‖ Martinus ipse P R. 5. utramque legitur Romae administrasse speciem quod non de Diacono Pontificis Administro accipiendum est sed ut populo Lindan Panoplia l. 4. c. 56. are both positive Witnesses for this matter of Fact which is not onely considerable in it self but a clear Argument of the late change and alteration both of the old Roman Practice and the old Roman Order 2. The most ancient Lyturgies that are described and Celebrate the Communion in both kinds So That * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the name of St. Peter represents all the people as partaking of the divine pure heavenly quickning
tremendous Mysteries and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Petr in Biblioth Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body and his most precious Bloud That under the name of St. James after the Prayer of the Priest that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lytur Jacob. Ib. which word all supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates represents the Deacons after the communion of the Clergy as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and after they had received of both the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of his Blood * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them the immaculate Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Marcl Ib. and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith Sobriety ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and Christian Vertues Which had bin very improper if none but himself had bin to partake of them So that whatever Antiquity and whatever Authority may be allowed to those Lyturgies who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind And those Churches who used these Lyturgies and so probably ascribed these Names to them as Hierusalem that of St. James Alexandria that of St. Mark these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies But to come to the more Authentic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom which are now used in the Greek Churches though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations there is a manifest proof in both of them for the Communion in both kinds In the former the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants that we all who partake of one Bread and one Cup may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ to judgement or condemnation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Easil so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone nor was alone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ in another Prayer he mentions the people expresly and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe by his great power to give unto them his pure Bloud and by them that is by the Priests to all the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And as the Priest thus prays for the People and for others before the Communion so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words We give thee thanks O Lord our God for the participation of thy holy pure and heavenly Mysteries which thou hast given us to the benefit sanctification and health both of our Souls and Bodies Do thou O Lord of all things grant unto us that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Chrysost Savil. Edit Tom. 6. which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow and that which is in the Cup his Blood †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. that so they may become to those who partake of them for the cleansing of the Soul the remission of Sins ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and the like And having used that Prayer Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood and by us to all the people He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine and uses particular expressions at the giving of each As this hath touched thy Lips and will take away thy Sins and purge away thy Wickedness * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God and in Charity †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And though there is no particular description of their Communion as there is of the Deacons yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same and had it been different no doubt there would have been an account of it but after all the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving in the name of all Blessing God that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 1003. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Cassander in his Lyturgies tells us * Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost Basilii Lyturgiis convenit Lyturg. per G. Cassand That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two both in the prayers and the orders of the performance and in this the people as he informs us pray towards the conclusion That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood †Populus sub finem benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus Benedictus sit qui aedit sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum pretiosum sanguinem suum Ib. and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Bloud And again Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins which they call Missals they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage and which contain the Communion in both kinds as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum publisht at Rome by Thomasius where the Gelasian Form that is older than the Gregorian speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders and with all the People ‖ Post haec Communicat sacerdos cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo P.
the Bodies of all Christians unless the Resurrection of the Body belong onely to the Priests as well as the Cup. Tertullian upon the Resurrection says the same with Irenaeus Our flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ * Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur Tertul. de Resur carnis And in his Book to his Wife he speaks of her taking the Cup in two several places †Dâ—â—câ—jus manu desiderabit dè cujus poculo participabit Id. ad uxor l. 2. c. 6. De cibo de poculo invadere desiderare in mente habere Id. c. 4. Upon one of which a very learned Critic of the Roman Church who owns those places to belong to the Communion has made this observation to our hands At that time the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated in both Species ‖ Sub utrâque specie illo tempore convivium Domini cerebratur quod tantâ aviditate arripiebatur ut illud invadere desiderare in mente habere De la Cerda Not. in locum p. 634. Even to Women it seems who I suppose were no Priests Origen upon the Book of Numbers says We drink the bloud of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist as well as Spiritually by believing his Doctrine * Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se cum sermenes ejus recipimus Quis est iste populus qui in usa habet sanguinem bibere Origent homil 16. in Num. When he had before asked What people drink of Bloud St. Cyprian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters as the Souldiers of Christ Considering that for this very purpose †Gravior nunc ferocior pugna immicet ad quam parare debent milites Christi considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bibere ut possint ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam Edit Oxon. they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Bloud that so they may also shed their bloud for Christ. And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lapsed upon this very account to arm and fortifie them for farther tryals and persecutions How can we teach or provoke them to shed their bloud for the confession of Christ if we deny them the Bloud of Christ ‖ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrit poculum idoneos facimus si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communionis admittimus Ep. 57. ad Cornel. Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord in the Church by the right of Communion The excellent Epistle * Ep. 63. Caecilio fratri of that Holy Martyr against those who out of a principle of abstaining wholly from Wine or lest they should by the smell of Wine which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacrifices Simili modo calicem quod si à Domino praecipitur ab Apostoloejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divine Magisterio non recedamus Ib. Quod nos obandire facere oportet quod Christus fecit faciendum esse mandavit Ib. discover themselves to be Christians used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine is so full a demonstration that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sacrament and that Christ's Institution and Command could not otherwise be observed that there needs no other Arguments but what that great Man there uses to shew the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine Christ Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quod alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prier fecerit Ib. Quomodo autem de creaturâ vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno patris bibemus si in sacraficio Dei Patris Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus Ib. says he gave the Cup and we are to do that which Christ did and ought by no means to depart from what was commanded by Christ and delivered by the Apostles upon any custom or pretence whatsoever How shall we drink says he of the fruit of the Vine with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father if we do not now offer the Wine in the Sacrifice and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians is plain from that fear which some had lest by their drinking it in the morning they should smell of it * Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi Ib. p. 155. and so discover themselves to the Heathens It was then it seems a mark to know Christians by That they did smell of the bloud of Christ which if they had done as the Papists now do they need not have been afraid of But to proceed to others who though they speak less of this then St. Cyprian yet speak plainly of Christians taking the Bloud as well as the Body Athanasius speaking of the Cup says It belongs to the Priests of right to give this to the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apolog 2. St. Basil in one of his Epistles says It is good and profitable to Communicate every day of the Body and Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Caesar And speaking of the peculiar Vertues of Christians asks What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Moral denoting that to belong to all Christians St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner speaks of Christians as being all Died and Purpled with the Bloud of Christ †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacerdot l. 3. And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites As thou eatest the Body of Christ so did they Manna as thou drinkest the Bloud of Christ so did they Water out of the Rock ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor. And in another place he expresly observes what I have taken notice of before That 't is not now as under the Jewish Law where the Priest partook of several things from the Altar which the People did not There is no difference between the Priest and the People when we come to receive the Holy Mysteries for one Body and one Cup is offered to all †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. St Hierom says The Priests serve the Eucharist and divide the Bloud of the Lord among the People * Sacerdotes Eucharisticae serviunt sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt Hieron in Sophon c. 2. And upon occasion speaks of some loose and vitious Women who yet would not abstain from the bloud of Christ ‖ Ebâ—â—â—tati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt Absit ut ego me à Christi sanguine abstineam Id Ep. ad Eustoch So that this it is plain was taken by the Women St. Austin to the newly Baptized Christians says That in all their tryals and their time of being Catechumens they did approve themselves that they might eat the Lord's Body and drink the Cup * Vt cum seipsos probaverint tunc de mensâ Domini manducent de calice bibant August de fide Oper And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews because it was offer'd in Sacrifice but from taking the Bloud of the Sacrifice of our Lord no one says he is not onely forbidden but all are exhorted to drink of it who will have Life †Ab hujus sacrificii sanguine in alimeatum sumendo non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam Id. in Levit. qu. 57. I might easily bring down the like clear authorities of ancient Writers much lower even to the times of the very Schoolmen who are the first that ever mention any thing about the Communion in one kind But that I may not over-load my self or my Reader I shall onely offer one or two more of much later date but yet more considerable to our Adversaries at least because they believed Transubstantiation but had not it seems improved it into that consequence which Superstition afterwards did of Communicating in one kind Paschasius Ratbertus Abbot of Corbey was the very Parent of Transubstantiation and the first founder of that Doctrine in the Ninth Century yet in the same Book in which he broaches that new Opinion he fully and plainly asserts the old Practice of the Communion in both kinds The Priest says he consecrates by the power of Christ and performs the part of Christ between God and the People he offers their Prayers and Oblations to God and what he hath obtained of God he renders to them by the body and bloud of Christ which he distributes to every one of them ‖ Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum populum agere videtur infert per manûs Angeli vota populi ad Deum refert Vota quidem offert munera refert autem imperata per Corpus sanguinem distribuit singnlis Paschas de Corpore sanguine Domini c. 12. Those Singuli must be the People whose Prayers the Priest offered and to whom he distributed the Bloud as well as the Body of Christ and to shew further that the Bloud was given in the Sacrament not to the Priest onely but to the People he most expresly says That when Christ gives the Sacrament by the hands of the Ministers he says also by them Take and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as all the rest that believe This is the cup of my bloud of the new and everlasting testament * Et ideo hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens Accipite bibete ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui credeates hic est calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni testamenti Ib. c. 15. Then which words there could nothing have been said that does more directly destroy the late pretence of our Adversaries of the Cup 's being given and belonging onely to the Priests or Ministers and not to all the Faithful or the Reliqui Credentes But he still goes further as to this matter and makes the partaking of the Bloud to be necessary to Salvation in another Chapter It is manifest says he †Constat igitur liquet omnibus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine cibo potu non vivitur sic itaque ad illam aeternam non pervenitur nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur Ib. c. 19. that in this mortal life we cannot live without meat and drink so therefore likewise can we not come to eternal life unless we are spiritually nourisht with those two unto Immortality and speaks of the Cup in the very next words To him I shall add Algerus a very zealous defender of Paschasius his Doctrine of Transubstantiation and as heartily agreeing with him in the practice and necessity of Communicating in both kinds Because says he we live by meat and drink that we can want neither therefore Christ would have them both in his Sacrament ‖ Vnde etiam quia potu clod ita vivimus ut alterntro carere nequeumus ntrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit Algerus de Sacramento l. 2. c. 5. And as he redeemed both our body and our soul by his body and blood so he argues * Nos qui corpore animâ perieramus corpus per corpus animam per animam Christus redimens simul corpus sanguis sumitur à fidelibus ut sumpto corpore animâ Christi totus homo vivificetur Ib. c. 8. we ought to partake both of his body and of his blood that our whole man may be quickned by both Then he quotes St. Austin and Gelasius for the taking of both Species †Vnde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur Item Gelasius Majorico Joanni Episcopis Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantùm corporis portione à calice sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab Integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Ib. c. 8. From whence as St. Austin says neither the flesh is rightly Communicated without the blood nor the blood without the flesh So also Gelasius to Majoricus and John Bishops We find that some taking onely the part of the body abstain from the Cup of the holy bloud who ought unquestionably either to take the whole Sacrament or to be kept wholly from it because the division of one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge He that had this Belief and these Arguments for it could not but be a great enemy to the Mutilated and Sacrilegious Communion in one kind however great a friend he was to Transustantiation and his authority and his words are the more remarkable because he lived in the Twelfth Century which makes him as a great many others then were which I could produce an undeniable Evidence that that corruption was not brought into the Latine Church till the next Age against which we have
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 Dialogue which was put out by Calixtus not being among his other Works in his Consultation and in his Lyturgics Concerning the administration says he of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is sufficiently known that the Vniversal Church of Christ to this very day and the Western or Roman for above a thousand years after Christ did exhibit both the Species of Bread and Wine to all the members of the Church of Christ especially in the solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament which appears from innumerable testimones both of ancient Greek and Latine Writers †De administratione sacrosancti Sacramenti Eucharistiae satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mille ampliùs à Christo annis in solenni presertim ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoriis manifestum est Cassandri Consultatio de utrà que specie Sacramenti In his Dialogue speaking against those who pretended that the use of either one or both kinds was indifferent and who indeavoured to make this out by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Church which is the way which de Meaux takes he thus seriously and heartily gives his judgement I have searcht says he ‖ Equidem haud oscitanter veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem perscrutatus sum attento aequoque animo torum scripta qui hoc argumentum tractarunt legisse rationes quibus indifferentem eum morem probare nituntur expendisse profiteor neque tamen firmam ullam demonstrationem quae non apertissimè refelli possit reperire hactenus potui quamvis id vehementèr exoptassem quin multae firmissimae rationes suppetunt quae contrarium evincunt G. Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 6. and that not slightly the Custom of the ancient Church and I profess I have read the Writings of those who have handled this argument with an attent and impartial mind and have weighed the reasons by which they endeavour to prove this indifferent Custom but neither could I yet find any firm proof which could not be most plainly refuted although I most earnestly desired it but there remain many and those the most strong Reasons which do evince the contrary And because de Meaux pretends that there are some instances of public Communion in the Church in one kind I will add one other testimony of that great man who after the strictest search and enquiry into every thing in Antiquity that could be brought to colour any such thing thus determines Wherefore I do not think that it can be shewn that for a whole thousand years and more that this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was ever administred from the Lord's Table in the holy Communion to the faithful people in any part of the Catholic Church otherwise than under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine * Quare nec puto demonstrari totis mille amplius annis in ullâ Catholicae Ecclesiae parte Sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramentum alitèr in sacrâ synaxi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli populo quam sub utroque panis vini symbolo administratum fuisse Id. de Sac. Com. sub utraque specie p. 1027. Wicelius another Divine of great learning and judgement agrees fully with Cassander It is confest that the holy Sumption from the Ecclesiastic Altar was equally common to all Christians for Salvation through all the times of the New Testament †Et in confesso sumptionem sanctam de altari Ecclesiastico aequè omnibus Christianis communem extitisse ad salutem per omnia novi testamenti tempora Vicel via Reg. tit de utr Specie by which he means of the Christian Church as appears by what immediately follows It is a little obliterated indeed among us of the Western Church and separated from a promiscuous use for some reasons but not wholly blotted out and destroyed * Obliteratam quidem paulisper apud nos Occidentales ab usu promiscuo semotam suas ob causas at non deletam omninò atque exstinctam Ib. For it was then granted to some as to the Bohemians Of this thing that is of the Holy Sumption common to all Christians Since we are †Ejusce rei cum nube quodam certissimorum testium septi sumus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amplectimur omni excluso dubio Ib. encompast with a cloud of most certain witnesses we embrace this as a most sure thing without any doubt And therefore in his Account of Abuses he reckons that of the Communion in one kind ‖ Id. Elench abus But lest these two men though their learning and credit be unquestionable should be thought through their great temper and moderation to have yielded more in this cause than others of that Communion I shall shew that the same has been done by others who cannot be suspected to have granted more than the meer force of Truth extorted from them Thomas Aquinas who was the first man that proposed that question to be disputed Whether it were lawful to take the Body of Christ without the Bloud * Vtrum liceat sumere corpus Christi sine sauguine Th. Aquin. Sum. pars 3 qu. 80. art 12. And who first tells us That it was the use of many Churches so to do †Multarum Ecclesiarum usus in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum non autem sanguis Ib. though Bonaventure his contemporary who died the same year mentions nothing of it he in his Comment upon the Sixth of St. John where he says It was observed not in many but in some Churches that for fear of effusion the Priest alone Communicated of the Blood and the rest of the Body ‖ Propter periculum effusionis in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicet sanguine reliqui
of his extremity and nearness to death for he had lain three days speechless and senseless before he came to himself and had desired this the Priest rather than he should want this comfort sent him by the young man who came to him a small parcel of the Eucharist bidding him moisten it and so put it into the mouth of the old man which he did and so he immediately gave up the Ghost Now here says de Meaux †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. although it appears from this relation that the Priest sent onely to his Penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid in that he ordained onely the young man whom he sent to moisten it in some liquor before he gave it to the sick person yet the good old man never complained that any thing was wanting But how does it appear from this relation that he sent onely the Bread or what was solid does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little of the Sacrament which is the thing he is said to send signifie onely Bread or the solid part or does it not rather signifie a little of both the Species which make the Sacrament as it plainly does in Justin Martyr who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds says this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called by us the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ Apolog. 2. And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread and why may we not suppose that the liquour he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine And not as Valesius without any grounds puts in his Translation Water I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiquity to mix the Eucharistic Bread with meer Water and so take it infused in Water without any Wine Monsieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together was not in use till after-Ages not in public I own but in private it might will be more hard put to it to shew the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water and this was so mixt with some liquor that it was rather fluid than solid and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread is plain from Justin Martyr if those who were absent from the Public Communion were as it is probable the sick for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they gave to those that were present without any manner of difference †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. as is plain from that fore-quoted place in his second Apology And St. Hierom relates of Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket and the Bloud in a Vessel of Glass ‖ Qui corpus Domini canistrivimineo sanguinem portat in vitro Ep. ad Rustic Monach. after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread that it commands that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins and to eternal Life This Cassander * Ego sane demonstare possum etiam infirmis plenum corporis sanguinis Sacramentam dispensatum certè in promtu est Capitulum Turonensis Concilii quod ab Ivone Reginone Burchardo anducitur quo jubetur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium rese vatur intincta sit in Calicem D ni ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere Corpus sanguis D ni nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 5. produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds and the reason which is there given for this is so considerable that it plainly shews that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament and that neither the Body and Bloud of Christ nor the vertue and benefit of them could be given without both and this forces de Meaux to confess †P. 52. after all his shifts and artifices that in effect it is true that in some sense to be able to call it the Body and the Bloud the two Species must be given And further from hence also the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy grounded upon it whereby they suppose the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in either of the Species is wholly overthrown and destroyed but this by the by as to Serapion it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone if he had intended him but one Species that being more fit to be received and more proper to enter the parcht throat of an agonizing man as de Meaux speaks then the Bread however moistened and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some Councils ‖ Concil Carthag 4. Toled 11. and the Decrees of some Popes * Paschal 2. Vrban 2. that in cales of extraordinary necessity which dispence with positive Precepts the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread might Communicate onely with the Wine but to give them onely Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose who were both a dying and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine was very strange if they had designed them but one onely Species without the other But I pass to consider St. Ambrose by it self Paulinus who wrote his Life relates this of his Death That Honoratus Bishop of Verceills being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his repose he heard this Voice three times Rise stay not he is a dying He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the Ghost So that it seems he died and received only one kind but who can help that if he did if he died before he could receive the other as it is probable from the History he did If the Roman Priests did like Honoratus give onely the Bread to those who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup this would be a very justifiable excuse and needs no great Authority to defend it but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died which they must meerly by supposing some thing more than is in the History then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive And I am sure I
have a better argument for this than they can have against it or than these two Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose are for the custom of Communicating the Sick in one kind and that is a full proof of a contrary custom for their Communicating in both I confess I cannot produce any very ancient testimonies for this because in the first Ages the faithful who used to receive the Communion very frequently in public it being in its self and its own nature a true part of public Worship did seldom or never take it upon their Death beds in private †Vide Dallaeum de Cult l. 4. c. 3. and therefore they who give us an account of the death of several very pious and devout Christians as Athanasius of St. Antony Gregory Nazianzen of Athanasius of his own Father and of his Sister Gorgonia yet they never mention any thing of their receiving the Sacrament at their deaths no more does Eusebius ‖ De vitâ Constant l. 3. c. 46. in his History of the Death of Helena the most zealous Mother of Constantine but so soon as Christians came to receive the Sacrament as the most comfortable Viaticum at their deaths which was not till after-Ages then by whatever instances it appears that they received it at all it appears also that they received it in both kinds and it is plain that among the numerous examples of this nature which are to be found in Bede and Surius and the Writers of the Saints Lives there is not one to be produced to the contrary else no doubt the learned Bishop of Meaux who picks up every thing that seems to make for his purpose and who was fain to content himself with those two insignificant ones of Serapion and St. Ambrose would not have omitted them I shall mention some few in opposition to those two of his of those who according to St. Austine's advice * Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit Corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Sermo 215 de Tempore When they were sick did partake both of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ contrary to what they would have Paulinus report of St. Ambrose to St. Austine himself that he did onely receive the Body And the first shall be that of Valentinus of Pavia in the fifth Century †Ante obitum propriis manibus accepit corporis sanginis Domini Sacramentum Surius August 4. who before his death took with his own hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The second that of Elpidius as it is in the next Century reported by Gregory the Great ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorii Dialog 616. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That calling his Brethren and standing in the midst of them he took the Body and the Blood of the Lord and continuing in prayer gave up the Ghost And he mentions this no less then of three others in the same Dialogues and in his Office for Visiting the Infirm after Prayers and other things then says he * Deinde communicet eum corpore sanguine Domini Gregor Sacram Visit infirm Let the Priest Communicate him with the Body and Bloud of Christ. In the same Age the Writer of St. Vedastus his Life says †Sacrosancto Corporis sanguinis Domini Viatico confirmatus obiit Alcuin in vit Vedast He died being confirmed with the most sacred Viaticum of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the same also of Richarius very near in the same words Isidore the famous Bishop of Sevil Received with a profound sigh the Body and Bloud of the Lord and died presently after ‖ Corpus sanguinem Domini cum profundo gemitu suscepit Redemptus de obit Isidor And to go down no lower than the next Age Bede then reports of Ceadda a British Bishop That he fortified his departure with the perception of the Body and Bloud of our Lord seven days before * Obitum suum Dominici Corporis sanguinis perceptione septimo ante mortem die munivit Bed. Hist Angl. l. 4. And the same of St. Cuthbert Who received from him the most wholsome Sacraments of Christ's Body and Bloud †Acceptis à me Sacramentis salutaribus Dominici Corporis Sanguinis Id. in vit Cuthberti And thus did that glorious Prince Charles the Great make his pious exit Commanding his most familiar Priest Hiltibald to come unto him and give him the Sacraments of the Lords Body and Bloud ‖ Jussit familiarissimum Pontificem suum Hiltibaldum venire ad se ut ei Sacramenta Dominici Corporis Sanguinis tribueret Eginhard vit Caroli Mag. And the same universal Custom and Practice I might bring down to all those other Ages that succeed till a new Doctrine of the Sacrament brought in a new Practice by degrees but I cannot omit one in the Eleventh Age though it has a Legendary Miracle joyned with it 't is an account Damianus * Presbyterum quendam Cumanae Ecclesie Eucharistium detalisse aegroto illum mox cum in Ecclesiam rediens aliquantulum Dominici sanguinis comperisset remansisse in calice Peri Damian Opusc gives of a Priest Who had carried the Eucharist to a sick person and by negligence brought back and left in the Cup a little of the Bloud of the Lord So that it is plain nowithstanding the fear either of keeping or spilling they carried the Wine with them to the sick as well as the Bread and Communicated them with both And now if we adde to these the Decree of Pope Paschal the Second forbidding to mix the Sacramental Elements but to give them seperately and distinctly unless to young Children and to the Sick which exception makes it unquestionable that both were then given to the Sick and the fore-mentioned Canon of the Council of Tours which is in Burchard Ivo and Regino commanding the Bread to be dipt in the Wine that the Priest may truely say to the sick The Body and Bloud of Christ be profitable to thee these being all laid together make it clear beyond all contradiction that the Communion of the Sick was not as de Meaux pretends in one kind but in both and as a parting blow upon this point I shall onely offer that observation of their own learned Menardus †Cum communicat infirmus quem vis morbi non ad tantam virium imbecillitatem adduxit dicitur utrâque formâ Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi redimat te in vitam aeternam quae distinctam sumptionem indicant at dum communicat infirmus qui ingravari caeperit unica tantum formula recitatur in hunc modum Corpus Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam Menard notae in Greg. Sacram. p. 379 380. from an ancient Mass in his Notes upon the Sacramentary of St.
Gregory that in case the sick person was in a condition to receive the Elements separately then this form was used The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee to eternal Life The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee to eternal Life which says he shews a distinct Sumption If he was in such weakness and extremity as to have them given mixt then it was said The Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Eternal Life which as well shews a Sumption of both the Elements though in a different manner according to the different state of the sick person The Communion of Infants is the next custom alledged by this Author Communion of Infants it was a very ancient and almost universal practice of the Church to give the Eucharist to little Children as soon as they were Baptized thinking it to be as necessary to their Salvation as Baptism and that they were as 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 Lausis 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 * Sacrificio à sacerdote celebrato partem cum caeteris ausus
have Consecrated the Eucharist in such a Tempest in an unconsecrated place and at Sea where according to Cassander ‖ Lyturgic c. 34. Haec Missa sicca i. e. sine consecratione communicatione etiam navalis seu nautica dicitur eò quòd in loco fluctuante vacillante ut in mari flaminibus quibus in locis plenam missam celebrandam non putant In libello ordinis Missae secundum usum Romanae Ecclesiae they are not permitted to use Consecration nor to have the full Mass but onely what he calls the Missa sicca and the Missa Navalis and it is plain Baronius with whose Authority I am now urging de Meaux is of the mind that the faithful did carry the two Species in their Vessel for he says so expresly in so many words * In Navi portasse Navigantes Christi Corpus Sanguinem Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. There is no getting off the plain and evident Authority of these two great men for receiving the Eucharist in both kinds Monsieur de Meaux though he heaves a little yet cannot but sink under it and it makes him confess That these passages may very well prove that the Bloud was not refused to the faithful to carry with them if they required it but can never prove that they could keep it any long time since that Nature it self opposes it So that if Nature be not against keeping the Wine Custom and Authority it seems are for it and I dare say that Nature will suffer the Wine to be kept as long as the Bread however they who are such friends to Miracles and have them so ready at every turn especially in the Sacrament have no reason methinks to be so afraid of Nature Monsieur de Meaux passes next to the Public Communion in the Church Of Public Communion in the Church And if he can prove that to have been in one kind he has gained his main point however unsuccessfully he has come off with the rest though we see all his other pretences are too weak to be defended and we have destroyed I think all his out-works yet if he can but maintain this great fort he saves the Capitol and preserves the Romish Cause He has used I confess all imaginable stratagems to do it and has endeavoured to make up his want of strength with subtlety and intrigue He will not pretend it was a constant custom to have the Public Communion in one kind but that it was free for Christians to receive either both Species or one only in the Church it self and in their solemn Assemblies and that they did this on some particular days and occasions as in the Latine Church on Good-Friday and almost all Lent in the Greek Now though we have made it out that the whole Catholic Church did generally in their Public Communions use both kinds yet if they left it free to Christians to receive one or both as they pleased or to receive sometimes both and sometimes one this if it can be proved will shew that they thought Communion in one might be lawful and sufficient and that it was not necessary to be in both Let us therefore see what evidence there is for any such thing for it looks very strangely that the Church in all its Lyturgies in all the accounts of celebrating the Communion should always use both kinds to all that partook of the Sacrament and yet leave it free to Christians to receive it in one if they pleased and that on some few days they should give the same Sacrament in a quite different manner then they used at all other times this if it be true must be very odd and unaccountable and unless there be very full and evident proof of it we may certainly conclude it to be false What cloud of witnesses then does de Meaux bring to justifie this what names of credit and authority does he produce for it Why not one not so much as a single testimony against the universal suffrage of the whole Church and of the most learned of our Adversaries who all agree in this truth That the Public Communion was in both kinds for above a thousand years Is there any one Writer in all the Ten nay Twelve Centuries who plainly contradicts it any one between the Apostles and Thomas Aquinas who says it was the Custom of the Catholic Church or any part of it to Communicate onely in one kind Nay can de Meaux shew any particular persons or any sort of Christians that ever were in the World before the thirteenth Age that were against both kinds and received onely in one except the Manichees a sort of vile and abominable Hereticks who are the onely Instances in Antiquity for Communion in one kind These men believing Christ not to have really shed his Blood but onely in phantasm and appearance would not take the Sacrament of his Bloud and by the same reason neither should they have taken that of his Body and thinking Wine not to be the Creature of God the Father of Christ but of the Devil or some evil Principle or bad Spirit and so calling it the Gall of the Dragon they had a general abhorrence from it and so would not receive it in the Sacrament Pope Leo heard that several of these were at Rome and that to cover their infidelity and skulk more securely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines his manisestentur indiciis quorum deprehema fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi à sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur Leo Sermo 4 de Quadrag they came to the public Assemblies and were present at the very Sacrament but yet they did so order themselves at the Communion that so they might the more safely hide themselves and be undiscovered They take with their unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they refused to drink his Blood this he gave notice of to his Roman Congregation that so these men might be made manifest to them by these marks and tokens that their sacrilegious disimulation being apprehended they might be markt and discovered and so expelled or excommunicated from the society of the Faithful by the Priestly Authority Now how can all this which shews plainly that the Communion at Rome was in both kinds be turned to the advantage of Communion in one this requires the slight and the dexterity of Monsieur de Meaux and 't is one of the most artificial fetches that ever were It is the onely argument which he has to prove that the Public Communion was not in both kinds This remark upon the words of Pope Leo and upon the Decree of Gelasius which
The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body and the reason why they did not was some either Manichean or other Superstition so that this Decree I own was occasioned by them and particularly relates to them and shews that they herein differed from the Faithful not onely in their superstition but in the practice too but to say that he forbad this practice onely in respect of such a Superstition going along with it and that he did not forbid the Practice it self which was the effect of it is so notoriously false that the Decree relates wholly to the Practice and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was or wherein it consisted no doubt it must be some Superstition or other that hinders any from taking the Cup the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood or the superstitious belief that one 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 distributue fuisset quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis pertione à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus in Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus non igitur ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontisices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos evitandos hic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censait 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 Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church is violated by the Roman 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
believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body †Sanctificatur vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had as truely the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament though they used not those words of Consecration which the Latines now do and the Latines had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues in which as Strabo says they used the old simple manner of Communion as much as on any other days De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration or else he must own this to be a true one The Roman Order says not onely the Wine is Consecrated which it does in more places then one but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated so that the people may be confirmed by it ‖ Vt ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum Ord. Rom. a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration that he says * Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis vini consecrat vinum non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit Hittorp He who according to the order of that Book Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine does not observe the Tradition of the Church of which Innocent speaks that on these two days Friday and Saturday before Easter no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated So that he complains of it because such a Consecration is used on that day The Author of the Book of Divine Offices under the name of Alcuinus †De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem Alcuini lib. de Off. div p. 253. Ib. makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion but says expresly that the Vnconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same in the place produced before that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter ‖ C. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ oratione Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plenè possit communicare quod utique superflao praeciperet si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur that the Wine is Consecrated on that day so that the people might fully Communicate to shew that it would not have been sufficient as he thinks to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept and I suppose he was of de Meaux's mind that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it even from one day to the next but he is so far from Communion in one kind that in that very Chapter against Intinction he mentions Pope Julius his Decree * Julias Papa huiusmodi intinctionem penitus probibet seorsùm panem seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem sumenda docet which forbids that and commands the Bread to be given by it self and the Wine by it self according to Christ's Institution and likewise the Decree of Gelasius †Vnde beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico à calicis participatione se abstinerent nam ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Ib. Microlog in these words He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup And he asserts says he in the same Decree that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind for it is plain this Communion was in both and it was the belief of the Church and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century when Corruptions were come to a great height that the Communion on that day was full and entire as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that and held to be so by the opinion of them all The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church will afford as little assistance if not much less to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist which is a Religious Feast of Joy upon those days which they appoint to Fasting Mortification and Sadness and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays on which they do not fast and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presanctified The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested as de Meaux says seeing it appears not in the sixth Age as he would have it but in the seventh whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very
uncertain and there is no evidence for it till towards the ninth Century In a Council held under Justinian in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople called therefore in Trullo An. 686. there is a Canon which commands that on all days of Lent except Saturday and Sunday and the day of the Annunciation the Communion be made of the Presanctified there was long before a Canon in the Council of Laodicea which forbad any Oblation to be made in Lent but upon those days viz. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day but that says nothing of the Presanctified nor of any Communion on the other days but let it be as ancient as they please although it be a peculiar Office which is neither in the Lyturgy of St. Basil or St. Chrysostom but is to be found by it self in the Bibliotheca Patrum where it is translated by Genebrardus it is most abominably false that it was onely the Bread which they reserved or which they distributed in those days to the People for they pour some of the consecrated Wine upon the consecrated Bread which they reserve on those days and make the form of the Cross with it upon the Bread as appears from the Rubric in the Greek Euchologion ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Eucholog And whatever any private men may pretend to the contrary as Michael Cerularius or Leo Allatius a Latinized Greek this can with no manner of reason prejudice or confront the public Ritual of a Church which as it in no instance practices Communion in one kind but to prevent that uses often the mixture of the two Species where never so little of each is sufficient to justifie the use of both so by this custom of dropping some of the consecrated Wine upon the reserved Bread it shews both its judgement and its care never to have the Communion wholly in one kind But to take off this custom of theirs of dropping some Wine upon the Bread which they reserved for this Communion de Meaux says That immediately after they have dropped it they dry the Bread upon a Chafendish and reduce it to Powder and in that manner keep it as well for the Sick as for the Office of the Presanctified So that no part of the fluid Wine can remain in the Bread thus dryed and powdered however this is for I must take it upon de Meaux's credit finding nothing like it in this Office of the Greeks yet to a man that believes Transubstantiation and thinks the most minute particle of the Species of Wine or Bread contains in a miraculous manner the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood this difficulty methinks might in some measure be salved however small parts of the Wine may be supposed to remain in the crums of Bread and as the Greeks when they mix the Wine and the Bread together for the Sick and Infants yet believe that they give both the Species however small the margaritae or crums be which are in the Wine so they do the same as to the presanctified Bread however few unexhaled particles of Wine remain in it But Monsieur de Meaux knows very well and acknowledges that the Greeks do further provide against a meer dry Communion in this Office by mixing this sacred Bread with more Wine and Water at the time of the Communion and then as I proved in the case of the Latine Office on Good-Friday that the unconsecrated Wine was consecrated by this mixture and by the Prayers and Thanksgivings that were used at that Solemnity so by this way as well as by the first mixture of some drops of Wine with the Bread the Communion in both kinds will be secured in the Greek Church in their Office of the Presanctified and to put it out of all doubt that this is such a Communion let us but look into their Office and we shall find there it plainly is so Behold say the Faithful in their Prayer before the Communion the immaculate Body and the quickning Bloud of Christ are here to be set before us on this mystical Table * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Priest in his low Prayer Begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe to communicate to them his immaculate Body and sacred Bloud and by them to the whole People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Then after he has Communicated He returns God thanks for the Communion of the holy Body and Bloud of Christ. So that it is most remarkable as de Meaux says that the Greeks change nothing in this Office from their ordinary Formularies the sacred Gifts are always named in the plural and they speak no less there in their Prayers of the Body and the Blood Is it to be imagined they could do this if they received not any thing upon these days but the Body of our Lord would they not then as the Church of Rome has done change in this Office from their ordinary Formularies but so stedfastly is it says he imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the Species without receiving at the same time not onely the vertue but also the substance of one and the other So firmly is it imprinted upon the minds of those Christians that they ought not to receive one Species alone without the other contrary to the plain Institution of Christ that they take all care not to do it either in this or any other Office least they should loose the whole vertue and substance and benefit of them If in spite of the opinions of the Greeks themselves which de Meaux owns are of another mind and in spight of their public Rubric their Rituals and Missals they must be understood to celebrate the Communion in their Churches in one kind then so far as I know de Meaux may as confidently impose upon us and all the World and bear us down by dint of Impudence that both the Greek Church and all the Christian Churches that ever were in the World had always the Public Communion in one kind notwithstanding all their Offices and all their Lyturgies speak to the contrary And now having so fully shewen the universal consent and constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for Communion in both kinds and having answered all the Instances by which de Meaux vainly endeavours to overthrow that I have I hope in some measure performed what was the subject of de Meaux's Prayer at the beginning of his Treatise That not onely Antiquity may be illustrated but that Truth also may become manifest and triumphant †P. 9. And I have hereby wholly taken away the main strength and the very foundation of his Book for that lies in those several customs and pretended matters of fact which he brings to justifie the Churches practice for single Communion and if these be all false and mistaken as upon examination they appear to be then his principles upon which he founds this wrong practice if they are not false
kind will be quite taken off and destroyed but because this is the great Plea and the fundamental reasoning which he every-where uses in his Book I shall therefore fully consider it under these two Questions 1. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit do not belong to one Species or be not given by one Species which is by both 2. Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament I. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit be not given by one Species as by both This de Meaux every-where asserts and 't is the foundation he all along goes upon but is it not strange presumption when God has been pleased to appoint such a Religious Rite and Sacramental Action to be performed in such a manner with a promise of such graces and benefits to those who perform it aright to think he will grant the same benefits to those who perform it otherwise than he has appointed and to venture to make a change and alteration from what he positively ordered and yet think to partake of the same benefits another way without any such outward means and without any Sacraments at all for they are wholly in his own free disposal and he is not tied to any outward means nor to such particular means as the Sacraments are but since he has thought fit to make them the ordinary means of conveying those benefits to us we cannot ordinarily hope for the one without the other thus we cannot expect the vertue and benefit of Baptism without the outward ceremony of washing and without observing that in such a way as Christ has appointed i. e. washing with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost neither can we receive the inward grace and vertue of the Eucharist without taking that Sacrament as Christ hath appointed and commanded it for all Sacraments would loose their worth and value their esteem and reverence and would not be necessary to be observed according to the Divine Institution if without the observance of that we had any just grounds to hope for the vertue and benefits of them there is therefore all the reason in the World to fear that God to preserve the integrity of his own Institution and the force and authority of his own Laws will deny the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to those who wilfully violate and transgress the outward observance of it in such a way as he has appointed Has not Christ annexed the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to the outward Sign If he have and we do not receive the outward Sign as he has appointed how can we then hope to receive the inward Grace What is it that makes such an outward sign or ceremony as a Sacrament be a means of conveying such spiritual Grace and Vertue and exibiting such inward benefits to our minds It is not any physical power or natural vertue which they have in themselves it is not the washing with a little Water can cleanse the Soul or the eating a little Bread and drinking a little Wine can nourish and strengthen it but it is the Divine Power of Christ who by his Institution has given such a spiritual and inward vertue to such outward signs and visible actions and made these the means and instruments of conveying and exhibiting such grace and vertue and real benefits to us all the power and efficacy they have to do this is owing purely to the Divine Institution and wholly depends upon that if therefore we do not observe the Institution how can we expect the benefit that comes wholly from that and if Christ by the Institution has annexed the grace and vertue and benefit of the Sacrament to both kinds which he has plainly done by instituting of both how can we then hope to receive it by one contrary to the Institution and how can we be assured that we loose nothing and are deprived of nothing by taking one onely and that this is as good and sufficient as taking of both There is nothing appears from the will and pleasure of him that instituted both upon which the whole vertue of them does entirely depend from whence we can gather any such thing it rather appears from thence that both are necessary because both are instituted de Meaux therefore does not fetch it from thence but from the nature of the thing it self from the inseperableness of that grace which is given in the Sacrament and from the impossibility in the thing to have it otherwise Christ says he cannot seperate the vertue of the Sacrament nor effect that any other grace should accompany his Blood shed than that same in the ground and substance which accompanies his Body immolated †P. 182. But Christ can annex the vertue of the Sacrament to the whole Sacrament and not to any part of it and he can effect that the grace of his Body and Blould should accompany or belong to both the eating his Body and drinking his Blood and not to the doing one of these without the other contrary to his command and institution although the grace be inseparable so that the grace annexed to the Body be no other than that which is annexed to the Blood ‖ P. 3. yet this grace may not be given till both the Body and Blood are received as Bellarmine expresly says it may not in the case of the Priests taking both kinds till the whole sumption of both Species is performed and finished * Possit etiam dici Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam nisi totâ sumptione Eucharistiae absolatâ quia cum sumitur utraque species non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utraque species ideò Eucharistiam sub specie panis conferre quidem gratiam sed non ante sumptionem alterius speciei Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l. 4. c. 23. and if it may not be so in the case of the Priest why not also in all other Communicants unless Christ have made and declared it otherwise which he has not what will it then signifie if as de Meaux says It be impossible to separate in the application the effect of Christ's Bloud from that of his Body †P. 182. If the effect of these be not applied till they are both received and there be no application of the effect as we cannot be assured there is without the receiving of both But did Christ then says he suspend the effect which his Body was to produce until such time as the Apostles had received the Bloud in the first institution of this Sacrament and in the internal between their taking the Bread and the Cup I answer they did not receive the grace of the Sacrament till they had received the
Grace which is given by both Species and not by one If it were no more than this which themselves own yet 't is pitty sure that Christians should be deprived of that but they can never assure Christians that they are not deprived of all even of that which is necessary to Salvation So far as the Grace of the Sacrament is so because this necessary Grace is annexed not to one kind but to both and the taking the species of Wine is as necessary to receive that by Christ's Institution as the species of Bread for no reason can be imagined why the one should give onely the necessary Grace and the other onely the additional Men must make too bold with the Grace of God and the Grace of the Sacrament who think to give it as they please and to part and divide it as they think fit by their presumptuous and ungrounded fancies and do not wholly depend upon his will and pleasure for the receiving of it and that way and manner which he himself has appointed Others there are who though they defend the Communion in one kind yet speak very doubtingly about that question Whether more spiritual fruit or more grace be not received by both than by one Salmeron says It is a difficult question because we have nothing from the Ancients whereby we can decide it ‖ Dissicilis sane quaestio propterea quòd ex antiquis quicquam vix habemus unde possimus eam decidere Salmer de Euch. no truly the question and the reason of it which is their practice is too late and novel to have any thing produced for it out of Antiquity So that those Doctors who speak of this matter have had various opinions about it * Vt propterea Doctores qui de hac reloquuti sunt in varias iverint sententias Ib. Some saw there was no reason for it and that it was perfectly precarious and ungrounded but others thought it necessary to defend their Communion in one kind Bellarmine himself owns that this is not so certain for divers have different sentiments concerning it neither does the Council openly define it †Haec propositio non est adeo certa de hâc enim variè sentiunt Theologi neque Concilium eam apertè definire videtur Bellar. de Euch. But de Meaux has done it very positively and definitively contrary to many learned men in his own Church and without any warrant from the Council of Trent or any other Secondly To make the whole Grace and Vertue and entire Fruit of the Sacrament to be given by one Species is to render the other wholly useless and superfluous as to the conveying any real vertue or benefit to him that receives it When the Priest has taken the Species of Bread and has by that fully received the whole Grace and entire Fruit of the Sacrament what can he further receive by the Cup and what benefit can he have by it De Meaux will by no means have the effect of the Body suspended till the Bloud is received ‖ P. 3. though Bellarmine is willing it should * De Euch. l. 4. c. 23. But if it be so to the Priests why may it not likewise to the people and if the Priests receive any benefit by the Cup which they would not have without it why may not the people also For they have not yet declared that I know of that the Priest is to receive more grace by the Sacrament than the people What a meer empty Cup must the Priest then receive void of all grace and vertue after he has taken the Species of Bread which has before given him the whole and entire fruit and grace of the Sacrament to which the Cup can add nothing at all It must be then as utterly fruitless to him as the Wine of ablution is to the Laiety and if it be so inconsiderable they need not methinks be so afraid of the Laymens spilling it or dipping their Beards and Whiskers in it but it is still the very natural and true Blood of Christ if it be so 't is strange that it should have no true and essential vertue belonging to it surely Christ's Bloud is never without that nor ought any to have so mean and low an opinion of it Why did Christ give the Cup to the Apostles as part of the Sacrament if they had received the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament before and if so soon as they had received his Body at the same instant they received the whole grace that accompanied that and his Blood too Christ if he did not suspend the effect of the Blood till it was taken must have prevented it and given it before it was Christ no doubt might have given the whole grace and effect of the Sacrament by one Species if he had pleased but if he had done that he would not have given the other nor should we have had two Species Instituted by him if he had restrained the effect of those two to one onely When Christ has appointed two and gave two himself for men to come and argue that one alone may give the whole good of both because the Grace of both is the same and inseparable from either and because Christ did not suspend the effect of one till he gave the other and that 't is impossible he should separate the effect of his Bloud from that of his Body this is to argue at all adventures against what is known from what is secret and uncertain against the plain will of Christ from his power and against what he has done from what he might do and is to set up a precarious and ungrounded Hypothesis of our own from the nature of the thing when the thing itself is purely arbitrary and positive and depends wholly upon Christ's will and pleasure If Christ himself has appointed two Species in the Sacrament to convey the whole and entire vertue of the Sacrament to worthy receivers as he seems plainly to have done by instituting both and giving both to his Apostles and commanding both how groundless and arrogant is it in any to say That one is sufficient to give this and that both are not necessary to this end without knowing any thing further of Christ's will about it and when they believe as de Meaux does †P. 130. That Jesus Christ has equally instituted both parts Yet notwithstanding to make one unnecessary to the giving any real vertue and benefit and to dare to affirm as de Meaux does ‖ P. 4. That the receiving the Blood is not necessary for the grace of the Sacrament or the ground of the Mystery Let me then ask what it is necessary for and why it was equally instituted with the other De Meaux gives not a plain answer to that but tells us That the Eucharist has another quality namely that of a Sacrifice * P. 179. and for this reason both Species are always consecrated that
so they may be offered to God and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death But this is no answer to the question for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice which it is not in a proper sence though it be not my business to shew that here but as it is a Sacrament Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament and why did he give both Species to his Apostles He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice for as such if it were so it was to be onely offered up to God but he gave both the Species to his Disciples and why did he do this if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was given by one and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God He does not receive them as a Sacrifice but as a Sacrament And why is the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the
words This is my Body Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present and when they are so what need is there of the other form This is my Blood to make the same thing present again which was truly present before It matters not at all in this case whether they be present by vertue of the consecration or by vertue of Concomitancy for if they be truly present once what need they be present again if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second why do they become the same thing twice or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient when upon the consecration of that it immediately becomes both Christ's Body and Blood and what reason is there for making the same Body and Blood over again by another consecration They might if they pleased say over the Bread alone Hoc est Corpus meum hoc est sanguis meus This is my Body and this is my Bloud for they believe it is so upon the saying those words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body And if it be so as soon as the words are pronounced they may as truly affirm it to be both as one What does it signifie to say they are both present by Concomitancy does not Concomitancy always go along with the Consecration is there any space between the Consecration and the Concomitancy is not the one as quick and sudden as the other and can it be said over the Species of Bread This is my Body before it can be as truly said This is my Blood why therefore may not they be both said together Nay it may be as truly said by vertue of this Doctrine not only This is my Body and Blood but this is my Soul and my Divinity for though they will not say it is made all those yet it becomes all those and truly is all those by this Concomitancy upon the Consecration and it may be said to be all those as soon as it is consecrated and at the same time that those words are spoke There being a distinct Consecration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Sacrament if Christ's Body and Bloud be really present there by vertue of the words of Consecration yet they ought to be as distinctly present as they are distinctly consecrated that is the Body present in the species of Bread and the Blood in the species of Wine for else they are not present according to the Consecration so that this Concomitancy by which they are present together does quite spoile the Consecration by which they are present asunder and so confounds the two Species as to make them become both the same thing after they are consecrated and renders the consecration of one of them to be without either use or sense 2. It makes the distinct Sumption of both the Species to be vain and unnecessary to any persons to the Priests or to any others to whom the Pope has sometimes granted them and even to the Apostles and all the first Christians who received both for if the one contains the very same thing with the other and gives the very same thing what need is there of having or of taking both that is of taking the very same thing twice over at the same time If one Species contain Jesus Christ whole and entire his Body Bloud Soul and Divinity and all these are given by one Species what can be desired more as de Meaux says Then Jesus Christ himself and what then can the other Species give but the same thing is Jesus Christ with whole Humanity and Divinity to be thus taken over and over and to be taken twice at the same time if he be why not several times more and if he were so this might be done by taking several times the same Species since one Species contains the same as both even the whole substance and the whole essential effect of the Sacrament and the very person of Jesus Christ himself This does so alter the nature of the Sacrament by which we have a continual nourishment conveyed to our Souls and receive the Grace and Spirit of Christ by fresh and daily recruits and in several measures and degrees every time we Communicate that it makes it not onely to no purpose for any person to take more than one Species at once but to take the Sacrament more than once all his whole life for what need he desire more who has received together with the humanity of Jesus Christ his Divinity also whole and entire †P. 314. and if he has received that once there is no reason for receiving it again for this as it renders the Grace and Substance of the Sacrament Indivisible as de Meaux often pleades so it renders it Infinite to which nothing can be ever added by receiving it never so often and if we thus make this Sacrament to give the very Body and Bloud of Christ and so the whole and entire Person of Christ and his whole Humanity and his whole Divinity instead of giving the spiritual Graces and Vertues of Christ's Body and Bloud we then make every Communicant to receive all that by one single Communion which he can ever receive by never so many thousands and we make all persons to receive this alike however different the preparations and dispositions of their minds are and even the most wicked and vile wretches must receive not onely Christ's Body and Blood but even his Soul and his Divinity and his whole and entire Person for though the spiritual graces and vertues may be given in different measures and degrees and in different proportions according to the capacity of the receiver yet the Humanity and Divinity of Christ which is whole and entire in each Species never can Thirdly If Christ's Body and Bloud were thus always joyned together in the Sacrament and were both contained in one Species yet this would not be a true Sacramental reception of them for to make that they ought to be taken as separate and divided from one another his Body from his Blood and his Bloud from his Body and not as conjoyned or mixt together this was the way and manner which Christ himself appointed and this is the onely way by which we can be said to eat his Body and to drink his Blood and as they own they ought to be thus consecrated so they ought also to be thus received for I cannot understand why they might not be as well consecrated together as received together and why it would not be as true a Sacrament with such a Consecration as with such a Sumption nay I think the Consecration this way would have more sense in it than
and the most useful and comfortable part of Christian Worship and if it be so it is a great defect in us that want it they charge us very high for being without it without a Sacrifice which no Religion they tell us in the World ever was before and one amongst them of great Learning and some temper in other things yet upon this occasion askes whether it can be doubted where there is no Sacrifice there can be any Religion †An dubitari potest ubi nullum peculiare Sacrisitium ibi ne Religionem quidem esse posse Canus in loc Theol. l. 12. p. 813. We on the other side account it a very great corruption of the Eucharist to turn that which is a Sacrament to be received by us into a Sacrifice to be offer'd to God and there being no Foundation for any such thing in Scripture but the whole ground of it being an Error and mistake as we shall see anon and it being a most bold and daring presumption to pretend properly to Sacrifice Christs body again which implyes no less then to Murder and Crucifie him we therefore call it a Blasphemous Fable †See Article 31. of the 39 Articles of Religion and as it is made use of to deceive people into the vain hopes of receiving benefit by the Communion without partaking of it and a true pardon of sin by way of price and recompence is attributed to it and it is made as truly propitiatory as Christs sacrifice upon the Cross both for the dead and living and for that purpose is scandalously bought and sold so that many are hereby cheated not onely of their mony but of their souls too it is to be feared who trust too much to this easie way of having a great many Masses said for them and because when the priest pretends to do those two great things in the Mass to turn the Bread and Wine into the very substance of Christs Body and Blood and then to offer Christ up again to his Father as truly as he offered himself upon the cross which are as great as the greatest works which ever God did at the very Creation and Redemption of the World yet that he really does no such thing as he then vaunts and boasts of for these Reasons we deem it no less then a dangerous deceit †Ibid. These are high charges on both sides and it concerns those who make them to be well assured of the grounds of them And here I cannot but passionately resent the sad state of Christianity which will certainly be very heavy upon those who have been the cause of it when the corruptions of it are so great and the divisions so wide about that which is one of the most sacred and the most useful parts of it the Blessed Eucharist which is above any other the most sadly depraved and perverted as if the Devil had hereby shown his utmost malice and subtlety to poyson one of the greatest Fountains of Christianity and to make that which should yield the Waters of Life be the Cup of destruction That blessed Sacrament which was designed to unite Christians is made the very bone of Contention and the greatest instrument to divide them and that bread of Life is turned into a stone and become the great Rock of offence between them Besides the lesser corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome such as using thin Wafers instead of bread and injecting them whole into the mouths of the Communicants and Consecrating without a Prayer and speaking the words of Consecration secretly and the like there are four such great ones as violate and destroy the very substance and Essence of the Sacrament and make it to be a quite other thing then Christ ever intended it and therefore such as make Communion with the Roman Altar utterly sinful and unlawful These are the Adoration of the Host or making the Sacrament an object of Divine Worship the Communion in one Kind or taking away the Cup from the People the turning the Sacrament into a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the Quick and the Dead and the using of private or solitary Masses wherein the Priest who celebrates Communicates alone The two former of these have been considered in some late discourses upon those subjects the fourth is a result and consequence of the third for when the Sacrament was turned into a sacrifice the people left off the frequent communicating and expected to be benefitted by it another way so that this will fall in as to the main Reasons of it with what I now design to consider and Examine The Sacrifice of the Mass or Altar wherein the Priest every time he celebrates the Communion is supposed to offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine as truely as Christ once offered himself upon the cross and that this is as true a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the other and that 't is so not only for the Living but also for the Dead The Objections we make against it and the Arguments by which they defend it will fall in together at the same time and I shall endeavour fairly and impartially to represent them in their utmost strength that so what we have to say against it and what they have to say for it may be offered to the Reader at one view that he may the better judg of those high charges which are made he sees on each side First then we say That the very foundation of this Sacrifice of the Mass is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes The one is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or Christs Corporal presence in the Eucharist The other is the Opinion That Christ did offer up his body and blood as a sacrifice to God in his last Supper before he offered up himself upon the Cross If either or both of these prove false the Sacrifice of the Mass is so far from being true that it must necessarily fall to the ground according to their own principles and acknowledgments Secondly There is no Scripture ground for any such sacrifice but it is expresly contrary to Scripture under which head I shall examine all their Scriptural pretences for it and produce such places as are directly contrary to it and perfectly overthrow it Thirdly That it has no just claim to Antiquity nor was there any such Doctrine or practise in the Primitive Church Fourthly That it is in it self unreasonable and absurd and has a great many gross Errors involved in it First we say That the very Foundation of this sacrifice is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes the first of which is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or which may be sufficient for their purpose the corporal presence of Christs natural body and blood in the Eucharist though they disclaim the belief of this without the other but if Christs body and blood be not substantially present under the species of
were which was the thing our Saviour here designed The greatest part of the publick Jewish Worship was fixt to the Temple and to Jerusalem their Tithes and First-fruits and Firstlings and Festivals as well as their sacrifices and there may be divine Worship without sacrifice as well as with it and whatever the Worship be which our Saviour here says was to be spiritual it was not like the Jewish to be fixt to one place which is the true scope of those words to the Samaritan Woman in answer to her question v. 20. whether mount Gerizim or Jerusalem was the true place of Worship which was the great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans our Saviour determines for neither but puts an end to the question and says that now under the Gospel the Worship of God was not local and as to the manner of it that it was spiritual The second and principal Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass is from Christs institution and first celebration of the Eucharist with his Disciples and here indeed is the true place to find it if there be any such thing but I have already shown ‖ pag. 8 9 10. that Christ did neither then sacrifice himself nor command his Disciples to do so and have taken away that which is the very Foundation of the Mass-sacrifice and without which every thing else that can be said for it falls to the ground There are but two other and those very weak ones behind the one out of the 13th of the Acts where it is said of Saul and Barnabus and the prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch that they ministered unto the Lord but could not they minister and perform the divine office and service without sacrificing it must be first proved that that was part of the religious office before it can appear that it was mâ—â—nt here it is said they fasted and prayed in that probably their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministry consisted or as St. Chrysostom ‖ Homil. 37. in Act. and after him Oecumenius explain it in preaching but that they sacrificed there is not the least evidence The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to sacrifice but to perform any proper function and therefore it is attributed in the Scripture both to the Angels who are called ministring spirits †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.14 and to the Magistrates who are called the Ministers of God ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13.6 and yet sacrificing I suppose belongs to neither of them nor does their own vulgar Latin so Translate it here The last is out of the 1 Cor. 10. for Bellarmine gives up that out of the Hebrews 13. We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle though 't is as much to his purpose in my mind as any of the rest but some Catholick Writers he says do by altar mean there either the Cross or Christ himself †Quia non desunt ex Catholicis qui eo loco per altare intelligunt crucem aut ipsum Christum non urgeo ipsum locum Bellarm. de Mis c. 14. but if it were meant of the Eucharist that is but an Altar in an improper sense as the sacrifice offered on it is but improper and metaphorical as we shall prove but in the place to the Corinthians the Apostle Commands them not to eat of things offered to Idols for to eat of them was to partake of things sacrificed to Devils and so to have communion with Devils which was very unfit for those who were partakers of the Lords Table and therein truly communicated of the Body and Blood of Christ as those who are of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the Jewish Altar Now what is here of the sacrifice of the Mass or any way serviceable to it Why yes the Apostle compares the Table of the Lord with the Table of Devils and eating of the Lords supper with eating the Jewish and the Heathen sacrifices therefore the Christians ought to have an Altar as well as the Jews and what they fed on ought to be sacrificed as well as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Apostle says nothing of this nor makes any such comparison between them but only shows the unfitness of Christians eating of the Heathen sacrifices who partook of the Lords Table he does not call the Lords Table an Altar nor the Eucharist a sacrifice nor was there any danger that the Christians should go to eat in the Idol Temples but he would not have them eat of their sacrifices brought home and the whole comparison lyes here the eating the Lords Supper did make them true partakers of the Lords body and blood sacrificed upon the Cross as eating of the Jewish sacrifices did make the Jews partakers of the Jewish Altar and as eating of things offered to Idols was having fellowship with Devils so that they who partook of such holy food as Christians did should not communicate of such execrable and diabolical food as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If indeed Christians could not partake of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist unless they first made a proper sacrifice and oblation of them then the Apostles discourse would necessarily suppose and imply them to be thus offered as the Jewish and Heathen sacrifices were before they were eaten but since Christs body and blood being once offered upon the Cross is a sufficient sacrifice and oblation of them and the Eucharist is a religious and Sacramental Feast upon the sacrifice of Christ once offered this is sufficient for the Apostles scope and design in that place where there is no other comparison made between the Table of the Lord and the Table of Devils but that one makes us to be partakers of the body and blood of Christ and the other to have Fellowship with Devils and as to the Jewish Altar the Antithesis does not lye here as Bellarmine would have it between that and the Table of the Lord that both have proper sacrifices offered upon them which are eaten after they are sacrificed but the Cross of Christ rather is the Antithesis to the Jewish Altar on which sacrifices were really and properly slain which are not on the Christian Altar and the feeding and partaking of those sacrifices so offered whereby they were made partakers of the Altar this answers to the sacramental feeding upon Christs body and blood in the Christian Altar whereby we are made partakers of the Cross of Christ and have the vertue and merit of his sacrifice communicated to us Thus I have considered and fully answered whatever our Adversaries can bring out of Scripture for their sacrifice of the Mass I shall now offer some places of Scripture that are directly contrary to it and do perfectly overthrow it and though their cause must necessarily sink if the Scripture be not for it because without a Scriptural Foundation there can be
the sacrifice of Christ and of those of the Jews and compare them so much together and show the excellency of the one above the other that he should never say the least word of the sacrifice of the Mass when he had so much occasion to do it that it can hardly be imagined he should have so wholly omitted it had it been as others since account it as true and proper a sacrifice as any of the Jewish or of Christs himself upon the cross Fourthly The Apostle here plainly layes down a principle directly contrary and wholly inconsistent with their Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and that is that if Christ be offered he must suffer and that without shedding of blood there is no Remission Nor yet saith he at the 25 26. verses and 9th chapter That he should offer himself often as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself For then must he often have suffered if he had been often offered without suffering then Christ cannot be offered and sacrificed and indeed to sacrifice any thing is to consume and destroy it so that it be wholly parted with and given up to God and to sacrifice any thing that is living is to take away its life and to kill it and so to make it suffer death as a vicarious punishment in anothers stead this is the common and allowed notion of sacrifices but Christ cannot thus suffer in the Mass therefore he cannot be truly offered or sacrificed since according to the Apostle if he be often offered he must often suffer and they would not I hope crucifie to themselves the Lord of Life again and put him to death upon the Altar as the Jews did upon the cross and yet without this they cannot truly sacrifice him or properly offer him according to the Apostle But this says their great Champion the Bishop of Meaux is done mystically Christ is mystically slain and doth mystically suffer death upon the Altar that is by way of representation and resemblance and the mysterious signification of what is done there as St. Paul says to the Galatians chap. 3. v. 1. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you Now so Christ may be crucified every time we hear or read his crucifixion lively represented to us as we may see a bloody Tragedy without one drop of blood spilt so Christ may be mystically slain in the Sacrament when his body is broke and his blood poured out in mystery and representation but this is not true and proper Offering which is necessary to make a true and proper sacrifice as they will have that of the Mass to be if they would be contented with a mystical sacrifice to represent and commemorate Christs death that they know we are willing to allow and then a mystical suffering that is not a real and proper would be sufficient for a mystical that is not proper sacrifice but the suffering must be as true and proper as the sacrifice and if the one be but mystical the other must be so too if the Bullock or Goat of the sin-offering which was to be offered on the great day of Atonement had been only Mystically slain and Mystically offered upon the Altar they had been as really alive for all that as any that were in the Fields and had been no more true and proper sacrifices of atonement and expiation then they were for without sheding of blood as the Apostle says there is no Remission Heb. 9.22 it was the shedding or pouring out the blood in which the Life was supposed to be and therefore the taking away the Life of the sacrifice that did really make the sacrifice to be truly propitiatory or available before God as a price and recompence for the remission of sins and how then can the sacrifice of the Mass be truly propitiatory when the blood is not truly shed when according to themselves it is Incruentum sacrificium an unbloody sacrifice and therefore according to the Apostle it cannot be pro pitiatory for the Remission of sins as will be further insisted upon afterwards Thus we see how much there is in those clear places of Scripture against the sacrifice of the Mass and how little there is for it in those dark ones which are produced by our Adversaries Thirdly It has no just claim to Antiquity nor was there any such Doctrine or Practice in the Primitive Church this is greatly boasted and vaunted of and although their cause runs very low in Scripture yet they pretend it carries all Antiquity before it where nothing is more common than to have the name of Oblation and Sacrifice and Host and Victim attributed to the blessed Eucharist and to have it said that we do there offer and immolate and sacrifice unto God this we readily acknowledge and though we can by no means allow Antiquity to take place of Scripture or to set up either an Article of Faith or essential part of Worship which is not in Scripture and our Adversaries seem to agree with us in this that there must be a divine Institution for a sacrifice or else it can have no true foundation so that if Scripture fails them 't is in vain to flye for refuge to Antiquity yet we doubt not but that Scripture and Antiquity will be fairly reconciled and be made very good Friends in this point and both of them against the sacrifice of the Mass as 't is taught and practised in the Church of Rome The name of Sacrifice and oblation is often given both in Scripture and Antiquity in an improper general and metaphorical sense thus it is applyed to the inward actions of the mind to penitence and sorrow for sin The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit a broken and a contrite heart O God thou wilt not despise Psal 51.17 To the outward Thanksgivings of the mouth when we render unto God the Calves of our lips Hosea 14.2 When we offer unto him Thanksgiving Psal 50.14 or as the Apostle more fully expresses it when he commands Christians to offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name Heb. 13.15 where the Metaphor is carried on in several words and in the very next verse 't is applied to works of Mercy and Charity and beneficence to others but to do good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased verse 16. and St. Paul in another place calls the Philippians Charity an odour of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing to God Philip. 4.18 Nay he calls preaching the Gospel a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Adversaries earnestly contend to mean nothing less then a sacrifice and the converting the Gentiles
Christ i. e. Sacramentally and Vertually In the Ordo Romanus and in the Canon of the Mass it self (c) Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus at petimus ut accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec Sancta Sacrificia illibata in primis quae tibi offerimus Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae sed cunctae familiae taae quaesumus Domine ut placatus accipias Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam escriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis curpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi fiui tui Domini mostri Jesu Christi Ordo Romanus p. 62. Edit Hittorp Canon Missae there is this prayer over the oblations that God would accept and bless these Gifts these Presents these Holy and undefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee c. and another to the same purpose said by their Priest with his hand stretched over the oblata This oblation therefore of our service and of thy whole Family we beseech thee O Lord mercifully to receive c. And again This oblation O Lord we beseech thee to make blessed c. signing upon the oblata That it may be to us the body and blood of thy dearest Son our Lord Jesus Christ All these prayers over the oblations whereby they are presented to God are made before Consecration so that the oblations which are here called Holy and pure Sacrifices are thought worthy of that Name before they are become the Body and Blood of Christ and so made a proper sacrifice in the present sense of the Church of Rome the Canon of the Mass is Older then their New doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and affords plain evidence for applying the name of sacrifice to the Eucharist upon the account of those offerings and oblations that were made there 2. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice by the Ancients upon the account of those religious Acts and Pious Exercises which are there performed by the devout Communicants and which are called sacrifices both in Scripture and in the Fathers thus our Prayers may be as well a morning as an evening sacrifice Ps 141.2 And therefore as Irenaeus says speaking of the Eucharist God would have us continually offer a gift at his Altar to wit our Prayers and Oblations which are directed to the heavenly Altar †Vult nos quoque sine intermissione offerre munus ad altareâ—est ergo altare in coelis illucenim preces oblationes nostrae diriguntur Iren. l. 4. advers Haers c. 33. though they are made at the Earthly So our Praises and Thanksgivings which are then raised to the highest pitch when we have the greatest instance of the Divine Love offered to our minds are that sacrifice which we are then to offer to God giving thanks to his name Heb. 13.15 Namely for that Miracle of kindness Christ dying for us from which the Eucharist has its name and for which reason it is called a sacrifice of Praise in the Ordo Romanus †Memento Domine samulorum famularumque tuarum omnium circumadstantium quorum tibi fides cognita est nota devotio qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis prose suisque omnibus pro Redemptione animarum sucrum pro spe salutis c. tibique reddunt vota sua Ordo Romanus p. 62. viz. for our Redemption and hope of Salvation and also for those vows which we then render unto God when we present our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God Rom. 12.1 as the Apostle speaks and as St. Austin expresses it the Church is then offered to God and is made one body in Christ when we are made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 and this is the sacrifice of Christians (b) Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi unum corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia ubi ei demonstratur quod in eâ oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur August Civitate Del l. 10. c. 6. not only a sacrifice of Praise as 't is called by Eusebius (c) Demonstrat l. 1. c. 10. St. Basil (d) Liturg. St. Austin (e) Ad Pet. Diac. c. 9. and other Fathers whereby we offer up unto God the calves of our lips in the Scripture phrase but wherein we offer and present unto God our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto him and though we are unworthy to offer unto him any sacrifice yet beseech him to accept this our bounden duty and service according to the Prayer of our Church in its excellent office of the Communion Melchior Canus in his Defence of the sacrifice of the Mass has unawares confest this Truth That Christ did only offer up at his last Supper a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving For to give thanks says he after the Jewish manner and take the Cup into his hands and lift it up is truly to offer a sacrifice of Thanksgiving When Christ therefore said Do this he plainly commanded his Apostles that what they saw him do they should do also by offering up a sacrifice of Eucharist that is of giving of Thanks (f) Ritu quippe JudaiÌ„so gratias agere calicem in manibus accipiendo levando vere est hostiam gratiarum actionis offerre Quùm itaque dixit Dominus hoc facite planè jussit Apostolis ut quod ipsum facere cernebant id queque illi farerent Eucharistiae hoc est gratiarum actionis hostiam exblbendo Canus in locis Theolog. l. 12. p. 806. and he expresly speaks against Christs offering up a Mass-sacrifice for sin then when the day of the bloody sacrifice was now near and the very hour approaching and when their general sacrifice was nigh by which it pleased the Father to forgive all sins (g) Christum in caenâ sacrificium non pro peceato quidem sed gratiarum tamen actionis obtulisse quod cum sacrificii cruenti dies instaret jam planè aut certè jam appropinquaret hora non oportebat hostiam in caenâ pro peccato Mysticam exhibere cum impenderet generalis hosiia illa in quâ Patri complacuit omnia peccata resolvi Ib. p. 834. which is to make the Eucharist what we are willing to own it a sacrifice of Thanksgiving and is in a few words to cut the very throat of their Cause as to this Controversie 3. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice as it is both a Commemoration and a Representation of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross so 't is a commemorative and representative sacrifice as we call that a bloody Tragedy which only represents a Murder and we give the name of the thing to that which is but the resemblance and likeness of it The Jews called that the Passover which was but a memorial of it
gratiarum actionis aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracii non autem propitiatorium vel soli prodesse sumenti neque pro vivis defunctis pro peceatis paenis satisfactionibus aliis necessitatibus offerri debere anathema sit Concil Trid. de sacrif Missae Canon 3. They make it to have the true vertue of a sacrifice in its self as a true price and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and compensation to God for sin and a true satisfaction to divine Justice for the punishment thereof as much as the sacrifice upon the cross and that they have the power of applying this whensoever and for whomsoever they offer it which is to have the greatest treasure in the World in their hands and to be able to make a proper propitiation for sin which belongs only to Christ but they can offer Christ as truly as he offered himself and set him upon the Altar as true a sacrifice as he hung upon the cross Christ I own is in some sense offered up to God by every communicant in the Sacrament when he does mentally and internally offer him to God and present as it were his bleeding Saviour to his Father and desire him for his sake to be merciful to him and forgive him his sins this internal oblation of Christ and his passion is made by every faithful Christian in his particular private devotions and especially at the more solemn and publick ones of the blessed Sacrament When he has the sacred symbols of Christs death before him and does then plead the vertue of Christs sacrifice before God not of the sacrifice then before him but of the past sacrifice of the crosse This is all done by the inward acts the Faith the devotion of the mind whereby as St. Austin says Christ is then slain to any one when he believes him slain (b) Tum Christus cuique occiditur cum credit occisum August quaest Evang. l. 2. and when we believe in Christ from the very remains of this thought Christ is dayly immolated to us (c) Cum credimus in Christum ex ipsis reliquiis cogitationis Christus nobis quotidie immolatur Id. in Psal 73. as St. Hierom says when we hear the word of our Lord his flesh and blood is as it were poured into our Ears (d) cum audimus Scrmonem Domini caro Christi sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur Hieron in Psal 147. and so St. Ambrose calls the virgins minds those Altars on which Christ is dayly offered for the Redemption of the Body (e) Vestras mentes considenter altaria dixerim in quibus quotidiè pro Redemptione corporis Christus ossertur Ambr. de Virg. l. 2. The Minister also does not only offer to God the oblations of the faithful at the Altar and their spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praise which it is his proper duty in their names to present unto God but he does offer as it were Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for the people by praying to God for the people as a public Minister in and through the merits of Christs death and passion and by consecrating and administring the blessed Sacrament which is hereby made not only a commemorative sacrifice of Christs body and blood but does with the outward sign really exhibit the thing signified to the people So that 't is no. wonder to meet with the words offering and offering Christs body and blood as attributed peculiarly to the Minister as in those known places of Ignatius his Epistles 't is not lawful for the Priest to offer without the leave of the Bishop And in Tertullian when the Priest is wanting thou baptizest and offerest and art a Priest to thy self and in the Council of Nice where Deacons are forbid to offer the body of Christ Can. 14. To offer and to offer Christs body and blood is made the peculiar office of the Priest as he alone is the steward of these Mysteries of God and the proper Minister to consecrate and celebrate this Holy Sacrament and in that to offer up the peoples requests to God in the name of Christ and his meritorious cross and passion and by vertue of that to mediate for the people and present as it were Christs sacrifice on their behalf that is Christs body and blood as an objective sacrifice in heaven and as formerly truly offered upon the cross and now sacramentally and improperly upon the Altar but not as an external visible proper sacrifice subjectively present and placed upon the Altar by the hands of the Priest and by a visible and external action presented to God and offered up as the Jewish sacrifices used to be by any consumption or alteration as they hold the sacrifice of the Mass to be No such can be found in any of the Fathers or ancient Ecclesiastic Writers though they speak often of sacrifices and oblations and sometimes of offering Christ and the body of Christ in the Eucharist yet not at all in the present sense of the Romish Church or according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent or the Writers since that which how contrary it is to Antiquity I shall show by a few general Remarks and Considerations 1. Had they had any such sacrifice they might have given another answer to their Jewish and Heathen Adversaries who charged them with the want of outward Sacrifices and Altars as with a great impiety to which they made only this return in their Apologies that they had indeed no proper Altars nor visible and external sacrifices but instead of those they offered the more spiritual sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving and of an honest and good mind and of vertuous and holy actions which were the only sacrifices of Christians and more acceptable to God then any other this is the answer which runs through all their excellent Apologies in return to that accusation of their having no sacrifices which they owned to be true in the sense their Adversaries urged it that is that they had no proper external visible sacrifices such as the Jews and Heathens had such as the Roman Church will needs have the Mass to be but their sacrifices were of another nature such as were so only in an improper and metaphorical sense which the Romanists will by no means allow that of the Eucharist to be We are not Atheists says Justin Martyr as they were chargged to be because they had not the visible Worship of sacrifices but we Worship the maker of all things who needs not blood or libations or incense with the Word of Prayer and Thanksgiving giving him Praise as much as we can and counting this the only honour worthy of him (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. and we are perswaded he needeth no material oblation from men (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And in another place he says Prayers and Praises made by good men are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God
excluded all those who were Non-communicants the Jews did not shut the people out of the Temple when the sacrifice was offering If the Eucharist as a sacrifice had been a part of Worship only to God an oblation to him and not a Sacrament to be received by themselves why might not they have been present at it as well as at the Prayers which were offered to God and at all the other parts of their Religious Worship The most ancient accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist and the most ancient Liturgies or Eucharistic forms have not the least shadow of any private Communion by the Priest alone but always speak of the communion of others with him in the Apostolick Constitutions there is a Relation in what Order all the Faithful received First the Bishop then the Priests and Deacons then the Deaconesses and Virgins and Widows then all the whole people in order and after all have received then the Deacons take away the remainder St. Cyril speaks plainly of numbers receiving the Eucharist and not of a single person for he mentions the Deacons speaking to them at first to embrace each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give the kiss of Charity those very ancient Forms and Responses Lift up your hearts and the answer we lift them up unto the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us give thanks unto our Lord God It is just and meet so to do and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these all show that the Priest did not communicate alone but had always the company of others at the Sacrament to join with him St. Denys called the Areopagite speaks of the Priests exhorting others at the Cûmmunion and praying that they who partake of these Mysteries may partake of them worthily The same is in all the Lyturgies which go under the name of St. James St. Mark and St. Peter in which there are the distinct parts of the people as well as of the Priest as when the Priest is to say peace be with you all the people are to answer and with thy spirit and the service is so framed as to suppose and require company in Communicating or else it would be nonsensical and ridiculous for the Priest alone to pray to God to breathe upon us his servants that are present to grant that the Sacraments may be to all us that partake of them the Communion of the blessedness of eternal Life and after the Communion is over after all have received for the priest to give the blessing to all and pray God to bless and protect us all who were partakers of the Mysteries The same form of speaking in the plural is in the more Authentick Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom where it is very odd for the Priest to exhort others to pray to give thanks and the like and to pray God that they may be worthy partakers of the Sacrament if none were to partake of it but himself The Roman Missal which is much older then these private Masses or then the Doctrine of the Mass as I shall presently show speaks after the same manner and makes the Priest pray for all that are present and that all who have communicated may be filled with all heavenly benediction and Grace These must be all very improper for the Priest to say when he communicates by himself and he may with as good reason make a Congregation by himself alone as make a Communion Private Masses then which sprang up from the sacrifice of the Mass and are wholly suited and agreeable to that Doctrine these being so contrary to the best Antiquity show that that Doctrine also on which they are founded and from whence they arose is so too And I have the more largely considered these because they are another great corruption of the Eucharist of the Roman Church tho they are originally derived from the sacrifice of the Mass Fourthly The very Canon of the Mass as 't is at present in the Roman Church has very little in it agreeable to this new Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass but though it is somewhat difficult to give a certain account of the time of its composition it being made at first by an unknown Author whom St. Gregory calls Scholasticus who is supposed by some to be Pope Gelasius though had St. Gregory known this he would hardly have given him that name and it having a great many additions given to it by several Popes as is owned by their own Writers upon the Ordo Romanus * Walafrid Strabo de rebus Eccles c. 22. Micrologus de Ecclesiast Observat c. 12. Berno Augiensis c. 1. alii in Collectione Hittorpii yet it is no doubt much ancienter then their present Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass which is very near as late as the Council of Trent The first manner of celebrating the Communion was very plain and simple so that St. Gregory tells us The Apostles consecrated the host of oblation only with the Lords Prayer †Mos Apostolâ—rum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam conscerarent Gregorii Regist Epistol 64. l. 7. if they did so and used no other form in that sacred Office 't is certain they could not make a sacrifice of the Eucharist nor offer it as such to God because there are no words or expressions in that prayer whereby any such thing should be meant or signified so that this is a most authentick testimony against any such Apostolick practice but the present Canon Missae or Communion Office of the Roman Church does not fully come up to nor perfectly expresse or contain the present Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass there is no offering of Christs body and blood under the species of Bread and Wine in any formal words as might be expected in conformity to their Trent Doctrine nor is there any mention of Christs being there in his natural body or offered to God by the Priest as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead for sins for punishments and for other necessities Neither this nor their great Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained in their present office so that 't is to me a plain evidence of the novelty of both of them and that they are a great deal later then the Canon of the Mass there are several prayers indeed that make mention of a sacrifice and of an oblation but most of them and the most expresse of them are before consecration so that they plainly belong to those Gifts and Oblations which according to the Primitive custom were brought by the Communicants and which as I have shown were one great reason of the Eucharist's being called a sacrifice God is desired to accept and bless these gifts these presents these holy and pure sacrifices which we offer to thee for thy holy Catholick Church together with thy servant our Pope N. and our Bishop N. and for all the Orthodox and
destroyed by eating If it be they are true Cannibals or Capernaitical feeders that eat it I had thought that Christs body was not thus grosly to be broke by the Teeth or chewed by the jaws of the priest or Communicants so as to be destroyed by them The Gloss upon Berengarius his Recantation says this is a greater Heresie then his unless it be understood of the species and not of the body it self and they generally disown that Christs body is thus carnally eaten but only the Sacramental species but the species are not the sacrifice and therefore 't is not sufficient that they be destroyed but the sacrifice that is the body of Christ must be so Christs body as it is food is not a sacrifice but a Sacrament they make two distinct things of it as it is a sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament as it lies in the Pix or is carried to the sick it is food and a Sacrament but they will not allow it to be then a sacrifice and on Maunday Thursday it is eaten but not accounted a sacrifice †Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non censetur sacrificium Missae propriè celebrari licet vera hostia adsit frangatur consumatur Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 27. B. The Consumption then by eating belongs to it not as a sacrifice but a Sacrament and the body of Christ is not then consumed but only the species nay the body of Christ is not then consumed under the species for the real consumption belongs only to the species and not to the body of Christ which is no more truly consumed with them or under them then it is as sitting in heaven no more then a mans flesh is consumed when only his clothes or his mantle is tore tho he were in them What though it ceases to be really on the Altar and ceases to be a sensible food as he farther explains or rather intangles it Is Christs body ever a sensible food And is its ceasing to be upon the Altar a consumption of it Then Isaac was consumed when he was took off from the Altar on which Abraham had laid him and if his Father had been as subtle as our Roman Sophisters and Sacrificers he might only have covered him with the skin of the Ram and have consumed that as an external species by fire and so Isaac had been both sacrificed and consumed and destroyed too and yet have been as live as ever for all this Such absurdities do they run into when they will make their notion suit of a true sacrifice and that which is not one and a man of sense must yet destroy his sense one would think before he can talk at this rate They are most sadly nonplust and most extremely divided among themselves about the Essence of this their sacrifice of the Mass and wherein they should place the true sacrificial act whether in the Oblation of the Elements or in consecration of them whereby they suppose them turned into Christs Body and blood and so in the express Oblation of those to God or in the fraction and commistion of the consecrated Elements or in the manducation and consumption of them Suarez and Vasquez and others are for the last of all the Council of Trent seems to be for Oblation Bellarmine is for consecration whereby instead of Bread and Wine Christs Body and Blood are placed upon the Altar and ordered for consumption Melchior Canus is for all the four last and he tells us it is the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas †docuisse Thomam sacrificium ante fractionem hostiae esse peractum sumptionemque spectare propriè ad sacramentum oblationem verò ad sacrificium Can. Loc. Theol. l. 12. p. 833. that the sacrifice is performed before the fraction of the Elements and that the sumption of them belongs properly to the Sacrament the Oblation to the sacrifice so that they know not what to pitch upon to constitute it a sacrifice and if we examine them all we shall find no true proper sacrificial act in any of them the Oblation of the Elements before consecration can by no means make such a sacrifice as they design for that is but an offering of earthly things not of Christs body neither are they thereby changed or consumed and tho they are an offering they are not a proper sacrifice though in some sense they are a sacrifice and were accounted so by the Fathers as I have shown The Fraction of the Elements after they are consecrated which is done by the Priest not for distribution for they give them whole to the people but for another mystical reason this is not the formal Essence of the sacrifice for Christ they own did not break them in this manner at his last Supper when yet they will have him sacrifice and this is sometimes omitted by themselves neither is manducation for this is performed by the people as well as the priest when they communicate and sacrificing does not then belong to them nor is it ever their work but only the Priests and yet they then eat and consume the sacrament as well as the priest so that sacrificing cannot properly lye in this neither can it be proved that Christ did himself eat when he is supposed to sacrifice and besides both this fraction and manducation belongs only to the species they are the only proper subject of those actions but it is the Body and Blood of Christ that is sacrificed and not the species For this reason therefore consecration it self cannot well pass for the formal act of sacrificing for 't is the Bread is consecrated not Christs body 't is the bread only is changed by consecration that is supposed indeed to be destroyed when it is consecrated and if this be sacrificing it is sacrificing of nothing or at most 't is but sacrificing of bread which is a meaner sacrifice then many of the Jewish neither is this change of it visible and external but they will needs have the sacrificing action to be sensible and external or else the sacrifice will not be so and if it be only a spiritual and internal and mental offering up of Christs body and blood to God this is not proper sacrificing of it again but only by inward Faith and Devotion which we are very willing to allow But consecration must set Christs body upon the Altar and put it into the hands of the priest and then it must be visibly offered to God and visibly consumed and this is the true way of sacrificing it for Bellarmine takes in consumption as necessary together with consecration the oblation he owns is not verbal neither did Christ thus offer his Body and Blood at his last Supper but after he had blessed and brake the bread he gave it to his Disciples but placing this upon the Altar by the words of consecration is a real Oblation of it and then eating and consuming it there formally constitutes the sacrifice The
Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition seems to make the whole Essence of the sacrifice consist in Consecration alone without any manducation or destruction which Bellarmine makes absolutely necessary Christ he says is placed upon the holy Table clothed with those signs that represent his death in vertue of the words of consecration which are the spiritual sword that make a mystical separation betwixt the Body and the Blood. Now if Christ be thus only sacrificed mystically and by representation he is not sacrificed truly and properly nor is there any true and proper propitiation made hereby which is the true state of the Controversie between us Christ may be sacrificed representatively as Caesar may be slain in a Tragedy without being really present and if he were present and placed upon the Altar as they will needs have him yet he is no more sacrificed by the mystical representation then if Caesars Picture were stab'd and he were behind it unhurt I see no reason why Christs presence should be necessary to make such a mystical representative or commemorative sacrifice and if Christ were present I see not how he is more sacrificed then if he were absent So that they only confound their thoughts to make a proper sacrifice where there is none and when they have boasted of a true proper visible external sacrifice they know not where to find any such thing and it comes to no more at last then a meer commemorative and representative one or in plain words to a sacramental and Mystical representation and remembrance of a past sacrifice which there is neither any need nor any possibility of renewing Their differences about the proper sacrificial act whereby they do with good success destroy one anothers notions of it and so taken together destroy the thing it self these are the more considerable because 't is not the res sacrificii which makes the sacrifice though that were never so truly present but the sacrificing Act or the Actual sacrificing it for as Bellarmine says * Nam non res illa sed rei illius oblatio proprie est sacrificium sacrificium enim est a 〈◊〉 no◠res permanens Bellarm de Miss l. 2. c. 4. D. A sacrifice is an action not a permanent thing and 't is not the thing it self but the offering it is properly the sacrifice So that though Christs natural Body and Blood were never so much present in the Eucharist even according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self yet so long as there is no proper action there to sacrifice it or no sacrificing act it would signifie nothing to the making it a sacrifice 3. This Doctrine of the Mass makes a living body a sacrifice which requires it should be dead and yet at the same represents it dead when it supposes it present in a state of life which is as odd a jumble as making a man to be by at his own funeral and at the same time bringing in the person alive yet dressing up his picture to remember him dead and in the habit of death it self The Eucharist is to remember and represent Christ in a state of death his body and blood as separated from one another and the one broken and the other poured out and the words of consecration are the spiritual sword as the Bishop of Meaux calls them that are to do this and so to constitute the sacrifice but whilst this is a doing nay by the very doing this thing the same spiritual sword becomes a spiritual word and raises the same body living and sets it in that state upon the Altar so that by this means it destroys the sacrifice a great deal more then it made it before for it makes it be then truly living whereas it only represented it before as dead So that 't is at the same time a dead representative sacrifice and a living proper sacrifice which is in truth no sacrifice at all for a living sacrifice is just as much sense as a dead Animal that is 't is a contradiction and one of the Terms destroys the other If a Jewish Priest had knockt down the Oxe with one hand and raised him up with the other or restored him to life after he had slew him this would have made but a very odde sacrifice and to make Christ dead by the sacramental signs and to sacrifice him thus in Effigie and to make him alive again under the sacramental signs and so to sacrifice him truly this is a strange and unaccountable riddle I would ask whether the consecrated species of Bread and Wine by which Christs blood is shed mystically and death intervenes only by representation as the Bishop of Meaux phrases it whether these would make a real sacrifice without Christs living body under them if not 't is not this mystical representation of death makes the sacrifice Or whether Christs living body without those species and signs of his death would be a sacrifice If not then 't is not the placing that upon the Altar and so a real Oblation of it there makes the sacrifice and then what is it that does so Is it not very odd that the same person must be there seemingly dead and yet really alive at the same time to make up this sacrifice 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a very great Error and inconsistent with it self All our Religious Duties and all our vertuous actions may in a large and improper sense be said to be propitiatory as they are said also in Scripture to be sacrifices for no doubt but they make God kind and propitious to us and incline him to have Mercy upon us and the blessed Eucharist as it exhibits to us all the graces and benefits which Christ hath by his death purchased for us whereof Pardon and Remission of fin which is hereby sealed to us is a very great one so far may be called propitiatory and it may be instituted for the Remission of sin so far as it is to apply to us the vertue of Christs body and blood and make us partakers of his sacrifice upon the Cross but this it may do as it is a Sacrament without being any sacrifice much less without being a propitiatory one as the Council of Trent hath determined it to be truly propitiatory (b,) Vere propitiatorium esse hujus quippe oblatione placatus Dominus Concil Trident. Sest 6. c. 2. by the oblation of which God is appeased and this in opposition to a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving (c.) Si quis dixerit Missaesacrificium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis non autem propitiatorium Ib. Can. 3. Now as it is a sacrifice of Praise and spiritual Devotion it is no doubt in the Bishop of Meaux's words acceptable to God and makes him look upon us with a more propitious eye (d,) Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church p. 35. Is this then all the meaning of its being propitiatory Did ever any Protestant deny it
and as serves only for their purpose If the sacrifice and oblation be the same it ought to be without doubt of the same infinite value with that upon the Cross and though it be very bold and precarious to guesse at Christs will without some declaration of it from himself yet I cannot see how it was possible that it should be Christs will to have it the same sacrifice and yet not have the same vertue which is as if a Physician should have an Universal Medicine that by once taking would certainly cure all Diseases whatever and yet should for some reasons so order the matter that the very same Medicine should if he pleased have only a limited vertue cure but one Disease at a time or only some lesser smaller illnesses and that even for those it must be often taken This would certainly bring a suspicion either upon his Medicine or himself and no body but would doubt either that it had not such a vertue in it at first or that it was not the same afterwards nor made truly by him as he pretended 8. They make the Priest in the Mass-sacrifice to do all in the name of Christ and to act as his Agent and Deputy and so they say 't is the same Priest who offers as well as the same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross and that he pronounces those words of Consecration This is my Body in Christs name not by an Historical reciting of them but as speaking authoritatively in the Person of Christ himself and that this makes the Sacrifice great and valuable as it is thus offered to God by Christ himself I ask then whether all the sacrificial Acts in the Mass are performed by Christ Does Christ consecrate his own Body for Consecration is the most principal part of the sacrificing Action if not the whole of it or if as some think the Consumption of the Sacrifice is the great thing that makes it perfect and consummate I ask whether Christ does then eat his own Body every Mass when it is eaten by the Priest If as Bellarmine owns the Consumption of the Sacrifice be absolutely necessary to make a sacrificial Oblation and the true Offerer be Christ himself as the Council of Trent says then Christ himself must consume the sacrifice that is he must eat his own body Bellarmine is really pincht with this difficulty and he hath so wisely managed the matter that as he brought himself into this streight so he knows not how to get out of it but he is forced to confess †Tamen ipse dici potest consumere sacramentum Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 27. That Christ may in some sense be said to consume the Sacrament i. e. himself for 't is Christs body and blood is the Sacrament and not the species at least not without those We always thought it a prodigious if not a horrid thing for another to consume Christs real body but now for Christ himself to be made to do this is to expose Christ shall I say or themselves or that cause which is driven to these Absurdities and which can never avoid them whilest it makes the Mass a true sacrifice and Christ himself the offerer of it 9. The Offering this Sacrifice to redeem souls out of Purgatory as it is made one of the greatest ends and uses of this Sacrifice of the Mass so is one of the greatest Errors and Abuses that belong to it for besides that it contains in it all the foregoing Errors and Absurdities of its being a proper Sacrifice and so benefitting those who do not at all receive it as a Sacrament and being properly propitiatory at least for lesser sins and for the temporal pains that they suppose due to greater sins after they are forgiven which is another cluster of Errors that grows likewise to this Doctrine though it belongs to another place to consider them I say besides all those Errors it takes in also the groundless and uncomfortable and erronious opinion of Purgatory whereby a great many departed Souls are supposed to be in a sad state of extream pain and torment till they are delivered from it by these Masses and sacrifices which are offered for them to that purpose And this is indeed the great advantage of them I mean to the Priests that offer them who hereby make Merchandize not only of the Souls of Men but of Christs Body and Blood and are made by this sacrifice a sort of Mony-changers in the Temple and instead of Doves sell Christ himself and the souls in Purgatory are redeemed out of it by such corruptible things as Silver and Gold which are to purchase Masses that is Christs body and bloud at a certain price This is a most horrible abuse of Christianity which exposes it to infinite scandal and reproach the selling of Masses and Indulgences is so visible a blot in Popery that though nothing has more enriched yet nothing has more shamed it then these have done both those have relation to Purgatory which is an unknown Countrey in the other World that hath given rise to those two profitable Trades and to all that spiritual Traffic that is carried on by it A Late excellent discourse has so fully considered that subject that I am no further to meddle with it here then as the sacrifice of the Mass is concerned in it Our Adversaries most plausible and specious pretence for both those Doctrines is taken from the antient custom of oblations for the Dead which cannot be denyed to be of great antiquity and general use even very near the beginnings of Christianity and to have had a long continuance in the Christian Church Tertullian mentions them as made on every Anniversary of their birth †Oblationes pro defunctis pronatalitiis annuâ die facimus Tertul. de Corona militis c. 3. i. e. on the day wherein they died to this World and were born into immortality St. Cyprian speaks of them as so generally used for all persons that it was made the punishment of him who should leave a Clergyman his Executor and so take him off from his sacred employment to secular Troubles and Affairs that (a) Ac siquis hoc fecisset non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebraretur Cyprian Epist l. 1. Edit Ox. no offering should be made for him neither should any sacrifice be celebrated for his departure (b) Episcopi antecessores nostri religiosè considerantes salubriter providentes censuerunt nequis frater excedens adtutelam vel curam Clericum nominaret c. Ib. Contra formam nuper in Concilio a Sacerdotibus datam and this was an Order he sayes made by former Bishops in Council and therefore he commands that Geminius Victor who had made Geminius Faustinus Tutor to his Will or his Executor (d) Non est quod pro dormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio aut deprecatio aliqua nomine ejus