and leave it to the Church of Rome to draw Gods example his sometime inflicting punishment after forgiveness to their own advantage and make a General Rule of it for themselves to practise by CHAP. VII Of the Real Presence THis Controversy about the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist the Romanists we finde State of the Controversy had rather dispute under the Title of Real presence then of Transubstantiation Whereas First I do not observe that the Ancients expressed the being of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist by the word presence but rather by affirming it to be his body blood And in the time of Bertram's Pascasius and so down to Berengarius the question was how it is his body and this more consonant to Scripture exprestion This is my body this is my blood Secondly Seeing we admit the old saying praesentiam credimus modum nescimus We believe the presence know not the mode or manner it is needless for them to dispute about the presence unless they adde the mode which they have defined Transubstantiation For the Arguments that make against Transubstantiation conclude also though not against all real presence yet against theirs Their Council also having defined in the first Canon that the body and blood of Christ are really and substantially contained in the Eucharist which speaks a presence does in the next Canon define that which concerns the mode the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine together with the body and blood of our Lord. Durand proves the remaining of the substances of Bread and Wine In 4. sent dist 11. qu. 1. together with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be possible and albeit he adheres to the way of Transubstantiation yet he grants that other way to be pressed with fewer difficulties It is indeed most evident that he who denies Transubstantiation does not therefore deny a Real presence nor does the remaining of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament exclude the real presence or communication of the body and blood of Christ but cleares it of many Difficulties and needless miracles which must accompany the way of Transubstantiation and makes a fairer interpretation of the words This is my body This is my blood According to S. Pauls explication The bread which we break is communion of c. 1 Cor. 10. to let us understand where there is a due participation of this Bread broken and this Cup blessed there is a real participation of the body and blood of our Saviour Let the Romanists take away their mode of Transubstantiation which as we shall see by the following discourse is pressed with so many difficulties infers so many inconveniencies and we will not quarrel with them about a Real presence or participation of Christs Body and Blood believing such a one is afforded as is fitting and necessary to all the ends and purposes of the Sacrament Now for the Arguments of Protestants which equally serve against Transubstantiation and against their Real presence Mr. Spencer sets them down in this order with his answers to them The first is from the contexture of the words That the substance of Fread remains as we have them in three Evangelists and in S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. that Jesus took bread blessed it brake and gave to his Disciples which shews plainly he brake and gave what he took and blessed true bread not the species only His Answer is a denial that our Saviour gave what he took and blessed the same substance of bread and for a pretence of this denial he complains of our translation or addition of the word it to blessed brake and gave which is not in the Original Greek nor the Latine and upon this silly exception makes an invective against the cunning which Protestants use in their Translations pa. 194 195. But he that knows any thing in those languages Greek and Latine finds they are not forced to repeat the pronoun it as our English is in which there would be else but an imperfect sense and when it is not expressed in the other Languages it must be implied to give a subject to those transitive verbs blessed brake gave And if to make the sense perfect we ask what did he bless break and give the subject first mentioned still must be meant unless the change be expressed in the story or made evident to the sense this rule he must grant or else nothing can be certain in such contextures of Scripture-language It is said 2 Sam. 23.16 They drew water and took and brought to David So the Greek Latine and Hebrew the English renders took it and brought it Will he say this is a fraud and falsification as he complains here But that he may see and acknowledge how answerable the manner of speech in the one is to the other It follows David said of it or of that Water is not this the blood of these men answerable to these sacramental speeches of the Text in hand but of this manner of speech more hereafter The second part of his answer is by denying the Consequence A Rule to be observed in change of substanâ—â—s therefore he gave the same in substance which he took the bread which he took being changed as he will have it into his body which he gave as when in Gallilee the Water was turned into Wine it could not be thence proved that as the servants filled the Vessels with natural Water so they drew and carried and the Master of the feast drank natural water But this is answered by the Rule above The subject first mentioned must still be meant unless the change be expressed in the story or made evident to sense Now we have it not either in the story of the institution of this Sacrament or elsehwere expressed that our Saviour would or did change the very bread into his very body neither doth the effect or change sensibly appear therefore it must follow that what he took and blessed the same also for substance he gave As for those words this is my body they do not expresly speak a substantial change but more sutable to the purpose of the Sacrament admit another meaning like as Davids speech above mentioned did and many other such figurative speeches in Scripture do And for his instance of the Water turned into Wine Joh. 2. the story expresly speaks and the senses evidently shewed then there was a change and therefore though it follows not as to that story they filled water therefore they drew and carried and drank water yet here it does follow that as he took bread and blessed it so he brake bread and gave it when neither the story nor the sense shewed such a change of the subject The Second objection which he pretends Protestants do make Of breaking the bread which proves substance remaining is of his own framing and so may easily be answered by him But thus I may object what he cannot answer What our Saviour
body and into Christs blood which were exislent before So that whereas he infers so bold are Protestants in restraining the omnipotency of God to defend their own groundless phantasies pa. 207. We may more justly say so bold are Romanists in obliging Gods omnipotency without any signification of his will to work miracles to make good their phansies yea such miracles as they can give no examples or instances for nor any indication in the story that he did or would engage his omnipotency to work such a miraculous chang The Instances he brings for like manner of speech His pretended Instances for the word This to denote a thing future wherein the word this speaks the thing not present but about to be come not home to the purpose as This is my commandment that ye love This is a circle when but part of it drawn and this is fire speaking of flax kindled as those words are pronounced p. 208 209. The first instance is of words to be spoken as the subject of this and do to any mans apprehension refer necessarily to the future or that which follows in speech but the case is quite different when there is a visible substance as bread taken and held up while the pronoun demonstrative this is pronounced and must in any mans apprehension point it out The other two instances are of successive Mutations and visible Of which after begun it is intelligible if said this is a Circle For he that hears the words and sees the thing knows what it means but the change or mutation they suppose made and signified by these words this is my body is instantaneous and invisible which is not begun when the words are begun but accomplisht in a moment when they are fully spoken and cannot have truth in proper speech till then nor that truth be understood till the supposed change become visible or be expresly affirmed to be done If they can shew this of their change they contend for by those words then we shall understand and believe it true and then we wall admit the sense he gives of the words pa. 211. This which I am to give you and which ye are presently to eate is my body but till he can shew us express declaration of such a change or evidence of sight for it he must give us leave to think the sense Saint Paul puts upon those words This is my body by saying The bread that is this bread which we break is the Communion of my body far better and sitter to rest on Whereas pa. 213. he commends the ingenuous profession Ingenuity of Protestants in this point and good disposition of the Protestant that acknowledging bread remaining yet believes it to be the body of Christ because he has said this is my body though he cannot comprehend how this may be it is the profession of all true Protestants And there would be no question made of the Presence if the Romanists would be so ingenuous as to rest satisfied in it and not so contend about the Mode their conceit of transubstantiation as I noted at the beginning of this discourse and would have the Reader note diligently that notwithstanding the former objections for the remaining of Bread in substance yet are they not brought to exclude or prove any thing against the true presence but the Romish conceited presence of Christs body The next objection or argument of the Protestants is from Do this in remembrance of me of which I must say Remembrance of Christ made in the Sacrament excludes not a real presence this argument is not to be pressed against the true presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament from the importance of the word remembrance which is of things past not present but first it more directy concludes against their propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass which they pretend to be the very same with that sacrifice on the Cross we say as some Fathers do that the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice a shewing a commemoration an application of that facrifice of our Saviours therefore not the same Secondly though by the importance of the word remembrance it conclude not against a true presence as I said yet may it against their manner of presence by Transubstantiation because that takes away the presence of substantial bread that is of the Sacramental Element which is the necessary subject upon which passes what is done in the Sacrament for the shewing of the Lords death and for the commemorating of his body broken his blood shed upon the Cross which the very body and blood of Christ put in the place of the substantial Elements cannot supply therefore he thinks himself concerned pa. 224 to 229. to shew how the same thing may in diverse respects be a remembrance of it self Therefore to omit his Cavilling or trifling pa. 220 221. that what our Saviour did could not then be a Remembrance for that is of things past and Christ himself was present and his passion was to come To which we briefly say and he cannot deny it that our Saviour in his first institution did mean and appoint this Sacrament for a Remembrance of Him and therefore said do this in Remembrance of me and for that first time it was enough to be the shewing or representation of his death and for ever after both representation and remembrance of it but both then and after the exhibition and communication of his body and blood to all purposes of the Sacrament The Paschal Lamb or blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the door-posts was a remembrance of the Angels passing over and for that called the Passover and for that purpose instituted as appears Exod. 12. Yet primâ vice at that first time it was not in proper force of the Word a Remembrance for it was done before the Angel passed over But we need not spend time about this The same body not a Remembrance or Sacrament of it self see how he endeavours to shew the same thing may be in diverse respects a Remembrance of it self viz. by doing some action bring to remembrance something he had done himself This is true and so our Saviour shall be seen of them that pierced him Zach. and therein shall be a remembrance of what was done to him but this nor any other instance brought can make it good in the Sacrament for here we affirm nothing can be a Sacramental remembrance of it self because that confounds the essential parts of a Sacrament making the same thing the Sign and the thing Sgnified Visible corporeal and invisible incorporeal The Apostle saith plainly So oft as ye eat this bread ye shew the Lords death therefore they are forced to say and use such speeches as this Author doth pa. 211. lin ult the body of Christ made a Sacrament and so the same thing must be a Sacrament of it self which comes in with the former absurdity a sacramental representation and remembrance of it self and yet altogether invisible
But it may be said the Actions in the Sacrament are visible True yet this will not salve the matter notwithstanding the explication he makes pa. 227. which is but a handsome disguise Hence saith he appears that the very same body which was given and that very blood that was shed for us remaining in its own proper substance but after an invisible manner by reason of the visible actions puts us in remembrance of the same body blood and person so many years agoe given shed crucified nay but those visible actions seen in the Sacrament seeing they pass not upon the body which they fix under the species in place of the substantiall bread for that body of Christ they grant is impassible do tell us the body cannot be by reason of them a remembrance of it selfe seeing also that body is invisible those actions cannot appear to be terminated upon it therefore it cannot be made a Sacrament or sacramental remembrance for what is so must by the senses instruct and minde us of the thing represented and not seen so that according to this Romish phansy the species and nothing else must be the sacrament and sacramental remembrance and in them must all those sacramental actions be terminated which absurdity shews the necessity of substantial Bread remaining even upon this account also of sacramental representation and remembrance not excluding as I said a true presence of Christs body and blood but the Romish mode of presence by transubstantiation which takes away the substantial element of the sacrament The next objection he sets down thus The Cup called the New Testament The Cup is called by our Saviour the New Testament for that it was a holy signe of the New Testament pa. 230. This is carelesly set down but let us see what he saith to it instead of giving a direct answer he first challenges any Protestant to produce any clear text of Scripture where that reason mentioned in the objection is alledged but if he had fully set down the objection the force of it as we shall see presently would have extorted this to be the reason why it is called the New Testament which must needs be a figurative speech and therefore implying it to be the signe Sacrament or seal of the New Testament confirmed in his blood secondly in stead of a direct answer he gives us a needless discourse of the signification of the New Testament and then answers I deny that by New Testament is understood a signe of the New Testament but truly and really the New Testament it self 233. this is a careless mistake for New Testament in the objection is taken for that which is truly the New Testament it self nor does it imply that by New Testament is understood the signe of the New Testament but that the verb is which couples this and the new Testament together is put for significat signifies or is the signe Thirdly from Exod. 24.8 where the Testament of God with the Israelites was confirmed with blood and the like saying used This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath made with you it must be real blood not a signe or figure of it which is here called the blood of the Testament for such a solemn Testament required no less but rather more then that in Exodus to be confirmed with true blood pa. 235 236. This is true but here 's his failing first that the true blood by which our Saviours Testament was confirmed and to which that in Exodus and all other sprinklings of blood under the Law referred was the blood shed on the Cross as the Apostle plainly shews in the Epistle to the Hebr. whereas this Author refers it to the blood in the Sacrament which is not the confirmation of the Testament but by reference to the blood on the Cross Secondly he gives us no direct sense of the proposition this Cup is the new Testament in my blood to exempt it from that figurative manner of speech which we contend our Saviour used throughout this Sacrament He acknowledges it to be in the Canon of the Masse and they say it dayly in saying the Masse and could not but know that the necessity of a figurative speech to be admitted in that proposition was the intent and force of the former objection yet gives us no account of it knowing that if a figure be admitted here why not in this is my body And if the words were operative there for turning the bread into his body why not here for transubstantiating the Cup or that which was in it into the New Testament If it be replied that Sâ— â—â—ke and St. Pauls words must be interpreted by St. Matthews this is my blood of the new Testament first it is more probable those other were the words our Saviour spake because of the agreement of Saint Luke and St. Paul and because St. Paul saith he delivered what he received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.23 The Canon of the Masse also retains the same words Secondly they cannot be reduced to Saint Matthews words without a figure for they must then sound thus this Cup is my blood of the new Testament but saith Mr. Spencer our Saviour never said this cup is my blood no more then he said this bread is my body pa. 238. And this in abhorrence of the figurative speech that must be admitted in saying this bread is my body and answerably in saying this Cup is my blood yet in the same place he acknowledges our Saviour said this Cup is the New Testament and is willing to overlook the most apparent figurative speech in it notwithstanding that the force of the objection rested chiefly upon it and provoked him to a direct answer The next objects to them their disagreement about the word this Disagreement of Romanists about the words of consecration This is my body in our Saviours saying this is my body 24.1 where note briefly that declining the explication of this is for this shall become or shall be transubstantiated for then saith he by this must be understood bread yet pag. 243. being to answer for one of their opinions that saith by the word this is signified nothing present he grants by this is signified nothing present precisely in that moment when the word this was pronounced but present after consecration what is this but to put the word is upon the future after Consecration And what is that but shall be And who ever heard that the word is properly taken as they will have it here should not precisely signifie the present time or existence Or who ever heard that the pronoun this should not be demonstrative Or signifie nothing in that moment present when our Saviour held up bread and said this Nor is this disagreement about the mode as among the Protestants for they agree about the subject and predicate of this Proposition that by this is meant bread by body the true body of Christ only differ about the
Dust thou art because made of Dust and the serpent call'd a Rod because made of Aarons Rod and the wine call'd water Jo. 2.9 because made of water so the body of our Lord by S. Paul call'd bread because made of it yet dare not stand to it when we reply The former things are call'd so because of the same matter remaining in the thing made which was in that of which it is made but not so in this making of Christs body which was but once made and that of the seed or blood of the blessed Virgin Mr. Spencer being put to speak to this point goes backward and forward he acknowledges p. 266. by reason of the subject which remains common to both in philosophy call'd Materia prima the first matter Adam was called Dust and the Serpent a Rod and acknowledges p. 269. that our Saviours body cannot be said to be so made of bread and therefore must acknowledge those former usual instances to be impertinent This is backward Now see how he strives forward to maintain the speech made of bread The body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same Accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it begins to be as one may say ex nocte fit Dies the day is made of the night so ex pane fit corpus Christi Christs body is made of bread as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and therefore might be called bread after consecration p. 269. Therefore it might be called Wherefore because forsooth it is made of it as the day of the night but he should have said as the day is called night because it succeeds end comes in place of it as the body of Christ according to their Tenet doth instead or place of the bread and he might have bethought himself whether ever any man call'd Day Night or whether this be not translocation or succession rather then Transubstantiation and whether for such a supposed translocation the body of Christ can be called bread as we see S. Paul often asserting bread after Consecration He has some streins of invention in the pages following as this That the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread he means by way of nourishment from the bread our Saviour did eat but not knowing how to make use of this impertinency in this question he lets it fall But the compleat reason of Catholicks saith he why S Paul calls the Sacrament bread after the consecration Their pretended Reason why S. Paul calls it Bread so oft is because the flesh of Christ into which the bread is changed is put under the species of bread which gives occasion of giving it the same denomination it had before p. 272. What had before that denomination of bread the species or the flesh of Christ neither surely such careless expressions he every where takes hold of when they fall from his Adversary and can spend whole pages against them But this compleat reason was no reason to S. Paul neither did it give him any occasion of giving it still the same denomination of bread for then he had joyned with the report of sense against faith and had deceived them in bidding them eat that bread if nothing but species of bread remained For albeit things set out to sight only may bear the names of the things they are like yet not when proposed for use which requires the substance of the things as eating does you may say of things painted this is bread these are grapes but if you say of them take and eat this is bread these are grapes you mock those that you invite to eat Which shews also the impertinency of Bellarmines instance of the brazen serpent bearing the denomination of serpent from the outward likeness to enforce this compleat reason for that serpent was only for sight to be looked on not for stinging But this is all the reason the Romanists can give and these poor species the form colour smell appearance of bread must help them at every turn they must stand for substance when there is occasion must be the visible part or signe of the Sacrament must be broken eaten nourish what not As for those sayings I am the Vine I am the Door I need not follow him in examining the differences he seeks out between them and this is my body but thus far they be appliable to our purpose that they were figurative speeches yet was our Saviour truly so that is what a Door or Vine is in their kinde and uses such was our Saviour spiritually indeed and in truth So what the bread and wine is to the corporal effects being eaten and drunk that the body and blood of our Saviour taken by faith is spiritually Omnem essectum quem materialis cibus potus quoad vi tam agunt corporalem hoc idem quoad vitam spiritualem hoc Sacramentum operatur Concil Floren. and to the spiritual effect it is the very expression of their Council of Flerence and as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are really offered and given so is the body and blood of our Saviour in the Sacrament really and to all the purposes of the Sacrament given and communicated to them that have faith to receive it for this the Sacramental bread after consecration is called and made to us the body of Christ or as St. Paul expresses it is the communication of his body Upon occasion of shewing difference between Christs saying my flesh is bread and his saying this is my body he has something which may seem in part to make reply to that which was presently delivered Bread saith he of the first saying cannot signifie true and material bread bu in the other by my body is signified the real natural body of Christ 281. What does he infer That by bread in the Protestant doctrine is signified real material bread which cannot be his body p. 282. We grant that when our Saviour said this is my body he meant his true natural body which was broken and given for us but why cannot it be said truly of real and material bread after consecration this bread is my body It cannot indeed be properly said so but may after the use of Sacramental speeches as when said that rock was Christ by rock is meant the real and natural rock out of which the water flowed and by partaking thereof they were really made partakers of the spiritual drink much more in the Sacrament of the New Testament the Bread may be truly called the body of Christ because in the due partaking thereof we are made partakers not only of the spiritual effects of Christs death but also of his very body and blood bringing along with it those spiritual effects and graces which is that St. Paul saith the bread is the communion or communication of the body of Christ the manner we know not as we said above of
this half Communion the sequel of the former Article of Real presence and acknowledges that without the establishing of the one the other cannot be defended so p. 322 323. We see then what goodly fruit the Romish Real Presence has brought forth to the great and just offence of Christian people in denying them the Cup besides other goodly sequels of it as Adoration and Circumgestation It is not Real Presence truly granted no not such as the Romanists will acknowledge to be true that gives a ground for half Communion or makes it defensible for they grant as we see here p. 123. the Lutherans convinced of this mystery i. e. to believe a true Real Presence but cannot say they are convinced of this sequel or that it follows then may the Communion be delivered in one kind there being other Reasons from the Institution of this Sacrament and our Saviours purpose therein which forbid it as we shall see by what follows To the first Argument from the Institution which is carefully to be observed Halse Communion against the Institution he answers I. that the accidentary circumstances of the first institution are to be distinguished from the substance and essence of the Sacrament This is alwayes to be held not the former p. 324. This we admit only note he reckons the giving it then to Priests only among the accidentary circumstances of the first institution II. he answers that the entire substance of the Sacrament is under each kinde he means both body and blood are under each kinde we shall see asterward how farr that is true But be it so that both body and blood are under each yet is not that the whole substance of the Sacrament which stands in the outward part Bread and Wine as well as the inward or spiritual part the body and blood nor is the Institution held to if the body and blood be given but in one kinde And notwithstanding that he reckoned the giving it at first to Priests only among the Accidentary circumstances of the Institution here he tells us All that can be gathered from the bare words of Institution is that it is to be consecrated and received by Priests Mr. Spencer may say what he will and yet adde a greater untruth such as were the Apostles who were then made Priests p. 325. If then made Priests let him shew us what words what imposition of hands or other Ceremonies were there for that purpose Was our Saviour then conferring orders or instituting the Eucharist or could he with the same words actions and ceremonies institute and administer two several Sacraments Do this he said and that is all they can pretend to but if by this the Disciples were made Priests then they doing what our Saviour did must also ordain others so oft as they administer the Eucharist Now the whole importance of that precept Do this concerns the whole company Priest and people as is plain by 1 Cor. 11.25 26. And it is generally held by the Ancients that the Disciples then represented the whole Church or company of faithfull and that they received orders or Priesthood after his resurrection Jo. 20.22 Lastly the Church of Rome gives not the Sacrament in both kinds to Priests when they are not Conficientes consecrators or administers of it as the Disciples then were not but leaving this senseless assertion and novel device of our Saviours making them Priests when he said do this let us come to the main viz. the whole substance of the Sacrament under each kind He that receives under one kinde saith Mr. Spencer receives a true Sacrament Whether the whole substance of the Sacrament be in one kinde p. 326. He that receives may we say according to the Romish Church in one kinde he does not receive a true Sacrament or not the true Sacrament because not the outward part truly and wholly as it was purposed and appointed at the Institution so that definition which he gives here may pass for a compleat definition of a Sacrament in general but is not compleatly used when applied only to one of the kinds or outward parts of this Sacrament For there is as he noted p. 324. something particular in this Sacrament not the particular he there notes that the whole substance may be received in each kinde but that it stands in two kinds or signs or outward Elements both which together make the compleat sign of the spiritual grace signified and exhibited in this Sacrament each signe apart cannot represent and exhibit the whole spiritual grace of this Sacrament He acknowledges a different grace conferred here A different grace conferred in each kinde one of spiritual meat the other of spiritual drink only he will have both in each kinde p. 327. Which is as much as to say the effect of drink is shewen and exhibited by the meat we eat and the effect of meat by the drink we take so with equal absurdity to say that the blood shed is shewen by the blood in the Veins of unshed for so it s given with the body under one kinde and that the blood is drunk when we eat the flesh For though it be true that he who receives Christ by faith receives whole Christ and by that mouth of faith eats his flesh and drinks his blood is really made partaker of his body given and his blood shed for him thus without the Sacrament and when we come to receive him in the Sacrament the same act of faith receiving him in one kinde as under the bread can and doth at the same time receive also his blood Totum Christum not Totum Christi or whole Christ yet does he not receive his blood sacramentally as blood shed and so not all of Christ or Christ wholly Thus by reason of the act of faith he that receives but in one kinde out of necessity may be assured that he is not defrauded of the participation of Christs blood shed but he cannot be so assured that wilfully receives but in one kinde because though there is a concomitancy of flesh and blood in Christs body as to the natural condition of it yet not a concomitancy of his flesh and bloodshed as to the Sacramental consideration of them which therefore are set out in the Sacrament apart by two several elements Also because such a one being a Transgressor of our Saviours Institution and enemy to his own comfort falls short of the benefit thereof Therefore the Church of England had cause to say though not to the purpose he would have it p. 326. in the distribution of the bread The body of our Lord preserve thy and then adding the Cup to say there also preservethy and this conformably as to our Saviours Institution so to his saying Except ye eat and drink Jo 6.53 and to the Apostle in what he received from the Lord 1 Cor. 11.28 This Author is forced to confess that if by a compleat sign be meant a full and express
of the pain or torment Bel. l. Dubitat de poenae qualitate an idem sit ignis an animae urentur igne illo doloris de amissâ—one temporalium whether it were the same fire in substance with that of Hell also that he doubted whether souls shall be scorched with that fire of grief for the loss of things temporal But these exceptions or answers are also impertinent for his Tale aliquid some such thing and his Talia quaedam judicia some such punishments do not refer to any material fire or fire properly taken or to such a fire as Hell fire but to the fire of tribulation in this life which he every where speaks of when he fals upon that place of 1 Cor. 3.13 and that some such thing that is afflictive may be after this life he thinks not incredible and that perhaps it is so For let the Romanists conceive the pain or Torment of purgatory to be of what condition or sort soever they please it will be answered by that tale aliquid and talia quaedam judicia and so will imply that Fathers uncertainty in that his opinion of Purgatory pains after death So for that fire of grief upon loss of Temporals which the Cardinal will have St. Aug. doubt of it is plain he could not mean that very kinde of grief when he said tale aliquid some such thing but any kinde of grief or vexation that should torment the soul as with a kinde of fire Whether there were any such thing any such grief or pain that 's it he put to the question and declared his opinion of it that it was not incredible but rather that he held it probable and that place in his Book de Civit. Dei where he delivered it positively that there were such purging pains can amount to no more then an opinion he had entertained which he delivers there the more peremptorily in opposition to that other opinion of the Ceasing of the pains of the damned To conclude the Cardinal declares it as a thing Certain Bel. de purg l. 2. c. 10. Certum esse in Purgatoriâ— poenam ignis sive propriè accipiatur sive Metaâ—horiâ—é that there is in Purgatory the punishment of fire whether taken properly or Metaphorically whether a real fire such as of Hell or such a pain that as fire torments the souls of men Now St. August his tale aliquid of which he doubted was such a thing such a fire or tormenting pain and therefore St. Aug. was uncertain of that which the Church of Rome delivers as certain and as an Article of Faith SECT VII Of the Real Presence TOuching the state of this Controversie The question there was enough said above Chap. VII Nu. 1. That we deny not a Real presence but such a presence as they contend for such as by a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine sixes the body and bloud of Christ under the remaining species the inconveniencies of which are hinted above chap. VII Nu. 13 16 17. I will only add to the farther clearing of this state of the Question what the Cardinal notes upon the word substantialiter in the Trent Council can 1. sess 13. It means that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner * Bel. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. Christum esse in Eucharistia ad eum modum quo erat substantia panis subsuis accidentibus that the substance of bread was under its accidents this only excepted that those accidents were inhaerent in the substance of the Bread So then such a manner of Presence is that which we deny The Scripture which they pretend This is my body was examined * Chap. 7. above and found to be best explained by that of the Apostle * 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we break is the communion or communication of the body of Christ which supposes the bread continuing in substance and tels us how it is notwithstanding the body of Christ And now for a brief Survey of Antiquity upon this enquiry Testimonies of Antiquity whether such a presence by way of Transubstantiation or fixing the body of Christ under the species in stead of the substance of the bread was taught as Catholick Doctrine The Truth will quickly appear by the different condition and force of those Testimonies which they and we bring from Antiquity within the compass of 600. years Many sayings of the Fathers they alledge and want not for number but weight For if those sayings or sentences be examined they will be found not to speak properly and strictly to the point but either fall short of the change here intended or shoot beyond all measure by some hyperbolical expressions whereas we bring Testimonies of Fathers speaking punctually of the nature and substance of the Elements according to the proper and strict sense of those words Also we bring real Arguments necessarily concluding by that which the Fathers disputed against Hereticks that Transubstantiation or such a Presence by putting the body of Christ in the place of the substance of Bread could not be the Doctrine of the Church We will reduce all to this Head The remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine First To omit all those bare sentences which affirm it to be the body or flesh of Christ Sayings of Fathers alledged by the Romanists after Consecration as speaking nothing but what we say and what we conceive ought to be answered in the affirmative if the question be put Whether is this the body of Christ And it speaks no more then the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 This bread is the communication of the body of Christ And it is to be noted that some of the sentences alledged by the Romanists expresly make Bread the subject of that affirmative proposition saying Panem esse corpus Christi that bread is the body of Christ or the like which kinde of speech the Romanists themselves acknowledge improper and figurative Also to omit all those sentences which barely say the bread is changed or transelemented or the like For there are many kindes of change and that only which is concerned in the Question is the change of substance Secondly therefore Those Testimonies only may seem to speak something to the purpose which say the Elements are changed in Nature for this Cyprian Ambrose and Nyssen are alledged by * Bel. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. the Cardinal But the word Nature is of a large acception here not expressing the substance or essence of the thing but the condition and special quality of it as we say Things are of different Nature some are common and profane some holy and divine so the elements after consecration are changed in their Nature beginning then to be of holy use and divine vertue On the contrary we alledge Theodoret denying they are changed in Nature taking the word strictly for the substantial nature as the dispute he there makes required he should do * Theod.
the Cardinal turns into shall be incorruptible because he could not say they are now truly and indeed incorruptible So that according to this Father the Argument would stand thus As our bodies now are incorruptible not because they are so according to nature and substance but in as much as they have the hope of a resurrection so the Bread is the body of Christ not because changed in nature and substance but in as much as by the grace of consecration it is the communion of his body Tertullian had to do with Marcion and such Hereticks that denied Christ had a true and solid body And he proves the contrary by Bread the figure of his body Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 4. c. 40. Non fuisset figura nisi veritatis esset corpus both in the Old Testament and in the Eucharist Now saith he it could not be the figure of his body if his body were not a true body And if there be force in this Reason then should Marcion supposing Transubstantiation have great advantage upon a phantastical figure that had no substance of bread but only the Accidents and appearances and upon such a phantastical mode of a Body Si proprereas panem sibi corpus sinxit quia corporis carebat veritate Tert. ibid. as the Romish doctrine puts our Saviours body into Also the words following If he took bread as those Hereticks said to make it his body because he wanted a true body then it would follow that Bread was given and crucified for us These words I say do necessarily suppose the substance of Bread to remain for how could that be said if the Bread also should want the truth of a body remaining only in shew and appearance which would much have confirmed Marcion in his misbelief of the reality of Christs body of which there should be so phantastical a figure or sign This is so evident and convincing that Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations acknowledges Tertullian of this judgment That Bread is so the figure of Christs body that it still remains the same in substance as it was before Add to this what he saith elsewhere Tertul. de anima c. 17. Sensus non falli circa objecta ne hinc aliquid procuretur Haereticis de Christo phantasma credentibus Non est gustus Discipulorum Iudificatus The senses are not deceived in their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yielded to the Hereticks making but a phantasm of Christ The tast of the disciples was not deceived when in the marriage of Cana they drank wine made of Water nor was the Feeling of Thomas abused when he put his finger in our Saviours side Nor are our senses may we say abused or deceived when they tell us this is true bread which is in the Sacrament Theodoret had to do with the Eutychian Hereticks that held our Saviours humanity swallowed up in the Divine Nature for which they made Argument from the Sacrament Theod. Dâ—â— al. 2. That even as the Symbols or Elements were after consecration changed into another thing for such was the common phrase of that Time when speech was of the Sacrament so is the humane Nature or body of the Lord after assumption changed into the divine substance This Argument had been unanswerable had Transubstantiation been then the Doctrine of the Church But Theodoret answers him that makes this Argument Thou art taken in thy own Net for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but remain in ther former substance and figure and shape That the words Nature and Substance must be here taken properly and not confounded as in the Romanists irrational answer they are with the Accidents or Species of the Bread and Wine is clearly evinced both by the absurdity of putting Substance for Accidents and by the very reason of the Argument here made which supposeth Nature and Substance properly taken on the Eutychian part and so must be meant in Theodorets Reply to the plain exclusion of a Substantial change The like demonstration is made by Gelasius in his * In Biblioth Patrum To. 5. parte 3. Book of the two Natures of Christ against Eutyches Nestorius Of which Book the †Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 27. Idem prorsùs docet quod Theodoretus ad eandem rem confirmandam Cardinal acknowledgeth that Gelasius taught the same with Theodoret and for confirming of the very same thing It being familiar with the Catholick writers of those Times to use the instance of the Eucharist against the Eutychian Heresie which did necessarily infer the remaining of the substance of the Elements to shew the remaining of the humane Nature of Christ after its assumption Nay before that Heresie appeared some of the Ancients did make use of the same Instance arguing from the Union of the two Natures in Christ to shew the Sacramental Union as they that wrote against Eutyches did from the Sacrament borrow a demonstration or illustration for the two Natures united in our Saviour Christ Justin Martyr saith thus We take these not as common bread or common drink Just Apol. 2. ad Anton. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but even as Jesus Christ being made Flesh by the Word of God had flesh and bloud for our salvation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So we learn also that the meat or food which by the prayer of his Word is blessed and made an Eucharist by which our flesh and bloud through the change of it are nourished is the flesh and bloud of the same incarned Jesus Here is Bread though not common bread after consecration and Bread remaining in Substance for it nourishes our bodies by a change into our flesh and it must answer to our Saviours flesh remaining in substance after the Incarnation notwithstanding that it is made the body of Christ so far as the reason and purpose of the Eucharist requires St. Cyprian or the Author of that Sermon de Coena of the Lords Supper saith Even as in the Person of Christ Sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ità sacro visibili divina se ineffabiliter infundit essentia the humanity appeared and the Divinity laid hid So doth the divine essence ineffably insinuate itself into the visible sacred Element This place is cited for a Real Presence by the Cardinal but he should have considered it cannot be such a Real Presence as will serve his turn For the substantial presence of the visible outward element is equally proved by this saying of the Father and a dangerous thing it is to make the bread and wine remain as the Cardinal doth in shew and appearance only which renders this instance of the Sacrament held altogether useless against those Hereticks which held our Saviours body or humanity was but such in appearance only not substance Thus the Fathers that dealt with Hereticks were bound to speak
brake that he gave but he brake substantial bread therefore he gave it The exception Mr. Spencer used in answer to the former objection viz. He gave the same he took unless it were changed which they affirm it to be before he gave it did not serve him there it will less here for the affirming of such a change of the subject in such contextures of Scripture we found unreasonable unless the story or our senses did evidence the change but here it s more unreasonable to answer â—e gave what he brake the same for substance unless substantially changed for the end of our Saviours breaking it was to give or distribute it to his Disciples if therefore he changed the substantial Bread which he brake he did not give them what he brake for them and brake that which he brake to no purpose it being presently to be changed and annihilated To no purpose I say of Communion and distribution which our Saviour intended in this Sacrament For I acknowledge another purpose of breaking and that mystical to shew the breaking of his body on the Cross which might hold though the substance of the bread had been presently annihilated but the other purpose of distribution must needs be frustrate That this was the end and purpose of our Saviours breaking the Romish Commentators upon the place acknowledge saying our Saviour brake it into so many parts that every Disciple might have one But the Church of Rome does not break now in order to Communion or distributing to the people but in order to a sacrifice the Priest breaks a Wafer into three parts and this onely to himself not for others to take or receive Here they cannot serve themselves of the Species as when they say of the eating and shewing which is a breaking of the Sacrament with the Teeth that the Species of the bread are only broken the body of Christ remaining whole under them which is senseless enough but here in the breaking for distribution more senseless for it supposes only the species remaining to be distributed which cannot answer the purposes of the Sacrament nourishing incorporation of which as inforcing the necessity of substantial bread to remain more below nor can it answer S. Pauls purpose in saying The bread which we break is it not the Communion of c. Nor answer the purpose of the Scripture expressing the Administration of this Sacrament by the breaking of bread as sometimes in the Acts of the Apostles Nor can they of the Church of Rome answer our Saviours command Do this They do not what our Saviour did they do not break bread the bread they use is broken for them by the Baker those little portions of bread or wafers being severed from one another by him or her that makes them before they come to the Priests hands nay before they come into the Oven and are sit for eating If they say they break i. e. distribute that indeed is sometime signified by breaking and is implied consequentially in that phrase or expression breaking of bread and in S. Pauls the bread we break for they did break it as our Saviour also to the end they might distribute it But this will acknowledge the substance of Bread in the distribution i. e. after Consecration and still the Argument from our Saviours breaking bread is good for he brake it to that end to give and distribute it In the next objection p. 200. which is also much of his own framing he speaks something of breaking but uncertainly whether our Saviour brak before those words This is my body or while our Saviour was speaking them or after they were spoken i. e. after Consecration if he will fix on the last as he seems most inclined to do there is enough said against it from that senseless supply they make by the Species and accidents of the bread from that expression of breaking bread from S. 1 Cor. 11. Pauls the bread we break and further from that representation of Christs body broken on the Cross intended in the breaking of the Sacramental element therefore Saint Paul to this my body adds which is broken for you The next objection or Argument of Protestants is upon the word this when our Saviour said this What the word this denotes it must signify what he took and held in his hand and so the proposition must be This bread is my body He answers pa. 206. by demanding whether our Saviour when he turned Water into Wine Joh. 2. could not truly have said This is Wine the water remaining when the word this was pronounced and changed when the whole proposition was spoken But we reply this is to change the Case which enquires de facto of the deed or being to that which enquires de possibili of the possibility The question is whether the words This is Wine or this is my body do of themselves imply such a change there being nothing else evidently shewing us the change done or to be done if they do then is there no certainty in speech as was shewen above no not in Indicative propositions as these are and should be therefore most punctual and determinate in their affirming or denying any thing As for the possibility or power of changing one substance into another we doubt not of but if that change be to be signified by the proposition this is Wine the first substance Water remaining when the word this is pronounced the proposition must have this sense to make it true this water shall be changed into wine so is must be put for shall which the word is cannot of it self import nor be that way intelligible without some declaration of the change done or about to be done So the Argument above from the thing present under the word this though not good against all possibility of change nor is it intended against that yet alwayes good against the intelligibleness or determinate signification of such propositions if intended to import a change without signifying otherwise by some clear evidence it is done or to be done so it was in that change Ioh. 2. but nothing to clear the change they would have signified in This is my body Another Difference between the change of that Water into Wine and the supposed change in the Sacrament and therefore a difference between this is wine spoken of the first and this is my body affirmed of the other because that Wine was made of the Water the same matter remaining which they cannot dare not say of Christs body that it is so made of bread Again another difference I note these because he so oft makes use of this instance as adaequate to the change he supposes in the Sacrament Although the Water was turned into wine yet not into the same wine which the Governour of the feast had or which was existent before but here the bread is by them said to be turned into not only flesh and wine into blood but into Christs flesh or
manner how it is made so or how that body and blood are present in the sacrament But the Romanists cannot agree what is the subject of the proposition or what is meant by this cannot agree about the words of consecration the more general opinion is the false one which places it in these words This is my body making them operative to their transubstantiation whereas the Ancients placed the Consecration in oratione invocatione not so much in the pronouncing these words as in prayer and Invocation and so our Saviours blessing and giving thanks belongs to the Consecration as well as his saying this is my body And Mr. Spencer however he would have this saying of our Saviours so clear for Transubstantiation knows that some School-men and others of their Doctors have spoken plainly that the Scripture and that saying of our Saviours in particular does not infer Transubstantiation without the definition of their Church and indeed the different opinions in the explaining of it or drawing it to that purpose speaks as much The next thing remarkable is the objection of S. Called bread after Consecration Pauls calling it often bread after Consecration 1 Cor. 11. to which Mr. Spencer returns these pitiful answers 1. He helps himsef of his old instance of the Water made Wine Jo. 2. and called Water after for it is said v. 9. tasted the water that was made wine pag. 251. But the Text speaks also plainly that it was not water but made wine 2. S. Paul saith not it is common or natural bread Nor will the Protestants say so therefore with them when S. Paul calls it Bread before and after Consecration though the name bread be the same yet the signification is not the same So the Catholicks may give saith he the same answer that before Consecration bread in Saint Paul is natural bread after supernatural spiritual divine bread p. 252 253. This is but a slender disguise which any eye that can distinguish substances from qualities may see thorow for as we deny it is common or mere natural bread after consecration so we affirm it is substantial bread bread to be eaten So oft as ye eat this bread 1 Cor. 11. and therefore although the Protestants allow such a change in the bread notwithstanding S. Paul calls it bread before and after Consecration yet will not the change which the Romanists make consist with S. Pauls calling it bread for they take away the whole substance and nature of bread and leave nothing but the species or qualities of Bread to supply the uses of the Sacrament And what if our Saviour termeth himself bread Jo. 6. which at first sight is a figurative speech S. Paul cannot be so answered when he calls that which was truly bread bread still nor they excused who seek to help themselves by figures when the Sacramental bread is called bread viz. what it is indeed and allow no figure when it is called his body viz. what it is in signification and exhibition He concludes It can no more be gathered from its being termed bread by S. Paul that it is natural substantial bread then it can be gathered from the Canon of our Mass that we believe it to be the substance of bread because it is often called Bread in the same Canon after Consecration p. 252. There are many passages in the Canon of your Mass which did not alter with the times and may confute your novelties and reprove your not believing according to that Canon speaking yet the Ancient language and belief It cannot be gathered by the Canon of your Mass so far as is ancient what ye do believe but what ye ought The inforcement of the former objection A farther enforcement of the same If by the word bread often repeated S. Paul should understand flesh he would have warned the people to believe it so though the senses shewed it bread he would not have joyned himself to the report of the senses against the perswasion of faith calling it alwayes bread without any explication He answers here by his former impertinency of the spiritual food of the soul call'd bread and Christs flesh called bread Io. 6. which first was not a joyning with the report of our senses but telling us what we must believe it to be in effect and so understand it was a figurative speech And secondly this that S. Paul calls bread was substantial bread before consecration and his calling it still bread shews it continued so still tells us we must believe it to be so still unless he had admonisht us of the change into flesh His retorting upon the Protestants is vain If S. Paul by this word bread so often repeated should understand a Sacrament or Mystery as it is believed among Christians were he not to be blamed for holding the people in error seeing he knew that sense and reason giveth evidence that it is usual and common bread c. p. 255. and in anger concluds Protestants bring Arguments fitter for Infidels then Christians ibid. But there was no cause for him to be so moved seeing there is a great difference between our argument or Reasoning and his as much as between this is not bread and this is not common bread It is not true that reason as he saith giveth evidence that it is common bread sense may because it cannot discern between holy and common but he that can use his reason as all that know any thing belonging to Sacraments or Religion knows also by what he hears and sees said and done for the consecrating or setting apart the elements for holy use that it is not common bread The Apostle also saies enough to take off that mistake or errour by calling it this bread and this Cup of the Lord and threatning judgment unto the unworthy receiver as guilty of the Lords body and because they discern not the Lords body which is enough to exclude all conceit of it as of common bread though not to infer it is no more bread but the very body as he would have it concluded from those expressions of the Apostle p. 255. Nor does his similitude come home A subject saith he cannot be said to be guilty of the body and blood of the King that receives not his signet with that reverence as becomes a subject ibid. I say this comes not home as any may see that knows what a great difference there is between moral signes or tokens and sacramental for these are not only significant and representative but exhibitive and communications of the thing signified and in them offered they carry it along with them and therefore he is guilty of the body and blood who receives this Sacrament unworthily To omit his needless discourse of the fruit of the Vine mentioned in the Gospel Their impertinent instances they bring to parallel it It is familiar with Romish writers in answer to S. Pauls calling it bread after consecration to use the help of such speeches
the presence but believe the communication of it to all the purposes of the Sacrament But hear a great subtilty that bread should be a Sacrament of his body cannot saith he stand with the Protestant doctrine Bread how Sacrament of his body which in the little Catechisme defines a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual grace but our Saviours body in the first institution was as visible as the bread and though after Ascention his body became invisible by reason of the distance yet that makes it not an inward spiritual grace his conclusion is therefore bread could not be the Sacrament of his body 283. Mr. Spencer surely thought he was dealing with children that had newly learnt their Catechisme for see him presently afraid this should be returned upon themselves He knows first that albeit our Saviours body was in the first institution visible and so it is still visible in it self and knows also that no men make more use of his invisibilitie in the Sacrament then the Romanists do His body is broken eaten blood shed drunk in the Sacrament invisibly yea all this really done but invisibly when he was visible himself to the Apostles in the first institution and before his body was indeed broken or his blood shed on the Cross Thus can they make all good by the virtue of this word invisible yet will not allow Protestants to make Christs body and blood the inward spiritual part of the Sacrament because he was visible Nay but though he be now invisible yet is not his body the inward spiritual grace this is Mr. Spencers subtiltie but he that makes the blood go along with the body that who receives the one has the other too might allow us here a concomitancy of Christs body and the spiritual grace which as I said goes alwayes along with it so that as in the general definition of a Sacrament it is said signe of an inward spiritual grace so in respect of this particular Sacrament it may be said signe of Christs body and blood which is here by the outward visible part of the Sacrament represented conveyed with all the spiritual effects and graces Well we are to thank him for venting that subtiltie Mr. Spencers several confessions of truth in this point of the Sacrament for it brings him presently to plain confession of truth he did see that by his former precious argument against the Protestants any man might think if he were in earnest it would follow there is no Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ and therefore he subjoyns pa. 283. line ult yet we are not constrained to acknowledge there is not a Sacrament why For iâ— signifies that heavenly and divine grace which by vertue of it is given to nourish our souls which is truly inward and spiritual this is well but if the spiritual grace be given by vertue of it i. e. the Sacrament does not the Sacrament give that grace by vertue of Christs body given in it Yea we hear him presently acknowledging also that our Saviours body invisibly existent in this Sacrament and nourishing our souls may be truly called a spiritual grace and inward too when it is Sacramentally received very good all this But is there no sign of this body Hear him also saying that which sensibly appears and is called Sacramentum tantum the Sacrament only is a Sacramental sign of our Saviours body p. 284. All this acknowledged to the defiance of his former subtiltie and what could a Protestant desire more Only when he said nourishing our souls he adds and our bodies which I take to be a slip for it is not the doctrine of his Church to say Christs body nourishes our bodies And now in the name of God why should he not acknowledge the advantage of truth to be on the Protestants side for thus far we agree that there is divine grace by vertue of the Sacrament given to nourish our souls that that which appears in the Sacrament is the Sarramental signe of our Saviours body that our Saviours body is truly existent or given in the Sacrament that our Saviours body nourishes our souls Now in the difference between us see which has the advantage 1. Transubstantiation a wrong to the Sacrament several wayes That which sensibly appears saith he and is called Sacramentum tantum is the Sacramental signe of our Saviours body but what is that which appears he tells you presently those shews and species under which he will have Christs body to exist but are these fit to bear the name of a Sacrament Of the Sacramental signe of a body What advantage would this have given to Marcion in his conceit of our Saviours body as phantastical and in shew and appearance only Can these shews and appearances of bread serve to the uses of the Sacrament the corporal breaking the eating the nourishing Whereas Protestants retaining the substance of the Sacramental element Bread preserve the outward part of the Sacrament and all the uses of it without which the Sacrament is mairned if not destroyed preserve I say the outward part without prejudice to the inward which is Christs body and blood for we hold of it as above existent really given and nourishing the soul which is the full purpose of the Sacrament as to the inward spiritual part But 2. they prejudice the inward spiritual part by making it existent under those shews or species as he saith here for how would this have confirmed Eutychians if it had been really the doctrine of the Church then who upon the mistake of the Churches doctrine as Theodoret in his Dialogues shews made semblance for their heresie saying the humanity of Christ is swallowed up into the divinity shape and figure remaining as the Bread is in the Sacrament shape only and appearance remaining Again they binde our Saviours body so to these shews and species of bread that Christs body and they make unum quid but one thing so that Christs body goes along with them wheresoever they go or are cast into the mouthes and stomacks of wicked men and stayes wheresoever the species are till putrefaction of the species if they without the body of Bread be capable of it drive the body of Christ away This and hundred prejudices and inconveniences follow upon this unnecessary phansie of putting Christs body under the species in the place of substantial bread we as was said preserve the Sacrament intire acknowledging the very body and blood really given in the Sacrament to every one that comes duly to receive given I say to all the purposes of the Sacrament What he sayes p. 285. The words of Institution This is my body are properly and literally to be understood when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary might pass for a truth if he did not suppose there is nothing constrains All the former inconveniences inconsistencies with many more tending to contradiction do constrain to the contrary To
avoid the Argument from the manner of the Old Testament Sacramental speeches in the Old Test in calling the signes by the names of the things signified as circumcision call'd the Covenant and such is the name Passover He strangly phansies two Covenants made with Abraham in that one chapter Gen. 17. the first in 2 3 4 5. verses the other verse 9. as if he understood not that in every Covenant there is a mutual stipulation the promise on Gods part the condition to be performed on mans to which he consents and engages That first Covenant which he phansies contained Gods promise to Abraham and that which he required of Abraham was in general expressed in the first verse viz. to walk before God and be perfect Now that which this Author calls the other Covenant was but the imposing of Circumcision as the signe of that Covenant made with Abraham and his posterity and a witness of their engagement to him as it is plain ver 11. where it is called the token or signe of the Covenant And if this were a new Covenant where are the promises of it He confesses as much when he saith The second Covenant was a signe and seal of the first only he abusively calls that the second Covenant which he should have called Circumcision for so S. Paul whom he cites saith he received the sign of Circumcision the seal of righteousness Rom. 4.12 And so his own instance he brings p. 287. makes against him for that promise of favour and Patronizing one of inferiour rank is but part of their agreement and that waiting on him once a year is the other part the condition to be performed as a testification of his service and obligation To the objection of the Lamb called the Passover Exod. 12. he answers 1. The Scripture does not expresly call the Lamb the Passover 2. He saith by Passover is meant the feast of the Passover kept to the Lord as v. 11. of that Chapter pa. 289 290. It is true the Feast was call'd the Passover but so was the Lamb and that more chiefly and immediately as v. 21. ye shall kill the Passover and elsewhere eat the Passover So Mat. 26.17 eat the Passover v. 29. they made ready the Passover Mar. 14.12 killed the Passover in all these the Lamb is the Passover and from the killing and eating that the yearly feast or celebration is also by figure called the Passover And the Lamb called Passover by a figure in reference to the Angels passing over the houses of the Israelites Unto 1 Cor. 10.4 The Rock was Christ he answers the Apostle speaks not of any Rock which was the signe of Christ a visible material rock but of a spiritual rock now Christ was that spiritual rock truly really and so no figure pa. 294. Here to avoid one rock of a figurative speech in those words he falls upon two for first he must hereby acknowledge that all the Israelites did eat really of Christ and drink of him as we under the gospel do if by that spiritual meat and spiritual drink Christ be immediately meant but this the Romanists carefully avoid answering the Israelites did eat the same spiritual meat Manna and drank the same spiritual drink among themselves but not the same with us The second rock he falls on is that by this his interpretation he must contrary to the Apostle grant they did all good and bad worthy and unworthy really and truly partake of Christ who was truly according to Mr. Spencer this spiritual rock and drink Whereas the Apostle means they did all partake of Christ Sacramentally Fathers also and their own Commentators grant it spoken of the material rock but because of the sacramental relation which that rock and the water flowing from it to serve the whole Congregation had to Christ and that which flowed from him it is called a spiritual rock and by a figure called Christ But in producing figurative speeches he binds us to this condition Mr. Spencer Rule for understanding speeches in Scripture figuratively or literally examined that if we will bring any thing against them it must be such a proposition that may possibly be verified in a proper sense and yet must be understood figuratively whereas the Protestants produce propositions that cannot possibly be understood in a real and proper sense as this is my body may pa. 299. But may not Manna or Rock be by the omnipotency of God turned into flesh as well as Bread or the water that came out of the rock into blood as well as wine may For that proposition this is my body is so far from being connaturally to be understood in a proper sense as he boldly affirms there that it cannot possibly be so understood without the engaging of omnipotency to make such a change of the subject bread and therefore they are still fain to fly to Gods omnipotency to make this proper sense of theirs good but why cannot propositions which possibly can be understood in a proper sense be rather figuratively taken Because saith he the words of Scripture and also of other Authors must be understood properly when they can be understood so or when nothing compels to the contrary This reason is good but misapplied to this is my body for it is one thing to say can be so understood another to say can possibly be so understood taking in all the wayes of possibility and omnipotency without which that proposition this is my body cannot be possibly understood in a proper sense for many things yea circumstances may compel us to the contrary and hinder us from taking it in a proper sense beside absolute impossibility else should we multiply miracles in Scripture and be still offending against the rule of reason that forbids us to conclude a possibili ad esse the thing to be so indeed because it is possible to be made so The Scripture saying all flesh is grass saith or might say of every man this is grass and it is as possible for omnipotence to turn it into grass as the bread into Christs body must we therefore so understand it in a real proper sense So when God said of Adam thou art dust so when David said of the water of Bethlem this the blood of these men 2 Sam. 23.17 Romanists that say the wine is turned into Christs blood must say that water could be turned into their blood and therefore possibly verified in a proper sense but those about David understood the figurative sense of it Did nothing else compel us to the contrary that is not to understand these propositions in a proper sense but the engaging of omnipotencie to work so miraculously to make it good it were enough For when he works so he tells us plainly of it or at least gives us the evidence of sense for the change neither of which we have for understanding this is my body in the Romish proper sense Then to impose upon Scripture such a sense when
Vnum quid as it were one and the same thing †Valen disput 6. in 3. Tho. punct 1. Sect. 19. Christum illa accidentia in Eucharistia vere proprie formaliter inter se uniri Greg. de Val. proves Christ and those Accidents to be truly properly formally united From hence as I said many inconveniences follow for what happens to the species must also to the body and blood of Christ Thirdly if we consider this with reference to the Sacrament we may well put the question how can Accidents of bread and wine be in the Sacrament without their proper subject how can they supply the purposes of the Sacrament as to the outward part of it without the substances of bread and wine or if the body and blood of Christ under the species must supply the defect of their proper subject or substances as his answering by the personality of our Saviour must imply then must the body and blood of Christ supply the place and property of the outward part of the Sacrament which is most absurd By this of the Personality of our Saviour he serves himself in answering the eight question and the three last But the disparity is evident for the personality of the divine nature may supply the defect of it in the humane by reason of the hypostatical union which joyns the humane nature to the divine But the body and blood of Christ can neither be united to the species of bread and wine in such a manner as to make it supply the defect of their proper subject neither is apt to supply the properties of that subject or outward element of the Sacrament as we noted above yet does Mr. Spencer by his answer suppose the body and blood of our Saviour to supply all and the Romish writers by that strict union which they suppose to be between his body and the Species make it subject to many inconveniences To the question how can the same body be in several places at once Same body in several places he returns this question as satisfactory how can the Soul or an Angel or God be at the same time in many places But any one may see the disparity between the properties and condition of a Body and of a Spirit and consequently the unsatisfactoriness of his Answer Nor is it true which he here must suppose that a Soul can be in several bodies distant one from other or an Angel in distant places at once therefore they are forced to take in Gods property of being present in many places l 3. c 4. de Enchar quomdo Deus est in Loco Mr. Spencer learnt it of the Cardinal affirming the body of Christ to be in place as God is To that of Penetration of parts if our Saviours body should be contained in the least part or crumb of the host Penetration of Dimensions he answers by our Saviours body passing through the doors and through his mothers womb both being shut But it s no where said they remained absolutely shut * in 4. sent dist in 44. qu. 6. Durand shews how with more reason it may be said our Saviour came in the doors opening to him unperceived by his Disciples for it is not said saith he that he came in per januas clausas but januis clausis not through the shut doors but the doors being shut And for his passage through his Mothers womb it being shut the Scripture puts him among the first born that opened the womb and though the Fathers often speak of the womb being shut yet is it only to deny such an opening of the womb as is injurious to her Virginity and much to this purpose Durand shews in the place above cited may be said of our Saviours coming out of the womb citing Saint Aug. Ambr. Greg. Another objection p. 308. If our Saviours flesh and blood be really in the Sacrament Our Saviours body exposed to indignities then may Catts and Rats eat it This objection is not carefully expressed for such inconveniences do not follow upon a Real presence but such a Presence as the Romanists fancy which binds his body and blood to the species and so makes it liable to all the indignities which happen to them But see how he would answer it by the like as he supposes If the flesh and blood of Christ saith he were really in the Passion then might dogs eat his blood that was shed As if it were alike what was done to his passible body appointed then to suffer and done now to his glorious body All the disgraces and indignities that were done or could happen unto him then were agreeable to the work he came about viz. to redeem us by suffering and whatever became of that precious blood that was shed it had notwithstanding its due effect for our Redemption but now to expose his glorious body to such indignities as they do by uniting it so to the species does not beseem Christians The next objection or question If there were so many miracles as you must hold wrought in the Sacrament Multiplying of miracles need lessy Why are none of them seen He answers by another question If there be so many miracles wrought in the incarnation of our Saviour why were none of them seen p. 309. But great disparity here for albeit the miraculous Incarnation of our Saviour was secret and unseen in the working of it yet seen and apparent enough in the effect wrought Again the nature of that mystery required it should be secret in the working but for our believing it the word doth sufficiently attest it and the thing or work wrought was sufficiently evident therefore S. Jo. saith c. 1.14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw his glory c. Nothing like in the sacrament notwithstanding that the nature of sacraments requires all be done to the sense for confirmation and as nothing appears of all the supposed miracles so nor does the word of God plainly attest any of them so destitute is their way of Transubstantiation of any just proof or evidence CHAP. VIII Against Communion in one kinde THe Doctrine of the Church of Rome delivered in the Council of Trent and here prefixed by Mr. Spencer carries its Condemnation in the forehead The boldness of the Church of Rome in this point acknowledging that our Saviour instituted and administred in both kinds and that the use of both kinds was frequent might have said Constant in the beginning of Christian Religion might have said for 1200. years after the beginning of Christian Religion yet is not ashamed to approve the contrary practice and to plead for it an authority in the Church about the Sacraments to make a change Salvâ substantia that is the substance being preserved entire where again it speaks its own condemnation for how can the substance be preserved when half of that which our Saviour made the Sacrament is denied to the people He calls
representation of the two particulars The Romish Sacrifice wrong to Christ Sa. crament the spiritual meat and spiritual drink which he granted to be a different grace then under one kinde there is not a compleat signe of both But it must be proved saith he that the substance of this sacrisice requires they should be alwayes so fully represented in each particular communion of the people why needs it such proof if we look into the institution of this Sacrament his reason is because the full representation under both kinds is exhibited unto Lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dreadful sacrifice of the Mass p. 327. But what have we to do here with their sacrifice of Mass or to enquire what is required to such a Sacrifice We are treating of the Communion or Sacrament which our Saviour instituted for all Christians and to such purposes and that cannot be compleat except administred in both no more then their sacrifice can be compleat unless consecrated in both For it is senseless to think the sacrifice must be mutilate unless the Priest consecrate and receive it in both and yet the Sacrament not mutilate though the people receive it but in one kinde and senseless to hold or call it as he doth a Communion when the Priest receives it alone But having turned the Sacrament into such a Sacrifice they take off the people from seeking the benefit of Christs blood shed in the Sacrament to seek it and be content to have it applied to them in their pretended sacrifice where they are only spectators This however more profitable to the Priests I am sure it is little to the Peoples advantage But when this sacrifice which they pretend to be real and properly propitiatory comes to be driven home it interfeirs so injuriously and unhandsomely with that true and onely propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross that they are fain to take up with making it the application of that sacrifice on the Cross which we say is the work and purpose of a Sacrament viz. to apply a sacrifice and make men from time to time partakers of that which was made or offered but once And such is the intent purpose of this Sacrament to apply that sacrifice of the Cross unto us and for this respect also it is alwayes requisite that in this Sacrament or Communion there should be a full representation and exhibition made in both kinds not only of his body broken but of his blood shed also His Instance of thrice dipping in baptism for a full expression of the Trinity His impertinent instance in Baptisme whereas Protestants acknowledge once dipping sufficient is far from concluding one kinde in this Sacrament to be a full expression of what is signified or a sufficient exhibition of what is to be received there That Ceremony of thrice dipping or that purpose of representing thereby the mystery of the Trinity was not of our Saviours institution but a practice taken up in the Church and not universal But he goes on or rather urges again what he had said If our Saviour instituted each species or kinde apart to confer saving grace then he which receives either kinde devoutly receives that grace for which he instituted it p. 329. But this is cunning through ambiguous expressions For our Saviour instituted each apart that is several or one after the other but not that one therefore should be received without the other Or if this apart belongs to confer it is true that our Saviour did institute each to confer and he that receives devoutly does in each receive the grace for which he instituted that kind or part but does not receive the whole grace for which he instituted the Sacrament Also he that receives the one kind or part devoutly in order and with respect to the other he receives the grace for which it was instituted but he cannot assure himself of receiving that grace who receives the one exclusively to the other for how shall he be partaker of Christs bloodshed in the Sacrament or as it is represented held out and exhibited in the Sacrament that will only receive that kinde or part which gives him the body to eat not that bloodshed to drink it I have been the longer upon his first Assay because what is already said will meet with most of his sophistical Replyes As when to the next objection p. 330. that the Priest is obliged to receive the Cup notwithstanding that according to the Romish Tenet he had received a true Sacrament in the Host He answers by their being Priests and by the reason of a sacrifice upon which double account he will have the Priest obliged to both not Lay people This appears vain by what was said above Num. II. IIII. So to the following objection A compleat refection intended in the Sacrament taken from the compleat Refection by meat and drink He answers as he said above that both the graces of spiritual meat and spiritual drink or grace sufficient to salvation is conferred in each kinde and All that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Saviour in the first Institution gave a most plentifull and abundant banquet whereof each part was sufficient to confer life p. 332 333. Now albeit in a plentifull feast many dishes might be taken away yet none can say it is either a plentiful or sufficient feast and Refection if drink be wholly denied And considering what our Saviour purposed by this Sacrament which he made sanguinis effusi of his blood shed and that of his New Testament it must needs be his intention that both should alwayes be received nor finally does one confer that saving grace as was said above if the other be wilfully neglected His pretence from Joh. 6.57 He that eateth me shall live by me to prove the sufficiency of receiving in one kinde is inconsequent for the verses before 53 54 56. shew one as needful as the other As when it is said He that repents and believes shall be saved both are set down as necessary and we may not conclude because we meet sometimes with one only mentioned as Jo. 6. v. 47. He that believeth hath everlasting life therefore this without the other is sufficient Faith as above said by the same act of believing eats his flesh and drinks his blood extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we come to do this in the Sacrament that is by faith there to partake of his body and blood the eating and drinking must be distinct acts according to the Sacramental way of participation for so his blood shed is not drunk in the eating of his flesh And therefore the people are deceived while they are borne in hand that by receiving in one kinde they are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation as he p. 334. For that Church as much as in it lies does deprive them of the benefit of Christs blood shed in this Sacrament
Dialog 1. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changing saith he not the Nature of the Symbols or Elements but adding grace unto nature by which grace or blessing of consecration they become of holy use and divine vertue Again he saith Theod. Dial 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Symbols do not go out of their proper nature And this he spoke in answer to the Eutychian objecting the change made in the Sacrament as a proof or illustration of the change of the Humane Nature into the Divine asserted by those Hereticks In the place which the Cardinal alledged out of St. Cyprian in his Sermon de Caena is subjoyned the similitude of the Humanity and Divinity of Christ united together which very frequently is by the Fathers applied to the business of the Sacrament Omnipotentrâ Verbi carc factus The Cardinal opposes that St. Cyprian saith there The bread by the omnipotence of the Word is made his flesh Now what omnipotency is it saith he to make the Bread only signifie his body The Omnipotency say we is not in making the Bread a bare sign of his body as he would impose upon us nor yet in changing it substantially into the body of Christ as he would have us believe but in making the bread his body or communication of his body and yet to remain what it was the same in substance Ambr. de Sacram l. 4. c. 4. Vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur as St. Ambrose expresses it That they be what they were and yet turned into another thing viz. into the body and bloud of Christ and this he affirms to be a greater work then that of Creation which made things to be which were not There is one place which the Cardinal cites out of St. Chrysostome de Euchar. in Encaeniis I could not finde it Num vides panem num vinum num ficut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit ne Cogites but thus it speaks as he reports it Do'st thou see Bread or Wine do they go as other meats into the draught far be that from them do not think so Then followes for as Wax if it be held to the fire is assimulated to the fire or turned into a flame and nothing of the substance remains Sic hic puta Mysteria consumi Corporis substantia So also think here the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body Answ It is familiar with that father for better raising the thoughts from all earthly considerations in this Sacrament to use such manner of speeches Elsewhere he bids them not to think they are now on Earth but in Heaven and that they receive it from the hand of a Cherubim or Seraphim So here Do not think thou seest Bread and Wine c. and so think here the Mysteries are consumed as Wax turned into a flame to shew there is nothing of terrene or bodily consideration nothing for filling the belly intended or left in the use and purpose of this Sacrament and so neither should there be any thing of that concernment in our thoughts Now as to the point which the Romanists aim at the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine We may say in strict reasoning it would follow also that the Species of Bread and Wine do not remain for he saith the Mysteries are consumed and those according to the Romish doctrine are the Species after consecration But in all Reason we ought to have more regard to Fathers speaking punctually and properly in their Commentaries or disputes then loosly and and at large in their Rhetorical flourishes and perswasions as St. Chrysost often doth and most especially on this matter of the Sacrament We shall therefore now add some Testimonies of the Fathers speaking distinctly and properly to the point First of those that had to do with Hereticks Testimonies for remaining of the substance of the Elements and were in their disputes bound to speak properly and to the point Irenaeus dealt against such as denied our Saviour to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament or of the God that made and created all against whom he brings one argument from the Sacrament instituted by our Saviour saying Our sentence or doctrine is consonant to the Eucharist Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Nostra sententia est consonans Eucharistiae Eucharistia confirmat nostram sententiam and the Eucharist confirmeth our Doctrine Why because Christ as the Son of God took of his Creatures Bread and Wine to apply them to his own use and purpose So his making an Eucharist of those Creatures or fruits of the earth made against the vanity of that Heretical assertion In like manner the Eucharist or that which Irenaeus saith of it here confirms our Doctrine against the Romanists For there he saith The Bread after consecration is not now common bread but an Eucharist Panis non jam communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti Iren. ibid. consisting of two things the terrene and the Heavenly If not common bread yet bread still and if it consists of these two then is bread still in it for else it could not consist of it And this is according to the Cardinals own reasoning who intending by this place to prove a Real presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament argueth thus Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 6. Nihil constare dicitur ex eo quod in ipso non est Irenaeus saith It consists of the Earthly and the Heavenly part but nothing can consist saith the Cardinal of that which is not in it not observing that it equally proves the substantial presence of the Bread for it consists of the terrene as of the coelestial Now we can say the coelestial part the substance of Christs body and bloud is given in the Sacrament they dare not say it of the substance of the Terrene part but betake them to the species of bread and wine when as Irenaeus speaks of the substantial creatures and fruits of the earth and it concerned him to mean so else those Hereticks might have said our Saviour took those Creatures to destroy them and leaves only the appearance and species of those things which the God of the Old Testament had made Again the Cardinal makes another argument from those words of Irenaeus Our bodies receiving the Eucharist jam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Iren. ibid. are not now corruptible as having the hope of a resurrection wherein he abuses that good Father and himself For thus he argues from that saying Corpora nostra reipsa fient immortalia ergo panis terrenus reipsa fit corpus Christi Bel. ibid. Our bodies shall be truly indeed incorruptible therefore the terrene bread is truly indeed made the body of Christ Whereas that Father speaks of the present Our bodies are not now corruptible which
properly and distinctly and did so as we have seen We will add to these First Origen speaking by way of distinction Orig. in Mat. 15.17 Ille cibus quisanctificatur per juxtà id quod habet Materiale in Secessum mittitur and therefore exactly to the point That food saith he that is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer according to the Material part of it there 's his distinction goes into the belly and is sent into the draught The Cardinal is here driven to their poor shift of interpreting the Material part of that food by the Visible Accidents of it Secondly St. Ambrose his saying is remarkable speaking of the Elements That they be what they were Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. Vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur and yet be changed into another thing that is made the Body and Bloud of the Lord. The Cardinal makes two impertinent answers First that some read it Vt quae erant in aliud commutentur that the things which were be turned into another thing and this he approves as consonant to that which St. Ambrose speaks in his Book de Initiandis Ambr. de Init. c. 9. Sermo qui potuit ex nihil◠facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt mutare in id qued non erant That Word which could make of nothing that which was not so in the Creation can it not change those things that were into that which they were not So in the Sacrament But the purpose of the Father in this place is different from what it was in the former here he shews the possibility of this change in the Sacrament by that of the Creation arguing a majori ad minus from the greater work to the less it being a greater work to make a thing out of nothing then out of that which was and so in that respect it was fitting to say ea quae sunt those things that are be changed into what they were not But in the former place it was his purpose to shew the greatness of this work or change in the Sacrament above that of the Creation for which it was necessary to say ut sint quae erant that they be what they were for though it be a greater work to make a thing out of nothing as Wine created then to make it out of that which was before as Wine out of water Joh. 2. yet is it a greater work then that of Creation to make or change things into another thing and yet those things to remain what they were as in the Sacrament Quantò magis est operatorius ut sint quae erant How much more operative is that word saith he that they be what they were and yet changed into another thing The Cardinal therefore in his second answer retires to his old shift saying that the outward Accidents remain what they were But he might have remembred that sint and erant are Verbs Substantives and when spoken of bodies as here simply and without the adjection of qualities or Accidents attributed to them must mean the substantial being of such bodies Or if the Cardinal had inquired what are changed into another thing he would have found those things that are what they were but those things cannot be the outward Accidents of Bread and Wine for they are not changed into that other thing i.e. the Body and Bloud of Christ Or lastly had he considered the purpose of St. Ambrose he might easily have observed it was necessary for him to say of the substances of Bread and Wine that they are what they were I might add many Testimonies out of St. Aug. which upon the consideration of the nature of a Sacrament and upon other Reasons and occasions speak punctually to the same purpose that the visible signs or outward Elements remain in their former substance and yet are the body and bloud of Christ so far as the reason and purpose of that Sacrament requires But these which I have alledged may suffice SECT VIII Of Communion in one kinde IN the state of this Controversie we find two points asserted by the Romanists as appears by what said above Ch. VIII I. That it may be so administred to the People when it may be done otherwise or that the People may be forbidden to receive it otherwise II. That such a receiving is a compleat Communion The Scriptures that concern this Controversie were examined above And for the Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church we will only add some Generals which will clear the point on the Protestants side I. The confession of the Romish writers granting the use of receiving in both kindes continued from our Saviours time many ages throughout the Church As may be seen in the Council of Constance in Alphons de Castro Soto Costerius Tolet. II. In answering to the Testimonies of the Fathers asserting Communion in both kindes we finde the Cardinal and so the rest of them forced to acknowledge the use and practise Bel. de Euchar l. 4. c. 26. and content to say Those Testimonies do not speak a Necessity it should be so Now that it should be so where it can be so necessarily follows upon our Saviours precept Drink ye all of this the Disciples that did all drink representing then the whole company of the faithful as the Fathers frequently assert and upon the force of his Institution and Example and the answerable practice of the Catholick Church in the succeeding Ages For if so what Church or Age following shal think it self at liberty to do otherwise III. In proving those false Assertions but necessary for the Romanists to hold viz. * Bel. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 22. 33. That the whole Reason of the Sacrament is contained in one kinde and That there is not greater profit received by communion in both kindes then in one we finde the Cardinal cannot alledge One Father nor rise higher then Thomas Aquinas IV. As they cannot bring one Sentence of any Ancient Father commending or allowing their half Communion so the Instances they give us for it are impertinent and unconcluding far from proving the People may be held from receiving in both or made to believe they have a compleat Communion in One. A Collection of such Instances we finde in the * Bel. in defens Apolog contra Regem Jacobum c. 13. in l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. Cardinal The chief of them are these following I. The breaking of Bread often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and sometimes signifying the Sacrament What then They gave it to the people in one kinde only because one only is mentioned If this be a good argument as to the administration it will be good also as to the Consecration they consecrated it in one kinde only because one only is mentioned But if the Romanists count it Sacriledge as indeed it is so to consecrate they might think it Sacriledge also wilfully so to administer it II. Intinct◠The custom of giving the Bread dipped in the Wine for a whole Sacrament What then therefore it is not necessary that both kinds should be given severally But by this expedient we see they thought it necessary to give both Also this was only used in some places and it seems at first to be found out for Communicating Infants and sick persons that could not well swallow it dry And afterward this custom was rejected and forbidden III. The carrying of one kind to the sick viz. Communio Aegrorum Bread only But where both could both were carried it was necessity if in one and better one then neither and an incompleat Communion Communio Presanctificatorum then none at all IV. The Communion of the preconsecrated Elements when as one day in the Passion Week they used to receive in one kinde But this was not from the beginning 2. Not held a compleat Communion but a consuming of the remainder os the preconsecrated Bread the Wine being all consumed or made an end of the day before 3. From this usage to conclude a liberty of abstinence from the Wine in celebration of the Sacrament is unreasonable 4. The Priest did that day receive but one kinde therefore it might be likewise concluded that it was or may be the practise of the Church to have the Priest as well as the people confined to receive in one kinde Microl. in Biblioth Patrum c. 19. de vitanda intinctione Non est Authenticum c. ut populus plenè communicare possit I will only add what Micrologus saith in his Ecclesiast Observations where the Title of his 19. chapt is Of avoiding Intinction or giving the Host dipped It is not Authentick faith he which some do giving it dipped for the completion of a Communion and that the Wine or other Species is to be given he means severed from the other that the people may fully and compleatly communicate Also he there tels us that Julius the first Bishop of Rome writing to certain Aegyptian Bishops forbids that usage and enjoyns that both kindes be received severally Scorsùm panem scorsùm Calicem And that Gelasius Bishop of Rome puts them under censure of Excommunication who abstain from the Cup having received the body of our Lord and in the same Decree defines it Sacriledge to do so This is also in Gratian. Decr. part 3. de Consecratione And this enough to convince the boldness of the Romish Church in doing contrary to all this and yet asserting her Doctrine and Practise to be Catholick Deo Gloria THE END