the Body and Wine into the Blood of Christ he would think to escape by allowing a change to be made but only in the Act of worthy receiving Therefore I will onely make use of such Authorities as demonstrate this change to be made before communicating that it remains when the Sacrament is reserved and that immediately after consecration before any participation of the Symbols both the Priest and People did perform an act of Adoration to Christ beleived to be really and substantially though mystically present 10. In all ancient Liturgies as Blondel himself though a Huguenot confesses the prayer in the consecration of the Elements was That God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. And that before communicating whilst it was on the Altar it was esteem'd and worshiped as the true Body of our Lord St. Chrysostome will witnesse Let us saith he who are Citizens of Heaven imitate but even the barbarous Magi who worshipped our Lord an Infant c. Thou seest him not in the Manger but on the Altar Thou dost not see a woman holding him but the Priest standing by him and the Spirit with great vertue hovering over these Mysteries proposed Thou not only seest the Body it self as the Magi did but thou knowest also the vertue of it c. The same Body which is the most precious and most honour'd thing in Heaven I will shew thee placed upon Earth c. Neither dost thou only see it but touchest and eatest it and having received it thou returnest home with it c. Hence Optatus saith What other thing is the Altar but the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ. A yet more irrefragable witnesse hereof is the General Council of Nice wherein Act. l. 3. c. de Divinâ mensâ are these words In this Divine Table let us not abase our intentions so as to consider the Bread and Wine set before us but raising up our mind by Faith let us understand that upon that holy Table is placed the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the World which is unbloodily immolated by the Priest and receiving his precious Body and Blood let us truly believe that these are the Symbols of our Redemption And that the Elements once consecrated and after reserved yet remain the Body of Christ though not participated St. Cyril of Alexandria expresly â—ectifies I hear saith he there are others who affirm that the Mystical Eulogy if any thing of it remain till another day doth profit nothing to sanctification Bur they are mad who say these things For Christ is not alter'd neither is his holy Body changed but the vertue of Benediction and quickning grace perpetually remains in it And as touching Adâ—ration of our Lord as acknowledged substantially present on the Altar St. Ambrose expresly asserts it Adore the foot-stool of his feet Therefore by the footstool is understood the Earth and the Earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the Mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus And from St. Ambrose the same is taught as expresly by St. Augustin discoursing on the same Text Adorate Scabellum pedum ejus Who moreover adds Christ hath given his flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation Now no man eats this except he first adore it Yea moreover he saies We do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it And in an Epistle to Honoratus he affirms That the rich of the Earth and proud are somtimes brought to the Table of our Lord and there receive of his Body and Blood but they onely adore it they are not satiated with it because they do not imitate him by humility For of the humble it is said Edent pauperes saturabuntur 11. The same may be inferr'd by the wonderfull niceness and scrupolosity observed in the Primitive Church in the handling communicating and reserving these Mysteries what a crime was it esteem'd in the Primitive times if but a crum or drop of the consecrated Elements should fall to the ground For fear of that till about the year six hundred they were received by the Communicants not in their Fingers as among the Reformed but in the inside plain of their hands and in a silver Pipe c. But I will conclude this point with a brief Answer to the Doctors Allegations 12. Whereas therefore he says It is evident that Transubstantiation waâ— never taught by our Saviour since in the same breath wherewith he pronounced these words This is my Blood he explain'd himself by calling it expresly the Fruit of the Vine On the contrary I do confidently pronounce it to be evident that those words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice nor had they any regard to the Sacrament 'T is true they are mentioned by St. Matthew after the Consecration but he knows that in St. Luke who promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words are mentioned before any Consecration began and the occasion of them is evidently the eating of the Paschal Supper c. For this is his Narration When the hour was come he sate down and the twelve Apostles with him And he said unto them with desire I have desired to eat this Passeover with you before I suffer For I say unto you I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfill'd in the kingdom of God And he took the Cup and gave thanks and said Take this and divide it among your selves For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine until the kingdom of God shall come Now after all this follows his own last Supper the Mystical consecration and communion of his blessed Body and Blood For the Text thus continues And he took Bread saying This is my Body c. likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup c. This being the order of the words no Text can possibly with more evidence conâ—ute the Doctor than this which himself cites for what can be clearer if before Consecration our Saviour said He would drink no â—ore of the fruit of the Vine then that what he drank after was not of the fruit of the Vine But besides this though our Lord should have called it after Consecration the fruit of the Vine as Saint Paul calls the other Symbol Bread this does not argue against a Change in their nature For Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent is call'd a Rod still because it had been one Exod. 7. 12. and Io. 2. 9. it is said That the Master of the Feast tasted the Water that was made Wine 13. Is not now the Doctor 's Insincerity evident his insincerity even in the Pulpit has he not palpably mis-inform'd his Majesty and so illustrious
those Anathema's lawfull were they valid Or will he say those first Councils to which he professes assent usurped an Authority in this not of right belonging to them If those Anathema's were valid then the Councils had a just authority to oblige Christians to an internal belief of verities declared by them as the sence of Divine Revelation and this under the penalties of being separated from Christ And can any Authority but such as is infallible lay such an obligation upon Consciences under such a penalty But if those Anathema's were illegal and invalid then were the Fathers both of those Councils and of All others who still followed the same method not only impostors but most execrable Tyrants over the Souls of men 15. These Deductions surely are more effectual to demonstrate the Churches infallibility than any of his Quotations can be against it Here we have expresse Scripture and universal consent of Antiquity Nay here we have the concession of the more judicious Writers of the Church of England at least before their late restitution who seem to agree that in the Controversies between our Church and theirs they would certainly submit to a future lawful General Council Now could they lawfully make such a Promise and think such a Council could misguide them Therefore truly I cannot have the uncivility to judge that when one of your 39. Articles declares that some General Councils have err'd the meaning should be â— that any legal legitimate General Council has err'd but only som Councils that som Roman Catholics esteem to be General concerning which the Church of England is of another opinion And if this be the meaning the breach made by it may be curable 16. Now whereas the Doctor alleages as against this Point the concession of Baronius c. that Novatianism was hatch'd and continued two hundred years at Rome I cannot devise how to frame an Objection out of it Can no Church be Orthodox if Heretics rise and continue in the same City Is the English Church a Quaking Church because Quakers first began and still encrease at London As for Novatians at Rome he cannot deny but they were so far from being Members of the Roman Church that they were continually esteem'd Heretics and condemned by it 17. The like we say touching the Donatists Indeed his objecting the Arians has more appearance of reason and sense Ingemuit orbis c. The world says St. Hierom sadly groaned and was astonished to see it self on a sudden becom Arian that is after the Council of â—riminum But how was it Arian if it groaned c. for it could not be really Arian against its will But St. Hierom uses this expression because the great Council of Ariminum had seem'd to favour the Arian party against the Catholics And true it was that Catholic Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banish'd But not one of them chang'd their Profession of the Nicene Faith unlesse you will accuse Pope Liberius who for a while dissembled it and presently repented Besides the Canons at first made in that Council were perfectly Orthodox but afterwards by the Emperors Tyranny and subtilty of two or three Arian Bishops a Creed was composed wherein though the Nicene Faith was not sufficiently expressed Yet there was not one Article perfectly Arian but capable of a good sense to which may Catholic Bishops out of fear subscribed yet to nothing but what in their sense was true though defective in delivering all the truth but presently after being at liberty both themselves and all the rest renounced And after all there remained but three years of persecution for after that time the Arian Emperour Constantius dyed 18. Next concerning the objected Heresy of the Millenaries It is very unjust and a great irreverence in him to charge upon the Primitive Church the sayings of two Fathers and though one of them says All that were purely Orthodox that is such as he esteemed so because they were of his Opinion held that Doctrinâ— yet he thereby shews that his own Opinion was not universally embraced by the Church But the truth is there was a double Millenary opinion the one that interpreted the reign of Martyrs with Christ for a thousand years in base sensual pleasures banquets and women This was the Doctrine of the unclean Heretick Cerinthus as Eusebius and St. Augustin relate Against this St. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria wrote an elegant Book as St. Hierom affirms And it is most deservedly detested by the Church But there was another Opinion that the Martyrs should reign a thousand years with Christ in all Spiritual delights and ravishing consolation in a blessed conversing with him And this Opinion might not unbecom Papias St. Ireneus and St. Iustin Martyr For St. Augustin and St. Hierom both professe themselves unwilling to censure it neither can the Doctor I believe shew that it was ever condemned by the Church 18. To his last Objection touching the communicating of Infants it is granted that in St. Augustin and Pope Innocent's time and many years after such was the common practice of the Church to communicate them Sacramentally but withal take notice it was onely in one species Again it is confessed that from that Text Nisi mandâ—caveritis carnem c. St. Augustin c. argue a necessity that Infants should participate of the flesh and blood of our Lord but this not Sacramentally but Spiritually by such a participation as may be had in Baptism This appears first From the constant Doctrine of St. Augustin c. the whole Church affirming that Baptism alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants 2. From his interpreting his own meaning in a Sermon quoted by St. Beda and Gratina His words are these None ought by any waies to doubt but that every Christian by being made a Member of Christ in Baptism thereby becomes partaker of the Boâ—y and Blood of our Lord and that he is not estranged from a Communion of that Bread and Chalice though being setled in the Vnity of Christs Body he should depart out of this World before he really eat of that Bread and drink of that Chalice For he is not deprived of the participation and benefit of the Sacrament whensoever that is found in him which is signified by the Sacrament 19. That therefore which the Church since and particularly the Council of Trent alter'd in this matter was nothing at all touching Belief For all Catholicks this day believe St. Augustin's Doctrine in that Point but onely an external practise of the Church And this was done out of a wonderful reverence to those Holy Mysteries which by frâ—quent Communions of Infants could not escape many irreverences and inconveniencies And many such Alterations even the English Church observes and justifies both in the administring of the Eucharist and Baptism too To conclude this matter For a further proof that these two instances about the Millenaâ—y Belief and Infant
mercifully than their sins deserve not to be doubted For this the universal Church observes as a Tradition of our Fathers that for those who are dead in the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord Prayers should be made when at the holy Sacrifice their Names are in their due place rehearsed and that it should be signified that the Offering is made for them And when out of an intention of commending them to Gods mercy works of Charity and Alms are made who will doubt that these things help towards their good for whom Prayers are not in vain offered to God It is not therefore to be doubted but that these things are profitable for the Dead yet only such as before their death have lived so as that these things may profit them after Death And again For Martyrs the Sacrifice is offered as a thanksgiving and for others as a propitiation 14. The Doctor cannot but know in his Conscience for he is no Stranger to the Fathers what a great Volume may be written to confirm this And that not one expression can be quoted against it Therefore whereas he said without any ground that Tertullian borrowed from Montanus I would ask him From whom did he borrow the omission of this charitable duty to the Dead but from the Heretie Aerius Nor is this to be considered as a voluntary courtesie don them which without any fault may be omited On the contrary St. Epiphanius will tell him the Church does these things necessarily having received such a Tradition from the Fathers And St. Augustin we must by no means omit necessary Supplications for the Souls of the Dead For whether the Flesh of the dead Person lye here or in another place repose ought to be obtained to his Spirit 15. If these Souls were believ'd to be in Heaven would it not be ridiculous If in Hell would it not be impious to offer the dreadful Sacrifice to make Supplications to be at charge in Alms for the obtaining them repose pardon of their sins refreshment of their sufferings a translation into the region of Light and peace and a place in the bosom of Abraham But if they be neither in Heaven nor Hell where are they then He cannot deny a third place unless he thinks them anihilated He will not say that third place is Purgatory because the Church calls it so But suppose the Church dispence with him for the Name I would to God he would accept of such a dispensation one pretence of Schism would quickly be removed 16. To conclude If all the Liturgies of the Church all the Fathers have not credit enough with him to perswade that this is no Novelty yet greater Antiquity for it he may find in the Iewish Church an expresse Testimony for which we read in the Book of Macchabees He will say it is not Canonical at least let him acknowledge it not to be a Romance and however the universal Tradition and practise of the Synagogue will justifie it From the Jews no doubt Plato borrowed this Doctrin and from Plato Cicero and from both Virgil. Nay even natural reason will tell him that Heaven into which no unclean thing can enter is not so quickly and easily open to imperfect Souls as to perfect nor have we any sign that meerly by dying sinful livers becom immediatly perfect 17. To fill his learned Margins he quotes certain Contradictors of Bellarmin as the Bishop of Rochester Polydor Virgil Suarez and Thomas ex Albiis but since both Bellarmin himself and all his Contradictors agree with the Church in contradiction to the Preacher that there is a Purgatory what other inducement could he have to mention them unlesse it were that his Readers might see what his Hearers could not that he was resolved to pretend but was not able indeed to produce any thing to purpose against the Catholic Church CHAP. XI Of Transubstantiation or a Substantial Presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament Iustified by the Authorities of the Fathers c. The Preacher's Objections Answer'd 1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament That blessed Mystery which was instituted to be both a Symbal and instrument to signifie and to operate Vnity is by the cunning of the Devil and malicious folly of men becom both the work and cause of Dis-union 2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transubstantiation So far from being from the beginning that it is not much above four hundred years old that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran For in Pope Nicholas the Second's time the submission of Berengarius imports rather a Con then Transubstantiation But evident it is That it was never taught by our Saviour since he in the same breath wherewith he pronounced This is my Blood explain'd himself by calling it expresly the fruit of the Vins and there needs no more to make the Romanists ashamed of that Doctrin than the concession of Aquinas who says That it is impossible for one body to be locally in more places than one From whence Bellarmin angrily infers that it equally implies a Contradiction for one body to be so much as Sacramentally in more places than one 3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter I will as before set down the Churches Doctrin concerning this most holy Sacrament which will extend it self to all his three pretended Novelties In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv out of the Council of Trent it is said I profess that in the Masse there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead And that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly and Substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ and that there is a Conversion or Change of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body and of Wine into his Blood which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation Moreover I confess that under one of the Species alone whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received 4. And if he will needs have it so let it be granted that the Latin word Transubstantiation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran Though there was a Greek expression exactly importing as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as old as his Beginning that is in the time of the first General Council But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did the Arians He may observe with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says the change made in the holy Sacrament is usually called Transubstantiation So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change the word it self shall not hinder us from being good Friends 5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
an Auditory And though he should still continue to prefer St. Matthews order of Narration before St. Lukes yet what St. Luke writes cannot possibly be applyed to the Sacrament For though those special words I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill c. if they stood alone might seem applicable to the consecrated Chalice yet those other of Saint Luke I will not any more eat of this Passâ—over untill c. cannot possibly be applyed to the consecrated Element of Bread and therefore since both these Sayings were manifestly intended of the same Subject It is more than evident they were meant only of the Paschal Supper and not at all of the Sacrament 14. As for Bellarmins quarrel with St. Thomas his affirming that one Body cannot be locally in two places and his revengeful inference that neither then caâ— they be Sacramentally All I will say hereto shall be that if there be any quarrel on Bellarmins part which truly I do not find to be such but may very friendly be composed Yet however since it is only about a Scholastical Notion of Locality Circumscription c. and it is apparent that both these Doctors held a true Substantial presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament as the Church teaches I will not by troubling my self about composing the matter between them invite the Doctor hereafter to unnecessary excursions It is only the Churches Doctrin that I engage my self to justifie 15. In the last place touching Berin arius his submission if the Form were the same mentioned in the Doctors Margin from Floriacensis there is nothing appears in it favouring Consubstantiation Certainly it was sufficient if he spoke sincerely to acquit him from any suspition of holding onely a Figurative Presence of Christ's Body and that onely was his businesse As for his Expressions that Our Lords Body not onely in Mystery but Truth is handled broken and chawed with the teeth of Faithful Communicants unlesse they be understood Sacramentally they are far from being justifiable And so are all the Capharnaitical Objections that Protestants make against Catholic Doctrine in this matter VVe acknowledge more than a Spiritual an Oral Manducatian but without any Suffering or Change in the Divine Body it self VVe acknowledge it is Nourishment to us but not after a Carnal manner Christ is not changed by Digestion into our Bodyes yet sanctifies even our Bodies also as well as our Souls Because in Saint Gregory Nyssen his Expression Insinuating it self into our Bodies by an union with our Lord 's Immortal Body We are made Partakers of Immortality CHAP. XII Of Communion under one Species-Confirm'd by the practise of the Primitive Church in private Communions The Preachers Objections solved 1. HIS fifth pretended Novelty imputed to the Catholic Church is Communion under one Species no older saies he then since the time of Aquinas unlesse they will own it from the Manichees But we find our Saviour intended the Chalice to every guest Drink all of this saies he And St. Paul speaks as well of drinking the Mystical Blood as eating the Body of Christ. 2. To the substance of what is here alleged we readily subscribe We acknowledg our Saviour instituted this Mystery in both kinds That the Apostles received it in both kinds That St. Paul speaks as well of drinking c. That most commonly in the Church till a little before the times of Aquinas in the public Celebration of these Mysteries the people communicated in both kinds All this we agree to 3. But the general Tradition of the Church at least from his beginning will not permit us to yield that the receiving in both kinds was esteem'd by the Church necessary to the essence of the Communion or integrity of the participation of Christs Body and Blood or that it is fitly called by him a half Communion when deliver'd and receiv'd only in one kind On the contrary we appeal to Dr. Pierces own Conscience whether if we should yield this we should not be overwhelm'd with the Depositions of the most ancient Fathers against us As evidently appears in Communions anciently practised under one kind only and this upon many occasions As during the times of persecution in Domestic Communions mention'd by Tertullian St. Cyprian and others in which the holy Eucharist was deliver'd to the Faithful under the species of Bread alone and by them carried home to be reverently participated by them according to their particular Devotions The same was practised in communicating Infants or innocent Children of more years witnesse besides the said Fathers the practise of the Church of Constantinople mentioned by Nicephorus In communicating the Sick and Penitents at the point of death In communions at Sea In communions sent to other Provinces c. 4. In all these Cases the Communicants were esteem'd to be partakers of â—ntire Christ nor did they think they received more of him at publick Communions in the Church when the Sacrament was delivered in both species then when at home in one only They believed it was Christ entire which they received in every divided particle of the species of Bread and every divided drop of the species of Wine and that the flesh of Christ could not be participated without a concomitance of his Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh nor either of them without a concomitance of his Soul and Divinity Hence St. Ambrose Christ is in that Sacrament because it is the Body of Christ. And the Council if Ephesus That those who approach to the Mystical Benedictions do participate the Flesh of Christ not as common meer Flesh but truly quickning Flesh. And St. Augustin That Christ ferebatur in manibus suis did carry himself in his own hands and this in a litteral sense And St. Cyril of Alexandria says By the unparted Garment of Christ was mystically signified that the four parts of the world being brought to salvation by the Gospel did divide among themselves his Flesh without dividing it For says he the only begotten Son of God passing into and by his Flesh sanctifying the Soul â—nd Body of each of them severally and in particular is in each of them entirely and undividedly being every where one and in no sort divided 5 These things thus premised which are certain Truths and cannot by the Preacher be deny'd since he will needs make a quarrel with the Catholic Church upon this Subject he must necessarily take upon him to demonstrate 1. Either that these Communions under one species allowed and practised on so many occasions in the Primitive times were half Communions sacrilegious Transgressions of the Institution of our Lord contrary to the teaching of St. Paul conspiring with the Heresie of the Manichees c. And doing so he will contradict himself whilst he pretends half Communions to be a Novelty since their times 2. Or if these Practises were justifiable and that
the Church had warrant and authority to do as she did he must prove that such an Authority could be extended only to private Persons or Fanilies and by no means to publick Congregations That the same was a whole Communion in a Chamber and but a half Communion in a Church That a sick man or one at Sea c. broke not the institution of Christ whilst he communicated under one kind but did break it when he was in health or upon firm ground 6. Till these things be proved by him which will be ad Graecas Calindas he must of necessity grant that here is no Noveâ—ty at all no change in the present Catholic â—hurch as to Doctrin And that the change which is made in external Disciplin is of so great importance that Protestants who would not have separated from her Communion if she had given them leave to break our Saviours Institution only privatly will renounce her because she thinks and knows that a privat House and a Church cannot make the same action both lawful and unlawful and therfore since she had authority within doors she cannot be deprived of it abroad 7. Nay further Doctor Pierce's task does not end here for though he should be able to prove all this yet if this be one of the provocations and causes of their separation he cannot justifie that separation till they have made a tryal whether the Church will not dispence with them as to this point of Discipline and after tryal been refused For surely he will not esteem Schism a matter so inconsiderable as to expose themselves to the guilt of it because others besides them are obliged and content to receive under one species whilst themselves are left at liberty They will not unnecessarily make tumults and divisions in the Church by disputing against others when they themselves are not concern'd Now that such a dispensation may possibly be had does appear in that the Church by a General Council hath either given to or acknowledged in her Supreme Pastor a sufficient authority to proceed in this matter according to his own prudence and as he shall see it to be prâ—fitable to the Church and for the spiritual good of those that shall demand the use of the Chalice 8. As for us Catholics we are bread up to the Orders established by Gods Church And being assured that our Lord will not forget his Promises and consequently his Church shall never mislead us to our danger we do not think it our duty to question the Churches prudence or set up a private Tribunal to censure her Lawes We are not sure we know all the Reasons that induced the Council of Constance to confirm a practise almost generally introduced by custome before Yet some Reasons we see which truly are of very great moment for that purpose to wit the wonderful encrease of the numbers of Communicants and wonderful decay of their Devotion From whence could not be prevented very great dangers of irreverences and effusion oft-times of the precious blood of our Lord considering the defect of providence and caution to be expected in multitudes little sensible of Religion It is probable likewise that the Heresie of Berengarius who acknowledged no more in the Sacrament than the meer signs of the body and blood of our Lord might induce the Catholics publickly to practise what the Primitive Church did privatly to the end they might thereby demonstrate that though they received not both the Signs yet they were not defrauded of being partakers of all that was entirely contained under both the Species which was whole Christ not his body only but also his blood c. CHAP. XIII Of the Sacrifice of the Masse Asserted Universally by Antiquity The true Doctrine concerning it explained 1. HIS sixth supposed Novelty which is the third that regards the blessed Sacrament is the Sacrafice of the Masse But how is this prov'd to be a Novelty Ipse dixit Not one Text not one Quotation appears in the Margin and why Alas where should he find any Since there 's not a Father in Gods Church from the very Apostles but acknowledged a Christian Sacrifice nor any old Heretick ever denyed it Nay who besides himself calls it a Noveltie I am sure Dr. Fulk expresly confesseth that Teâ—tullian Cyprian Austin Hierom and a great many more do witnesse that Sacrifice yea Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles And Mr. Ascham acknowledges that the Sacrifice of the Masse is so antient that no first beginning of it can be shewed Yet Dr. Pierce would fain have proved it to be a Novelty Gladly would he have applyed to this his From the beginning it was not so But could not find one Word in Antiquitie for his purpose However for all that it must not be omitted His Auditors would have wonderd to hear the Church accused and the clause touching the Sacrifice left out of the Indictment 2. To please therefore popular ears he named it as an ill thing But coming to print his Sermon he leaves that Margin empty For what could be in the Fathers to fill it It was not for his purpose to quote St. Ignatius's saying It is not lawful either to offer or to immolate the Sacrifice or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop Which say the Centurists are dangerous words and seeds of Errors Or St. Ireneus who tells us that our Lord consecrating the Mystical Elements Taught us a New Oblation of the New Testament which the Church having received from the Apostles offers to God through the whole World Or St. Cyprian whose words are Who was more a Priest of the most High God then our Lord Iesus Christ Who offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and offred the very same that Melchisedech had offred that is Bread and Wine to wit his own Body and Blood c. and commanded the same to be afterward done in memory of him That Priest therefore doth truly supply the place and function of Christ and imitates that which Christ did who undertakes to offer according as he sees Christ himself offerd In which one Epistle he calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice seven times and above twenty times he affirms that the Symbols are offred in it 3. The truth is in the writings of Antiquity the celebration of these Mysteries is scarce ever call'd by other name but Oblation Sacrifice Immolation c. And because the Fathers may be said to speak figuratively and rhetorically the Canons also of the Church which ought to speak properly scarce ever use any other expression See the third among the Apostolic Canons The 58 th Canon of the Council of Laodicea The 20 th Canon of the first Council of Aâ—les The 40 th Canon of the Council of Cartâ—age And the 18 th Canon of the first General Coâ—ucil of Nice in which are these words The Holy Synod is inform'd that in some places Deacons administer the Euâ—harist to Priests