the Bread and Wine St. Paul who wrote to the Laiety would no doubt have taken notice of it and told them their respective duties but he delivers the Institution to them just as Christ did to his Apostles says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup but on the contrary adds that command to it which is in none of the Evangolists Do this in remembrance of me Gives not the least intimation that this was given to the Apostles as Priests or that they were made Priests then but what is observable does not so much as mention the Apostles or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution and to whom the words Do this were spoken So that so far as appears from him they might be spoken to other Disciples to ordinary Laics nay to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament as well as the Apostles and so must have been made Priests by those words Hoc facite as well as they After the recital of the Institution in which he observes no difference between the Priests and Laics he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup they shewed forth the Lord's death till he come So that they who were to shew forth Christ's death as well as the Priests were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup and indeed one of them does not shew forth his death so well as both for it does not shew his Blood separated from his Body He goes on to shew 'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking for he all along joyns both those Acts as a phrase signifying the Communion and he expresly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter But in some Copies say they instead of and he uses the particle or in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drinking without doing both which is such a shift and cavil as nothing would make a man catch at but such a desperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it If the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were used in that place instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet he has but little skil either in Greek or Latine Authors who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both to use that disjunctive for a copulative as to Abraham or his seed for to Abraham and his seed ‖ Ro. 4.13 Of which it were easie to give innumerable instances both in the Bible and profane History The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses and all along in this Chapter and having joyned eating and drinking cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive and to separate them but after all there are Copies of as great Credit and Authority for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles as to make it worth our while to examine them for if the Apostles did disjoyn them it was onely to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking which though they both go together yet are both very great Sins and I see no manner of consequence that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily that therefore he should onely eat and not drink at all or that the Apostles supposed it lawful to eat without drinking or drink without eating But the Apostolical practice and the Institution of our Saviour for Communion in both kinds though it be very plain and clear in Scripture and being founded upon so full a Command and a Divine Institution I know no Power in the Church to alter it or vary from it yet it will be further confirmed and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church and of the purest Ages after the Apostles and by the general consent of Antiquity for a thousand years and more after Christ in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful who came to the public Worship and to the Communion in both kinds without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety as to this matter which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author till after the Twelfth Century in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in struck men with such horror and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols which they believed to be turned into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins and now by a miraculous way was conveyed into the Chalice Hence at first they used Pipes and Quils to suck it out of the Cup and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine and afterwards the same superstition increasing they came to leave off and abstaine wholly from drinking the Cup which was reserved onely to the more sacred lips of the Priests who were willing to be hereby distinguisht from the more unworthy and prophane Laiety The Council of Constance first made this a Law in the Year 1415 which was before a new and superstitious custom used only in some few places and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latine Communion for it never was in any other nor is to this day of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas who lived in the Thirteenth Age and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time * In aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicetsanguine reliqui vero Corpore Comment in Johan c. 6. v. 53. In some Churches it is observed that onely the Priest Communicates of the blood and others of the Body †In quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur sum p. 3. q. 80. In quibusdam in Aliquibus Ecclesiis shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds and never varied from what Christ and his Apostles had commanded and delivered to them as the Church of Rome now does I shall fully prove that so according to Vincentius Lirinensis his rule against all manner of Heresies the truth may be establisht First ‖ Primo scilicet divinae legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione by the authority of a divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church which
tremendous Mysteries and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Petr in Biblioth Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body and his most precious Bloud That under the name of St. James after the Prayer of the Priest that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lytur Jacob. Ib. which word all supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates represents the Deacons after the communion of the Clergy as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and after they had received of both the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of his Blood * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them the immaculate Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Marcl Ib. and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith Sobriety ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and Christian Vertues Which had bin very improper if none but himself had bin to partake of them So that whatever Antiquity and whatever Authority may be allowed to those Lyturgies who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind And those Churches who used these Lyturgies and so probably ascribed these Names to them as Hierusalem that of St. James Alexandria that of St. Mark these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies But to come to the more Authentic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom which are now used in the Greek Churches though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations there is a manifest proof in both of them for the Communion in both kinds In the former the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants that we all who partake of one Bread and one Cup may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ to judgement or condemnation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Easil so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone nor was alone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ in another Prayer he mentions the people expresly and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe by his great power to give unto them his pure Bloud and by them that is by the Priests to all the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And as the Priest thus prays for the People and for others before the Communion so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words We give thee thanks O Lord our God for the participation of thy holy pure and heavenly Mysteries which thou hast given us to the benefit sanctification and health both of our Souls and Bodies Do thou O Lord of all things grant unto us that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Chrysost Savil. Edit Tom. 6. which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow and that which is in the Cup his Blood †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. that so they may become to those who partake of them for the cleansing of the Soul the remission of Sins ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and the like And having used that Prayer Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood and by us to all the people He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine and uses particular expressions at the giving of each As this hath touched thy Lips and will take away thy Sins and purge away thy Wickedness * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God and in Charity †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And though there is no particular description of their Communion as there is of the Deacons yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same and had it been different no doubt there would have been an account of it but after all the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving in the name of all Blessing God that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 1003. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Cassander in his Lyturgies tells us * Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost Basilii Lyturgiis convenit Lyturg. per G. Cassand That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two both in the prayers and the orders of the performance and in this the people as he informs us pray towards the conclusion That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood †Populus sub finem benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus Benedictus sit qui aedit sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum pretiosum sanguinem suum Ib. and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Bloud And again Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins which they call Missals they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage and which contain the Communion in both kinds as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum publisht at Rome by Thomasius where the Gelasian Form that is older than the Gregorian speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders and with all the People ‖ Post haec Communicat sacerdos cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo P.
199. without any difference and all along mentions both the Symbols by the words Sacramenta Mysteria Dona in the plural number and concludes with this Prayer That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace * Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur p. 198. The three other are lately published by Mabillon and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church before that Nation had received the Roman Office in all which also there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds in the old Gothic one after the Lord's Prayer follows this †Libera nos à malo Domine Christe Jesu Corpus tuum pro nobis crucisixum edimus sanguinem sanctum tuum bibimus fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem sanguis sanctas tuus in remissionem peccatorum hìc in aeternùm Missale Gothico-Gallicanum apud Mabillon de Lyturg. Gallic p. 300. Deliver us from evil O Lord Jesus Christ we have eaten thy Body crucified for us we have drunk thy holy Blood which was shed for us Let thy sacred Body be unto us for Salvation and thy sacred Blood for the remission of Sins here and for ever And in the Missa Dominicalis after the Communion there is this Prayer Thy body O Lord which we have taken and thy Cup which we have drunk let it stick in our entrails ‖ Corpus tuum Domine quod accepimus calicem tuum quem potavimus haereat visceribus nostris Ib. p. 297. An expression used now in the Canon Missae In the Missale Francorum which is but short the Sacramenta and Mysteria and Sacrosancta Mysteria are used in the plural which may denote the two parts of the Sacrament but in the old Gallican Missal it is as plain as can be in the Collect after the Eucharist We have taken from the holy Altars the body and blood of Christ our Lord and our God Let us pray that we being always filled with Faith may hunger and thirst after Righteousness * Sumsimus ex sacris altaribus Christi Domini Dei nostri corpus sanguinem oremus ut semper nobis fide plenis esurire detur ac sitire justitiam Ib. p. 331. And in another Collect after the Communion upon Easter day We beseech thee O Lord that this wholsome food and sacred drink may bring up thy Servants †Quaesumus Domine famulos tuos salutaris cibus sacer potus instituat Ib. p. 366. There are several old Missals produced by Menardus at the end of his Notes on Gregory's Sacramentary which are supposed to be written about the Tenth and the Eleventh Century and though the Doctrine of Transubstantiation creeping in in those dark and ignorant times made them begin to have a superstitious fear of spilling the Wine and so brought them in order to prevent that to mix the two Elements together yet they never gave the one without the other as appears in all those Masses The Sacramentary of St. Gregory is alone a sufficient Authority for Communion in both kinds in which the Priest who Celebrates prays that as many as shall take the sacred Body and Blood of thy Son may be filled with all heavenly blessings ‖ Quotquot ex hâc altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti repleamur Gregor Sacram. and we who take the Communion of this holy Bread and Cup are made one body of Christ * Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem hujus sancti panis calicis unum Christi corpus efficimur Ib. So that the Body and Blood of Christ were plainly to be taken by more than himself and were so by all the Faithful who were thereby to be made the Body of Christ so we are fed with his flesh we are strengthned by his bloud †Cajus cane pascimur reboramur sanguine Ib. Thou hast refreshed us with the body and bloud of thy Son ‖ Corpore sanguine filii tui nos resecisti Ib. and we beseech thee that we may be numbred amongst his members whose body and bloud we do Communicate * Quaesumus ut inter ejus membra numeremur cujus corpori communicamus sanguini Ib. I have before considered the Ordo Romanus as an ancient Ritual of the Latine Church and both that and the Sacramentary of St. Gregory which are the most ancient Writings at least next to Gelasius that give us an account of these things in the Roman Church do bear witness to the custom of giving the Cup in the Communion as well as the Bread which Cassander also observes †Quem morem sanguinis Domiai porrigendi antiqua Sacramentaria B. Gregorii libellus Ordinis Romani apertè testantur Cassand Consult de commun sub utrâ que who had as great skill as any man in these matters but yet had not seen the Gelasian Sacramentary since published out of the Queen of Sweden's Library which is a further confirmation of this 3. As to the Testimony of the Fathers or ancient Writers some of those have been already given upon the two former heads I shall add several others to them who bear witness to the Communion in both kinds Ignatius in one of his Epistles says One Bread is broken to all one Cup is distributed to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph And here I cannot but admire the Confidence and Folly of Monsieur Boileau * De solitario pane mentionem facit Ignatius Boileau de praecept Divin Commun sub utráque p. 216. who brings this very passage One Bread is broken for them all as a proof that it was onely the Bread that was given and leaves out what is immediately added One Cup is distributed to all which not onely confutes but shames him †Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore Domini sanguine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus says The flesh is fed by the body and bloud of Christ and that of the Cup and the Bread the substance of our flesh is increased and consists ‖ Quando ergo mixtus calix fraclus panis percipit verbum Det fit Eucht istia sangutnis corporis Christi x quibus augetur consistit carnti nostrae substantia quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donatio is Dei. qui est vitae aeterna quae sanguine corpere Christi nutritur membrum ejus Id. l. 5. c. 2. And from hence he there proves the Resurrection of the Body against those Hereticks that denied it because the body is nourished by the bloud and body of Christ and is made a member of him He must mean this of
is certainly as easie to know what Christ instituted and what he commanded as to know this and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and appointed as to know what it is to eat and to drink and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty P. 239 257 349. To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament and what does not and to distinguish what is essential in it from what is not And by this means he endeavour to darken what is as clear as the light and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command The Institution says he does not suffice since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Institution Jesus Christ not having distinguisht them Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be eating may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come †11.26 27 28 29. Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend the other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it P. 299. but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise †P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga paenitentiam vitium praesumtio intinctionis importat Tertul. de paenir Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam infidae paenitentiae
the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing †P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened †P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and
the same sacrifice and continuing daily to offer it shows that it was not sufficient nor did do the business at once offering as the frequent using the same medicine shows that it has not fully cured the wound nor yet perfectly done its work Secondly The sacrifice of the Mass they say is only to apply the vertue and merit of the sacrifice of the Cross for though the sacrifice of the Cross like a powerful medicament have sufficient vertue in it yet what does that signifie unless it be applyed to us which it is by the sacrifice of the Mass But is there not another way to apply that to us Is it not applied to us by Faith and by the common means of Christs own institution the Christian Sacraments and especially by the Worthy Receiving of the Lords Supper wherein as the Apostle says The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 We do hereby communicate and are made partakers of Christs Body as it was sacrificed for us that is of all the vertues and benefits of his sacrifice by being as the Apostle adds verse 17. Made partakers of that One bread that is surely by eating it sacramentally and religiously as Christ has appointed for it would sound very hard and be a very odd expression to say we are partakers of that one bread by the sacrificing or offering up of that bread when they will not own that the bread is sacrificed or if it were could we well be thereby partakers of it but 't is the eating of that bread which makes us partakers of it and 't is the eating Christs Body and drinking his Blood in the blessed Sacrament that communicates and applies the vertue of his sacrifice of the Cross to us and not the sacrificing of that again as the Apostle goes on verse 18. Are not they who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the Altar 't is eating and communicating that makes us partakers of Christs sacrifice We do then eat of the sacrifice and so partake of it as the Jews did of their sacrifices the communion is a feasting upon a true oblatum the body and blood of Christ as is excellently made out by a Learned man of our own we do not there sacrifice Christs body but only sacramentally eat of it as being already sacrificed and offered once for all by Christ himself upon the Cross It is not at all necessary that it should be sacrificed again by us to make us become partakers of it for cannot a sacrifice be applyed without being sacrificed again It seems a very strange and uncouth way to sacrifice the same thing over and over in order to applying the vertue of it as if the Jews when they had slain the Paschal Lamb must have slain another Lamb in order to the partaking the vertue of it no they were to eat of it for that purpose and so are we of Christs sacrifice and this is the way whereby we do communicate of it and have its full vertue applyed to us It was the weakness and insufficiency of their sacrifices that made them so often repeat them and sacrifice them anew but Christs sacrifice being perfect is to be but once offered though it be often to be eaten and partaken of by us which it may be without being again sacrificed Thirdly The Authour of this Epistle makes not the least mention of Christs sacrifice being offered again upon Earth or of its being repeated in the sacrifice of the Mass but after he himself had once offered it upon the Cross he immediately speaks of his presenting it to God in Heaven and there by vertue of it interceeding and mediating with him for us that by his own blood he entered into the holy place having obtained eternal Redemption for us chap. 9. ver 12. as the Jewish high priest on the great day of expiation after he had offered the sacrifice of atonement for the whole Congregation upon the Altar carried the blood of it into the Holy of Holies and there sprinkled it before the mercy-seat Levit. 16.15 This great Anniversary sacrifice for the whole Congregation was the great Type and Figure of Christs sacrifice for all mankind and the Holy of Holies was the Type of Heaven and the High Priest of Christ as is confessed by all Christ therefore our great High Priest to whom alone it belonged to offer this sacrifice of Atonement and Expiation for the whole World having done this upon the Cross he entred not into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true but into heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us chap 9. ver 24. To appear there as our Advocate and Mediator and by vertue of his own blood there presented to his Father to make a very powerful intercession for us Now from this discourse of the Apostle we have a full account of Christs sacrifice that it was to be once offered upon the cross and then to be carried into the Holy of Holies in Heaven and no more to be offered upon Earth for this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God chap. 10. ver 12. The Apostle speaks not one tittle nor gives the least hint or intimation of this sacrifice being offered again by others upon Earth this lyes cross to the whole tenour of his discourse and the similitude and agreement which he represents between the Jewish sacrifice of Atonement and Christs is quite altered and destroyed by it for besides the High Priests offering this sacrifice this makes every lesser Priest to be still offering the same sacrifice upon the Altar when the High Priest is entred with the blood of it into the Holy of Holies and though he cannot go in there upon which the vertue and the perfection of the sacrifice does in great measure depend yet still to offer the same sacrifice and besides it makes this sacrifice like to the Jewish where every priest standeth daily ministring and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which for the reason shewed they could never take away sins chap. 10. ver 12. in opposition to which he says this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God verse 13. that is Christs sacrifice was never to be repeated as the Jewish were for if it had been to be offered by others though not by Christ himself and the Christian Priests were to stand daily ministring and offering the same sacrifice both they and their sacrifice would have been the same upon this account with the Jewish and there had not been that difference between them which the Apostle does there plainly mean and declare Further it cannot but seem very strange that when this Divine Author does so largely and copiously and designedly treat of
Jacobi as it is in the Church of England and I hope Boileau will not pretend that this is to the Holy Table it self If whatever we worship before is the very Object of our Worship then the Priest is so as well as the Table but it is neither he nor the Table nor the Sacrament but only Christ himself to whom this Worship is or ought to be given at the Celebration of the Eucharist and therefore this Adoration was as well before as after the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements and so could not be supposed to be given to them 3. There were several very ancient Customs relating to the Sacrament which are no ways consistent with the Opinion the Papists have of it now and with the worship of it as a God. It was very old and very usual for Christians to reserve and keep by them some of the Elements the Bread especially which they had received at the Sacrament as is evident from Tertullian n De Orat. c. 14. Accepto â—orpore Domini reservato and from St. Cyprian o De Lapsis who reports a very stronge think that happened to a Woman and also to a Man who had unduly gone to the Sacrament and brought some part of it home with them I shall not enquire whither this Custom had not something of Superstition in it whither in those times of Danger and Persecution it were not of use but had the Church then thought of it as the Papists do now they would not have suffered private Christians to have done this nay they would not have suffered them hardly to have toucht and handled that which they had believed to be a God no more than the Church of Rome will now which is so far from allowing this private Reservation of the Elements that out of profound Veneration as they pretend to them they wholly deny one part of them the Cup to the Laity and the other part the Bread they will not as the primitive Church put into their hands but the Priest must inject it into their Mouths The sending the Eucharist not only to the Sick and Infirm and to the Penitents who were this way to be admitted to the Communion of the Church in articulo mortis as is plain from the known Story of Serapion p Euseb Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 34. but the Bishops of several Churches sending it to one another as a token and pledg of their Communion with each other and q Iren. apud Euseb l. 5. c. 24. it being sent also to private Christians who lived remote in the Country and private Places which custom was abolisht by the Council of Laodicea these all show that tho the Christians always thought the Sacrament a Symbol of Love and Friendship and Communion with the Church so that by partaking of this one Bread they were all made as St. Paul says One Bread and one Body yet they could not think this to be a God or the very natural Body of their Saviour which they sent thus commonly up and down without that Pomp and Solemnity that is now used in the Church of Rome and without which I own it is not fit a Deity should be treated But above all what can they think of those who anciently used to burn the Elements that remained after the Communion as Hesychius r In Levit. 8.32 testifies was the custom of the Church of Hierusalem according to the Law of Moses in Leviticus of burning what remain'd of the Flesh of the Sacrifice that was not eaten but however this was done out of some respect that what was thus sacred might not otherwise be profaned yet they could not sure account that to be a God or to be the very natural and substantial Body of Christ which they thus burnt and threw into the Fire So great an honour and regard had the Primitive Church for the Sacrament that as they accounted it the highest Mystery and Solemnest part of their Worship so they would not admit any of the Penitents who had been guilty of any great and notorious Sin nor the Catechumens nor the Possest and Energumeni so much as to the sight of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Participation of this Mystery used always in those times to go together as Cassander Å¿ Consult de Circumgest Sacram. owns and Albaspinaeus t L'ancienne Police de l'Eglise sur l'administration de l'Eucharistie liure prem Chap. 15 16 17. proves in his Book of the Eucharist And therefore as it is plainly contrary to the Primitive practice to carry the Sacrament up and down and expose it to the Eyes of all Persons so the reason of doing it that it may be worshipt by all and that those who do not partake of it may yet adore it was it is plain never thought of in the primitive Church for then they would have seen and worshipped it tho they had not thought fit that they should have partaken of it But he that will see how widely the Church of Rome differs from the ancient Church in this and other matters relating to the Eucharist let him read the learned Dallee his two Books of the Object of religious Worship I shall now give an Answer to the Authorities which they produce out of the Fathers and which Monsieur Boileau has he tells us been a whole year a gleaning out of them v Annuae vellicationis litirariae ratiocinium reddo Praef. ad Lect. Boileau de Adorat Euchar. if he has not rather pickt from the Sheaves of Bellarmine and Perrone But all their Evidences out of Antiquity as they are produced by him and bound up together in one Bundle in his Book I shall Examine and Answer too I doubt not in a much less time They are the only Argument he pretends to for this Adoration and when Scripture and all other Reasons fail them as they generally do then they fly to the Fathers as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the open Field fly to the Woods or the Mountains where they know but very few can follow them I take it to be sufficient that in any necessary Article of Faith or Essential part of Christian Worship which this of the Sacrament must be if it be any part at all it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us or that the Scripture is silent and speaks of no more than what we own and admit In other external and indifferent Matters relating meerly to the Circumstances of Worship the Church may for outward Order and Decency appoint what the Scripture does not But as to what we are to believe and what we are to Worship the most positive Argument from any humane Authority is of no weight where there is but a Negative from Scripture But we have such a due regard to Antiquity and are so well assured of our cause were it to be tryed only by that and not by Scripture which
Comestionem substantiae corporis Christi non esse naturalem so might the Egyptians have said too if they had pleased tho how they can otherwise eat him 't is hard to understand but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating unless they will at the same time say They do not eat him truly and naturally and yet do eat him so and they are so used to Contradictions in this point that I don't know whether they will make any more Bones of this than of the rest or of the substantial Body of a man himself when they have got so large a Faith or rather so large a Swallow But how is it that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner and yet it is a carnal Body that ye so much contend for and that ye really and truly eat and 't is a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into and sometimes a very foul and wicked one And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very Body of Christ as well as the most faithful But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth nor chew him in our Mouths as our other Food nor digest him in our Stomachs nor cast him out into the draught if ye do not as ye pretend being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it and yet a very great many among you have owned all that z Retract Bereng sub Nicol. 2 in Concil Rom. Verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Sic Gualt Abbaud apud Boil p. 177. as not knowing how it could be otherwise and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacramental Christs presence may not be so too which is the Heresie on the other side a Iste in omnibus veritatem subtrahit dum asserit omnia fieri sc fractionem attritionem corporis Christi in Eucharistia non substantia sed in specie visibili forma panis Sacramento tantum Gualter adversus Abailard apud Boil 179. and ye seem to make strange Monsters of your selves that have spiritual Teeth and can spiritually and not naturally eat a natural and a carnal Body and if ye do not thus eat it as ye eat other meat when ye take it into your Mouths and into your Stomacks and do every thing to it that you do to your other food which is as like eating as if it were very true and natural eating and if it be not Bread which is thus eaten when it is just as like other Bread as is possible then it is certainly the most phantastick Food and the most phantastick way of eating it that can be imagined then there must be a new way of eating which is not eating and a new way for a Body to be present and yet not present as a Body and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding which is no understanding that can understand or believe all this But further ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host to keep the Body of Christ confined to it and inclosed in it as a Prisoner till the Species corrupt and so the prison is as it were opened and the Body let loose and when that is gone whether ye think it be the Species or the Substance of Bread that corrupts I would gladly know and surely then when the Body is gone there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents without a Subject if it be Bread what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh and from Flesh to Bread again and this latter without any words from the Priest but since Christs Body must be so permanently in the Host not only in the act and use of the Sacrament but at all other times ye are then forced to own that as it is eaten in the Communion as well by those who have no faith as by the most faithful Christians so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host taking it no doubt heretically for meer Bread that yet they truly take the Body of Christ and eat it after some manner or other but whether it be after a natural manner in them or no I don't know how you have resolved but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous question b An mus vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. See Burchard de Correct Miss upon those Questions De vino in calice congelato de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine de vomitu post receptionem Sacramenti Quando cadit corpus Christi Quando cadit sanguis Christi fol. 51 52. in the Affirmative Whether if a Mouse or a Hig or a Dog eat the Host they do partake of Christs Body Or as Thomas Aquinas your most Angelick Doctor says consequently to this Opinion of yours c Alter derogaret veritati corporis Christi p. 3. qu. 79. It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christs presence in it So that wherever the Species are there is always Christs Body and whatever happens to them happens to that also If they fall to the ground Christs Body does so to and so if they lie in a hollow Tooth or hang but in the least crum or drop upon a Communicants Beard there according to their principles they and the Body must be worshipt with Latria and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body that has got to them the adorable Object still goes with the Species till they be corrupted and whither the Species be corrupted or no if they be poysoned as they have somtimes been or whether Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poyson I can't tell but when the Species are in the pix he is as fast there as he ever was in his Sepulcher and to all appearance as dead and senseless and if the Species be Burnt or Gnawn or vomited out of the Stomack before they are corrupted all these misfortunes belong as truly to Christs Body as to them and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious Body than ever were offered to it in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth when it was Spit upon and Scourged and Pierced and Crucified by the Jews But Good God! that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his Body by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities that Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World by such an extravagant Doctrine and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idolatry as this is God Almighty open all our Eyes that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind and darkness of Understanding
of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all
of this for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins JESUS took bread and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it And he said unto them This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after supper saying This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you The LORD JESUS the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new testament in my blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me From all these it evidently appears that our Saviour appoints the Cup as well as the Bread and commands that to be drunk as much as the other to be eat And two of the Evangelists remark that particularly of the Cup which they do not of the Bread that they all drank of it and that Christ said expresly to them Drink ye all of it As if the infinite Wisdom of God which foresaw all future events and all the after-errours that should arise about this Sacrament had had some especial regard to this very thing and designed to prevent the abuse and mistake of those who would not have all Christians drink of this Cup as well as eat of the Bread. What other reason there should be of those particular and remarkable words in St. Mathew and St. Mark relating to the Cup more than to the Bread I believe it will be hard to find out for Christ gave them the Bread just as he did the Cup and there was no more danger that any of them at that time should omit drinking the one any more than eating the other nor did there need any greater caution that we know of or more particular command in reference to themselves for the one more than the other and yet no doubt there was some great and peculiar reason for St. Matthew and St. Mark 's adding of those words of which there can be no such probable account given as their having a respect and relation to after Ages as many other things in the Scripture have which was written for the use not onely of the present but all times of the Church and if these were spoken to the Apostles onely as Priests as the Roman Sophisters pretend though without any ground as we shall shew by and by there cannot then be given any reason for them as yet for there is no such corruption yet got into any part of the Christian Church as to forbid the Priests to drink of the Cup and therefore it cannot be said that this remark or precaution was upon their account unless the Romanists will think fit to take it to themselves upon the account of their not allowing their very Priests to Communicate of the Cup unless when they Minister and Consecrate and so will have it regard onely that other abuse of theirs which is unjustifiable even upon their own grounds to wit That the assistent Priests are not to receive it though Christ by their own confession said to the Priests who were present Drink ye all of it Which is the best way that I know for them to come off of those words by their own Principles For to avoid the force of those words and to elude the plain Command and Institution of our Saviour about the Cup 's being given to all Christians they say The Apostles received it onely in the capacity of Priests and that our Saviour's Command Drink ye all of it belongs onely to Priests and was given to the Apostles meerly as such nay Monsieur Boileau says ‖ Igitur haec verba S. Matthei bibete ex hoc omnes haec S. Marci biberant ex illio omnes neminem hominem praeter duodecim Apostolos spectant aut attinent Boileau de pracepto divino Commun Sub utrâque specie p. 188. that those words in St. Matthew Drink ye all of it and in St. Mark they all drank of it Respect no man whatsoever nor belong to no other man but to the twelve Apostles and Monsieur de Meaux tells us P. 237. that these words were addressed to the Apostles onely who were present and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunk of it Then it seems none but the Apostles themselves no other Priests have a right or a command to drink of the Cup but onely the Apostles And this they might say if they pleased upon as good grounds and defend with as much reason as that the Apostles onely drank of it as Priests but I suppose they do not intend to improve this notion so far but mean onely the same with their Brethren who say that those words concern the Apostles not onely in their own persons but as Priests and as bearing the persons of all Christian Priests in which capacity alone they received the Cup and were commanded by our Saviour to drink of it whereas they received the Bread as Lay-men and as representing the whole body of private and ordinary Christians What a sudden change is here in the Apostles they who sat down as Lay-men and as Lay-men took the Bread just before have their capacity altered in a trice and are made Priests in a moment Yes say they so they were at that very time they were made Priests whilst they were sitting at Table with Christ and Celebrating this his last Supper the first and only ordination that ever was either in the Jewish or Christian Church in the time of eating and siting at Table And they may set up I dare say for the first Authors among all the Christian Writers that ever were of this Opinion that is now held by them That Christ at his last Supper appointed not onely one but two Sacraments that of Orders as well as that of the Eucharist and the first without any proper Solemnity for such a purpose without any outward Action or any Words one would think importing any such thing But they were made Priests say they by vertue of those words Hoc facite Do this which Christ spake to them after he had given them the Bread. This is a very short and a quick form of Ordination and had it been known to be one sooner for 't is a very late discovery I suppose the Roman Church would have kept to that in the Ordaining Priests as they do to Hoc est Corpus in Consecrating the Sacramental Bread But this
short form whereby they will have the Apostles made Preists so suddenly and unexpectedly happens to be too quick and to make them Priests a little too soon which is a very unlucky thing for their purpose for Christ said those words Hoc facite do this just as he gave them the Bread and spoke them in one continued sentence with Take eat this is my body so that whether he gave the Bread severally to each of them or they took it as it was upon the table as it is said they divided the Cup among themselves it cannot be supposed but that those words hoc facite were spoken by Christ before the Apostles did receive the Bread or at least before they ate it so that it might as fairly be pretended and as truly that the Apostles ate the Bread as Priests as well as drank the Wine as such for they were made as much Priests by those words before they ate the Bread as before they drank the Wine If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands before those words were pronounced by our Saviour which is the most that can be yet they could not eat it before they were And so this fine and subtle Hypothesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup will deprive them of the Bread too and will in its consequence and by the same train of arguing tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the People and make it peculiar to the Priests as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar but it shall be reserved as a peculiar right and priviledge of the Priests to which the Laity ought not to pretend because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests and were made Priests fore they either ate the Bread or drank the Wine this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other Which is the great reason they themselves give and no doubt a true one for their taking away the Cup from the People and I don't question but so great a Wit and so eloquent an Artist in pleading as the Bishop of Meaux is who can say a great deal for any cause be it never so bad may with as good grounds and as great a shew of reason justifie if he please the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles receiving both kinds as Priests to prove the Laiety have a right to neither and may take off the necessity of both parts as well as one by pretending that the real effect and vertue of the Sacrament is received some other way by the Sacrifice of the Mass or by Spiritual Manducation or by some thing else without partaking any of the Symbols as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed for if the effect and vertue of the Sacrament depend upon Christs Institution then both are necessary if it may be had without keeping to that then neither is so but of this afterwards when we come to examine his grounds and reasons I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament and offer some considerations against these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries 1. I would ask them whither those words of our Saviour Do this in remembrance of me do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles if they do not then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament either in both or in one kind Where is there any command at all for Christians to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper or to observe this Christian Rite which is the peculiar mark and badge of our Profession and the most solemn part of Christian Worship Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World as they did upon the Apostles at that time or else we must say with the Socinians That the Sacrament was onely a temporary Rite that belonged onely to the Apostles and was not to continue in the Church or be observed by all Christians in all Ages But St. Paul says * 1 Cor. 11.26 we do hereby shew or declare the Lord's death till he come by this solemn way of eating Bread broken and Wine poured out we are to remember Christ who dyed for us and is gone into Heaven till he come again when we shall live with him and enjoy his Presence for ever Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this and they are to Do this in remembrance of him they are as much obliged to this as the Apostles were and the command does as much belong to the People to receive the Sacrament as to the Apostles or to their Successors to give it them The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts which is not onely to receive but to dispence and distribute the Sacrament and the People or Christian Laiety are commanded to do theirs which is to receive it The Apostles are to do that which Christ did to Bless the Bread and breake it and give it to be eaten to bless the Cup and give it to be drunk by the Communicants and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them and perform those proper parts of their Duty which are here commanded them they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain command of Christ Do this in remembrance of me No body ever denyed that those words and this command of Christ belonged to the Apostles but to say they belong to them alone and not to all Christians is to take away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper 2. This command of Christ as it obliges all Christians to receive the Sacrament the Laiety as well as the Clergy so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacrament so it obliges them to give it in both kinds for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ belongs as much to one kind as the other and is as expresly added concerning the Cup as concerning the Bread for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread Bellarmine observing these words in St. Luke to be added only after the giving of the Bread for they are in neither of the two other Evangelists falls into a mighty triumph and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devotion admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD * Mirabilis est providentia Dei in
sanctis literis nam ut non haberent haeretici justam excusationem sustulit eis omnem tergiversando occasionem Nam Lucas illud Hoc facite posuit post datum Sacramentum Sub specie panis post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur Sacramentum sub specie autem vini non utrem Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 4. c. 25. that to take away all Heretical Tergiversation this should so happen that it might be plainly understood that the Wine was not to be given to all and that this command did not belong to that but onely to the Bread But this shews how over-hasty he was to catch at any thing though by the plainest mistake in the World that might help him in his straights and how over-glad to find any thing that might seem to favour and relieve him in his distressed cause and how his zeal and forwardness out run not onely his judgement but even his memory for if he had but turned to St. Paul and had but thought of this passage in him where he addes these very words Do this in remembrance of me to the Cup as well as to the Bread it would have quite spoiled his mighty Observation and made him ashamed of it and not have suffered him to be guilty of so horrid a flip But the Bishop of Meaux espied this †P. 255. as it is hard to miss it and what way has he to put by the force of those words which so undeniably belong to the Cup as well as the Bread He says They import onely a conditional order to do this in remembrance of Christ as often as one shall do it and not an order absolute to do it But does not this conditional order imply an absolute one to do it often and virtually forbid the not doing it at all if he had gone on but to the very next verse would he not have found that St. Paul gives the same conditional order concerning eating the Bread as both here and there concerning drinking the Cup As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth or do ye shew forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's death till he come And do not those words though spoke conditionally of the Bread yet absolutely order the eating of it when we received the Sacrament if they do as sure no body will deny then they as well absolutely order the drinking the Cup too when we do so Affirmative precepts such as this is oblige us not absolutely at all times as when ye pray when ye fast are onely conditional commands but yet they import an absolute command to perform those duties and when we do so to perform them so as Christ has appointed us to do and thus we have an absolute precept in the Gospel to receive the Sacrament which he is very willing we should not have ‖ P. 256. and when we do so we are to receive it as Christ commanded we should by eating Bread and drinking Wine and doing both those in remembrance of him 3. Christ's own Institution had there been no such particular Commands to Drink as well as to Eat and to Do both in remembrance of him I say his own Institution of the Sacrament both by Bread and Wine should suffice methinks to show us what we should do when we Celebrate the same Sacrament that he did namely use both Bread and Wine and eat and drink it as was done then if it be the same Sacrament that he celebrated with his Disciples why do not we celebrate it as he did why should we not observe his own Institution but without any order from him and contrary to what he did leave out part of it and that part of it which is as considerable and as remarkable in his Institution as the other If from the bare Institution of Christ all Christians are bound to receive this Sacrament which surely they are then from thence they are bound as much to drink the Cup as to eat the Bread for both are equally instituted If the Institution for of that I speak now as 't is in St. Matthew and St. Mark without the additional command of Do this if that do not oblige to drink the Cup neither does it oblige to eat the Bread for that is no more in the Institution then the other And if the Church has such a power as to take away the Cup notwithstanding the Institution it may have a power to take away the Bread too notwithstanding the Institution for the one is as much in the Institution as the other and if the Cup be not an Essential part of the Sacrament which is the other thing they say and which the Bishop of Meaux insists on which I shall examine afterwards then neither is the Bread so far as appears by the Institution and so neither of them may be necessary and both of them may be taken away notwithstanding Christ's own Institution of both Which though it be the most presumptuous boldness and the most horrid Sacriledge that can be yet shall I say no more to it at present but what St. Cyprian does upon the like case of those who would omit the Wine in the Sacrament and use water instead of it ‖ Quod si nec minima demandatis Christi licet solvere quanto magis tam magna tam grandia tam ad ipsum dominicae passionis nostrae Redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere aut in aliud quam quod divinitùs institutum sit humanâ institutione mutare Cyprian ep 63. ad Caecilium But if it be not lawful to loose any one of the least Commands of Christ how much more is it not lawful to infringe so great and so weighty ones and such as the very Sacrament of our Lord's Passion and our Redemption and to change it by Humane Institution into quite another thing then what it is by Divine Institution 4. The reason added by our Saviour to his Institution and Command of Drink ye all of it * Matth. 26.28 for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you as in St. Luke for many as in St. Matthew and St. Mark for the remission of sins This shews the Cup not onely to have a peculiar use as well as the Bread and a particular mistical relation to his Blood shed or poured out but that it belongs to all those to drink of it for whom Christ's Blood was shed who are to have remission of sins by it and who have a right to the new Covenant which Christ has purchased and establisht in his Blood which I suppose are the Christian Laiety as well as the Priests though I do not think with Bellarmine †Dispute de Euch. l. 4. that all Turks and Infidels ought to have the Cup because Christ's Blood was shed for them too but I
own shadows if the Apostles received the Cup as Priests Why then do not all Priests receive it as well as the Priest who Consecrates if onely he that Consecrates be to receive it then by this rule the Apostles should not have received it at the first Institution for they did not then Consecrate Christ was then alone the Minister Conficiens and so according to them he ought onely to have received it and not the Apostles and yet 't is most probable that Christ did not himself receive either the Cup or the Bread so that if they will keep close to this whimsical Notion of theirs the Minister Conficiens is not to receive at all but to Consecrate and give to the other Priests that are present but further if the Apostles were made Priests by those words Hoc facite which they so earnestly contend and spend so much Critical learning to show that facere signifies to Sacrifice then they were twice made Priests at the same time for those words were said by our Saviour as St. Paul Witnesses not onely after giving the Bread but repeated again also after the Cup so that the Apostles were doubly Consecrated and the Character of Priests was twice Imprinted upon them at the same time which is another difficulty with which they must be encumbred according to their own principles for though this Opinion be wholly Imaginary yet like the Night-mare 't is a real weight lying upon them and I shall leave them to sweat under it and get it off as well as they can 6. Whatever be the effects and benefits which we receive by partaking of this Blessed Sacrament they depend upon the Institution of it and are not ordinarily to be had without observing of that I say ordinarily because Cases of Necessity dispence with positive precepts as if a sick man cannot swallow the Bread about which there is a Provision in the Eleventh Council of Toledo if the natural Infirmity of anothers Stomack be such that he cannot drink Wine which the French Discipline speaks of and which Monsieur de Meaux †P. 181. makes an Objection against them if the place be such that no Wine is to be had or procured as in Norway where Pope Innocent the Eighth allowed them to Celebrate without Wine in those extraordinary Cases God has not so tied the inward Grace to the outward Signe but that he can give it without it as if a Catechumen willing and desirous of Baptism die without it because he could not have it yet the Church has always supposed he may have the benefit of it and so I charitably hope that the Pious and Religious Laiety in the Church of Rome shall have the benefit of the Blood of Christ though they are deprived of it in the Sacrament and through the meer fault of their Governours and of their Priests are excluded from it and forced to violate the Divine Institution which is all that Calixtus and others which Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 277. is willing to take advantage of charitably allow as not being willing to exclude any one for Salvation for what he cannot help but this is no manner of prejudice to the cause that we defend and no excuse in the World for breaking the Institution of Christ and altering his positive precept without any necessity for though God can give the inward Grace and no doubt but he will do it in extraordinary Cases without the Sacrament without either the whole or any part of it yet he will not ordinarily do this nor is it ordinarily to be had or to be expected without keeping to that Institution by vertue of which God has annexed and promised such inward vertues and benefits to such outward signs and holy Symbols and Ceremonies which he himself has appointed and therefore though God if he had pleased might have annexed the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament to the eating the Bread or to the drinking the Wine alone or might have given it without either of them yet he having by the Institution appointed both parts of the Sacrament hath annexed the grace and vertue to both and not to one only Monsieur de Meaux will needs have the whole fruit and vertue and essential effect of the Sacrament to be given by one species which is the great principle he goes upon which I shall more fully examine afterwards but if the vertue and essential effect depend upon the Institution and it can depend upon nothing else and if both species be instituted by Christ as I have shown then the vertue and effect depends upon both species and not upon one Monsieur de Meaux asks Whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received all the effects be not likewise received * P. 328. I answer No because all that is required in the Institution is not then received He farther asks Whether the blood can add any thing essential I answer Yes because that also is in the Institution if one of the Apostles had stopt our Saviour when he had given them the Bread and told them this was his Body and askt him this very question I ask whither he thinks this would have hindred him from going on with the Cup because they had already received the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament without that and nothing essential could be added by that Christ it seems by the Institution did go on to the Cup after he had given the other species and to say he did not give any essential vertue or efficacy by the Cup is an unwarrantable boldness and blasphemous impudence which may as well deny that he gave any by the Bread this is to make the Cup a very empty signe and naked figure devoid of all inward vertue and efficacy and to serve as de Meaux would have it onely for Representation and a more full and express Signification * P. 176. in which he joyns us to the Cup with those his Adversaries who have the meanest thoughts of the Sacrament and indeed it is to make the Cup wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the conveying or exhibiting any real Vertue or inward Grace which is to be received thereby and as Monsieur de Meaux is forced to own when he answers that demand to what purpose then was the Institution of both species ‖ P. 179. to make it only a more full Image and Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ but not to give us any of the vertue or efficacy of it Christ he says cannot separate the vertue or effect that any other Grace should accompany his blood then the same in ground and substance which accompanys his body †P. 182. but he can make the whole Vertue and Grace accompany and depend upon both the Sacramental Body and Sacramental Blood together and so he has done by his Institution according to which the Sacramental Grace is not to be expected ordinarily without both but he may deprive
Eucharist is ordered to be celebrated the People standing and praying silently and after the oblation every order to wit of young and aged of men and women into which they were ranged before at their Religious Assemblies as appears in that Chapter severally and by themselves take the body and blood of Christ and when the women do it in their order they are to have their heads covered * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. So that 't is plain all orders both of Men and Women were to receive both the Body and Blood In another place †L. 8. c. 13. where is a more perfect account of the Eucharistic solemnity and of the Prayers and Ceremonies used in it at the latter end he describes the order in which they Communicated first the Bishops then the Presbyters and Deacons and other Inferior Orders then the Religious Women the Deaconesses the Virgins the Widdows and their Children and after that the whole People with great Reverence and without any tumult or noise The Bishop gives the Bread saying The Body of Christ and he that receives it sayes Amen The Deacon gives the Cup and says The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and he that drinks it says Amen And when they have all Communicated both men and women the Deacons take the remainders and carry them into the Pastophory or Vestry St. Dennis the Areopagite I put after all these because I doubt not but that the Book under his name was later than any of them there is this passage of Celebrating the Eucharist in those Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the Priest praying that all who partake of the Sacrament may do it worthily The Bread which was covered and whole he uncovers and divides into many parts and the one Cup he divides to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dyonys Eccles Hlerat c. 3 p. 103. and afterwards he speaks particularly of the Priests first taking himself that which he gave to others * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and mentions nothing else taken by him then what the others do partake of I shall to these add the famous Ordo Romanus which de Meaux calls the antient Ceremonial of the Roman Church neither the time nor the Author of it is certainly known it concerns not me to inquire whether it belong to the Eighth or the Eleventh Age which is upon other accounts a dispute between the Reformed and Roman Divines I suppose it to be made at several times and to have had several Additions made to it by several Popes one after another for all Missals and Eucharistic formes were at first very short and afterwards increased by further compositions Pope Gregory who had the greatest hand in it speaks of one Scholasticus who composed the Prayer to be said over the Oblation †Vt precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Greg. l. 7. ep 64. before him who that Scholasticus was Strabo and Berno and the other Writers upon the Ordo Romanus have owned themselves ignorant and other Learned men have anxiously enquired the Learned Colomesius thinks it as clear as the light that this was Pope Gelasius ‖ Ex quo meridianâ luce clariùs patet quis fuerit Scholasticus ille Gregorio M. l. 7. ep 64. laudatus Colomesius in Paralipom ad Chartophyl Eccles verb. Gelasius But whoever were the Authors of it and whensoever it was composed as we now have it it is sufficient to my purpose that the Communion is there distributed in both kinds and the manner of it is thus prescribed * Deinde venit Archidiaconus cum calice ad cornu altaris refuso parum in calicem de scypho inter manus acolyti accedunt primùm Episcopi ad sedem ut commmunicent de manu Pontificis secundum ordinem sed Presbyteri omnes ascendunt ut communicent ad altare Episcopus autem primus accipit calicem de manu Archidiaconi stat in cornu altaris ut confirmet sequentes ordines Deinde Archidiacono accepto de manu ill is calice refundit in scypho tradit calicem subdiacano regionario qui tradit ei pugillarem cum quo comfirmet populum Quos dum confirmaverit Postea Episcopi communicant populum post eos Diaconi confirmant Presbyteri jussu Pontificis communicant populum ipsi vicissim comfirmant nam mox ut Pontifex caeperit communicare populum psallunt usque dum communicato omni populo etiam in parte mulierum Ordo Romanus p. 6. Edit Hittorp Paris Then cometh the Arch-deacon with the Cup at the side of the Altar and pouring a little into the Chalice out of the Flaggon in the hands of the Acolyte the Bishops first come to their Seat that they may Communicate from the hand of the Pope acccording to their order and the Presbyters also ascend to the Altar that they may Communicate the Bishop first takes the Cup from the hand of the Arch-deacon and stands at the side of the Altar that he may confirm the following orders then the Arch-deacon taking the Chalice from his hand pours it again into the Flaggon and gives the Cup to the regionary Sub-deacon who gives him a hollow Pipe with which he may confirm the people Whom when he hath confirmed afterwards the Bishops communicate the people and after them the Deacons confirm them the Priests by the command of the Pope communicate the people and they also confirm them for as soon as the Pope begins to communicate the people the Antiphone begins and they sing till all the people have communicated even on the womens side However Rome has thought fit of late to depart from their own Ordo Romanus yet there is a very remarkable story of one of their own Popes Pope Martin the Fifth who after the Council of Constance did in a solemn Office at Easter Communicate the people in both kinds according to the Roman Order which was not so alter'd and changed at that time as it was afterwards Cassander in his Consultatio †Martinus Sanctus etiam post tempora Constantiensis synodi in solenni Paschae officio juxta praescriptum ordinis Romani universum populum corpore sanguine D ni communicasse legitur Consult de Com. subutr and Lindanus in his Panoplia ‖ Martinus ipse P R. 5. utramque legitur Romae administrasse speciem quod non de Diacono Pontificis Administro accipiendum est sed ut populo Lindan Panoplia l. 4. c. 56. are both positive Witnesses for this matter of Fact which is not onely considerable in it self but a clear Argument of the late change and alteration both of the old Roman Practice and the old Roman Order 2. The most ancient Lyturgies that are described and Celebrate the Communion in both kinds So That * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the name of St. Peter represents all the people as partaking of the divine pure heavenly quickning
required it * P. 113. And why they should not desire that as well as the other I cannot imagine the onely argument he has against it is that they could not keep it any long time But could not they keep it so long as till the next publick Communion could they not conserve the Wine in little Vessels to that purpose as well as the Bread Does Nature it self as he pretends more oppose the one than the other when we find by experience that Wine will keep much longer without corruption than Bread What a vain cavil is it therefore which begins and runs through his whole Book to make us believe that the Christians so often communicated under the species of Bread alone because the species of Wine could not be either so long or so easily reserved being too subject to alteration and Jesus Christ would not that any thing should appear to the sense in this Mystery of Faith contrary to the ordinary course of Nature †P. 9. But it is matter of fact we have now to do with and that must be made out not by slight surmises but by good testimony and whether the Christians when this custom of Domestic Communion was in use among them did not reserve and carry home both kinds the Wine as well as the Bread let us now examine Monsieur de Meaux has not one Authority that proves any thing more than that they used to reserve the Sacrament or Body of Christ which by a Synecdoche is a common phrase in Ecclesiastical Writers for the whole Eucharist and is used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian where the two Species were unquestionably used as in the Public Communion St. Basil who speaks of the Communion of Hermits and who is produced as an evidence by de Meaux that they communicated in the Deserts advises them expresly to partake of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Ep. 280. and when those Solitarys had the Communion brought to them that it was in both kinds appears from their own Cardinal Bona * Re um Lyturg l. 2. c. 18. in the relation of Zozimus an Abbot of a Monastery his carrying in a Vessel a portion of the sacred Body and Bloud of Christ to one Mary of Aegypt who had lived forty seven years in the Wilderness That those who communicated at home had both kinds sent to them appears evidently from Justin Martyr †Apolog. 2. and de Meaux owns from him That the two species 't is true were carried ‖ P. 112. but this says he was presently after they had been consecrated Not till the Public Communion was over and then also the Faithful carried away what they reserved but it does not appear that they kept them nor does it appear to the contrary but they might have kept them if they had pleased He who wrote the Life of St. Basil by the name of Amphilochius reports the story of a Jew who being got secretly among the Christians at the time of Communion communicated with them and took the Sacrament first of the Body and then of the Bloud and then took and carried away with him * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amphiloch vit Basil c. 7. some part of each of the Elements and shewed them to his Wife to confirm the truth of what he had done Monsieur de Meaux has made no objection to the credit of this Writer and no doubt had it not been usual for Christians to carry away both the Elements the Writer of that Life let him be who he will had not told so improbable a Story Gregory Nazianzen †Orat. 11. relates of his Sister Gorgonia That what her hands had treasured up of the Anti-types of the precious Body or Bloud of Christ that she mingled with her tears and anointed her self withal So that it seems her hands treasured up both the Species or Anti-types as he calls them and it is a mighty subtilty to say She did not treasure them up both together when she certainly treasured up both But if we had no such instances as these there are two such unanswerable Authorities against de Meaux his Opinion That the faithful carried home only the Bread and communicated but in one kind as are enough to make him give up this part of the Cause and those are the famous Albaspinaeus Bishop of Orleans and Cardinal Baronius two men whose skill in Antiquity is enough to weigh down whatever can be said by de Meaux or any other and whose words will go farther in the Church of Rome than most mens and they are both positive that not onely the Bread but that the Wine also was reserved and carried home by Christians in their Domestic Communions Vpon what account can they prove says Albaspinaeus ‖ Sed quo tandem pacto probare poterunt Laicis Eucharistiam sub specie panis domum portare licuisse sub vini non licuisse Albaspin Observat 4. l. 1. that it was lawful for Laics to carry home the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and not under the Species of Wine Consider says Baronius * Hic Lector considera quà m procul abhorreant à Patrum Traditione usuque Ecclesiae Catholicae qui nostro tempore Heretici negant asservandam esse Sacratissimam Eucharistiam quam videmus non sub specie panis tantum sed sub specie vini olim consuevisse recondi Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. to his Reader how the Hereticks of our time differ from the Tradition of the Fathers and the Custom of the Catholic Church who deny that the Eucharist is to be reserved when we see it used to be kept not onely in the Species of Bread but in the Species of Wine And that he meant this of private reservation as well as in the Church he goes on further to prove this keeping of both Species by the Authority of Gregory the Great who gives an account in his Dialogues of one Maximianus a Monk and others his Companions who being in a great Storm and Tempest at Sea and in great danger of their Lives they took the Sacrament which they had carried with them and in both kinds received the Body and Bloud of their Redeemer †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Dialog Graecè l. 3. c. 36. But to this says Monsieur de Meaux To shew the faithful had kept the two Species in their Vessel from Rome to Constantinople it ought before to have been certain that there was no Priest in this Vessel or that Maximian of whom St. Gregory speaks in this place was none though he was the Superiour of a Monastery But Gregory speaks not a word of any Priest being there and Maximian might be no Priest though he were Superiour of a Monastery for they and the Monks were often no Priests but if a Priest had been there it had been unlawful for him according to the Principles of the Roman Church to
remember Bellarmine himself says * Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti nam quia Sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est utraque species necessariò ab aliquibus sumenda est Bellarm. de Euchar. c. 4. c. 23. The Sumption of both Species is necessary for the Priest who officiates as it is a Sacrament as well as a Sacrifice for since the Sacrament was Instituted under both kinds it is necessary that both kinds be taken by some-body to make it a Sacrament This Communion then of the Priest in one kind must be no Sacrament and the Missa Parasceues must be a very imperfect one and I think themselves are pleased so to call it it must be but equivocally call'd a Mass as Cardinal de Bona phrases it †Missam illam non nisi aequivocè ita dici Bona rer Lyturg. l. 1. c. 15. and consequently such an unusual and extraordinary and imperfect Communion as this will be no good president nor an instance of any weight and authority to justifie the practice of Public Communion in one kind But after all perhaps there may be a great mistake and this Mass on Good-Friday though it be very different from all others yet may not be a Communion in one kind but in both and so may that in the Greek Church in the Lyturgy of the Presanctified which is used on most days in Lent and then we may relieve the Church of Rome from the difficulty of the Priests Communicating but in one kind and vindicate both the Churches in great measure from being guilty of such an irregular practice contrary to the general practice of the whole Church and to the institution of Christ this cannot to this day be laid to the Greek Church who never uses the Communion in one kind neither privately nor publickly nor could it be charged upon the Roman till long after this particular Mass on Good-Friday was used in it which it is plain it was in the eleventh Age from the Ordo Romanus Amulatius Alcuinus Rupertus Tuiriensis and others but there is no manner of proof that the Public Communion in one kind was brought into the Church of Rome till the thirteenth Century when it came by degrees into some particular Churches as Thomas Aquinas informs us and was afterwards established by a general Decree in the Council of Constance The Mass therefore on Good-Friday though it was a singular and different Office from all others they not thinking it fit for I know not what reasons to make a formal Consecration of Christ's Body on the same day he died but to Celebrate the Communion with what was thus consecrated the day before yet it was not wholly in the one species of Bread but in that of Wine too as is plain from the Office it self and from those Authors who have wrote upon it The Bread which was Consecrated the day before Corpus Domini quod pridiè remansit ponentes in patenam Subdiaconus teneat calicem cum vino non consecrato alter Subdiaconus patenam cum corpore Domini quibus tenentibus accipit unus Presbyter prior patenam alter calicem defertur super altare nudatum Ordo Romanus p. 75. ex Edit Hittorp was brought by the Sub-Deacon and a Calice of unconsecrated Wine by another Sub-Deacon and the Priest sets them both together upon the Altar then after some Prayers and particularly the Lord's Prayer he takes the consecrated Bread ‖ Sumit de Sanctâ ponit in caticem Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem communicant omnes cum silantio Ib. and puts into the Calice and so the unconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread and then they all Communicate with silence They Communicated with the Bread and the Wine thus mixed together and so their Communion this day was not in one kind But this Wine says de Meaux was not truely Consecrated this Sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord cannot be that true Consecration by which the Wine is changed into the Bloud I cannot tell whether it be such a Consecration that does that in his sense but it may be as true a Sacramental Consecration of the Elements for all that not onely by vertue of the mixture and by way of contact as some explain it * Aliter in Romano Ordine legitur ut contactu Dominici corporis integra fiat Communio Cassand de Com. sub utr p. 1027. Concil Araus primum but by the solemnity of the action and by all the Religious circumstances that attend it and especially by those Prayers and Thanksgivings which were then used as in Micrologus 't is clearly and plainly exprest †Vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ Oratione Dominici Corporis immissione jubet consecrare Microlog de Ecclesiast Observ c. 19. in Edit Hittorp p. 742. that the Wine is Consecrated with the Lord's Prayer and the Immission of the Lord's Body And why will not de Meaux allow that a true Consecration may be made by those words and prayers as well as by those formal words This is my Body when it is made out beyound all contradiction both by Dallee and Albertinus that the Primitive Church did not Consecrate by those words but by a Prayer and their own St. Gregory says ‖ Apostolos sulâ Dominicâ prece praemissâ consecrasse Sacramenta distribuisse Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. ad Syr. That the Apostles Consecrated the Sacrament only with the Lord's Prayer Which was used here and particularly observed to be so by Micrologus as that whereby the Wine was consecrated so that all Monsieur de Meaux's labour is vain to shew that the Consecration could not be without words And that it cannot enter into the mind of a man of sense that it could ever be believed in the Church the Wine was consecrated without words by the sole mixture of the Body The Consecration might be made without those very formal words now used in the Roman Missal as it was by Prayer in the Primitive Church Walafridus Strabo observes concerning this very Office on Good-Friday that it was agreeable to the more ancient and simple way of the Communion of the first Christians which was performed only with the use of the Lord's Prayer and some commemoration of Christ's Passion * Et relatio majorum est ita primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modo in Parasceue Paschae communicationem facere solemus i. e. prâmissâ Oratione Dominicâ sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepit commemoratione passionis ejus adhibita Walagrid Strabo de rebus Eccles c. 22. p. 680. Edit Hittorp and yet he did not question but the Consecration was truly made by that simple manner and it did so far enter into the minds of the men of sense that were in those times that they all did
believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body †Sanctificatur vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had as truely the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament though they used not those words of Consecration which the Latines now do and the Latines had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues in which as Strabo says they used the old simple manner of Communion as much as on any other days De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration or else he must own this to be a true one The Roman Order says not onely the Wine is Consecrated which it does in more places then one but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated so that the people may be confirmed by it ‖ Vt ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum Ord. Rom. a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration that he says * Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis vini consecrat vinum non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit Hittorp He who according to the order of that Book Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine does not observe the Tradition of the Church of which Innocent speaks that on these two days Friday and Saturday before Easter no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated So that he complains of it because such a Consecration is used on that day The Author of the Book of Divine Offices under the name of Alcuinus †De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem Alcuini lib. de Off. div p. 253. Ib. makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion but says expresly that the Vnconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same in the place produced before that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter ‖ C. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ oratione Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plenè possit communicare quod utique superflao praeciperet si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur that the Wine is Consecrated on that day so that the people might fully Communicate to shew that it would not have been sufficient as he thinks to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept and I suppose he was of de Meaux's mind that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it even from one day to the next but he is so far from Communion in one kind that in that very Chapter against Intinction he mentions Pope Julius his Decree * Julias Papa huiusmodi intinctionem penitus probibet seorsùm panem seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem sumenda docet which forbids that and commands the Bread to be given by it self and the Wine by it self according to Christ's Institution and likewise the Decree of Gelasius †Vnde beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico à calicis participatione se abstinerent nam ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Ib. Microlog in these words He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup And he asserts says he in the same Decree that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind for it is plain this Communion was in both and it was the belief of the Church and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century when Corruptions were come to a great height that the Communion on that day was full and entire as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that and held to be so by the opinion of them all The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church will afford as little assistance if not much less to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist which is a Religious Feast of Joy upon those days which they appoint to Fasting Mortification and Sadness and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays on which they do not fast and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presanctified The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested as de Meaux says seeing it appears not in the sixth Age as he would have it but in the seventh whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near
for all those that hold the Catholick and Apostolick Faith * See Canon Missae and then follows the commemoration Prayer Remember O Lord thy servants and thy handmaids N. and N. and all those who are present whose Faith and Devotion is known to thee for whom we offer to thee or who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all others for the Redemption of their Souls for the hope of their Salvation and their safety and render their vows to thee the Eternal Living and True God then after the memorial of the Saints We beseech thee O Lord that thou wouldst mercifully receive this Oblation of our service and of all thy Family and dispose our days in peace and command us to be delivered from eternal damnation and to be numbred in the fold of thine Elect through Jesus Christ our Lord then immediately follows this prayer which Oblation thou O God we beseech vouchsafe to make altogether blessed ascribed ratified reasonable and acceptable Ascripta and Rata are words which they are as much puzled to understand as I am to Translate All these prayers are before consecration so that they cannot belong to the sacrifice of Christs Body but only to the oblation of the gifts and the sacrifice of praise as 't is there expresly called and yet these are a great deal more full and large then the prayers after consecration wherein there is no manner of mention of offering Christs Body and Blood but only offering the consecrated Elements as they were offered before when they were unconsecrated We offer unto thy excellent Majesty of thy gifts and presents a pure host an holy host an immaculate host the holy bread of Eternal Life and the cup of Eternal Salvation The first Composers would have used other words then Bread and Cup had they meant thereby Christs very natural Body and Blood and it is plain they were not those by what follows Vpon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and kind countenance and to accept of them as thou didst accept the gifts of thy righteous child Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which Melchisedec thy High Priest offered to thee an Holy Sacrifice an immaculate Host. Now to compare Christs very Body and Blood with the sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedec and to desire God to look upon his own Son in whom he was always well pleased with a propitious and kind Countenance is very strange and uncouth to say no worse of it and to desire according to what follows that God would command these to be carried by the hands of his holy Angel into thy sublime Altar in the presence of thy Divine Majesty These cannot be meant or understood of Christs natural Body and Blood which is already in heaven and is there to appear in the presence of God for us as Menardus expresly owns in his notes upon this prayer in Gregories Sacramentary †Jube haec perferri non Christi corpus sed memoriam passionis fidem preces vita sidelâ—â—â— Menardi nota observat in lib. Sacrament Gregoriâ— Papae p. 19. and if so as we have the confession of the most Learned Ritualist of their own Church then there is nothing at all in the Canon of the Mass that does truly belong to these or that does any way express or come up to the new Tridentine Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass so that we need go no further then their own office to show the Novelty of this and as in other things namely in their prayers to Saints they are forced to use very gentle and softning interpretations to make the words signifie otherwise then what they do in their proper and literal meaning so here they must put a more strong and hard sense upon them then they will really bear or was at first intended to make them speak the new meaning of the Mass-sacrifice so that they must here contrive a way to raise the sense of the Church as they do in other cases to let it down or else their Prayers and their Doctrines will never be brought to suit well together The commemoration for the dead has nothing in it but a meer Remembrance and a Prayer that God would give to them a place of refreshment light and peace through Jesus Christ our Lord not through the merit or vertue of that sacrifice which is then offered there is not the least mention or intimation of any such thing nor any expression that looks that way The Priest indeed a little before he communicates prays Christ to deliver him from all his sins and from all evils by this his most sacred Body and Blood which he may do without its being a sacrifice and I know no Protestant would scruple the joining in such a petition There is a prayer indeed at the last by the Priest to the Holy Trinity that the sacrifice which he has unworthily offered to the eyes of the Divine Majesty may be acceptable to it and through its mercy be propitiable for himself and for those for which he has offered it and this seems the fullest and the most to the purpose of the Mass-sacrifice and yet it may very fairly be understood in a sound sense without any such thing as 't is a sacrifice of prayer and as God is thereby rendred merciful and propitious both to our selves and others but it is to be observed that this prayer is not in the old Ordo Romanus where the others are nor in the Gelasian or Gregorian Missal nor in any other ancient one put out by Thomasius Menardus Pamelius Cardinal Bona or Mabillon but was I suppose added of later days to those old Forms Fifthly The new Addition to the form of Ordination in the Roman Church whereby * Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo Missasque celebrare tam pro vivis quam pro mortuis power is given to the Priest to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses both for the dead and living this discovers the novelty of their Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass for there was no such form of Ordination in the primitive Church nor is there any such thing mentioned in any Latin or Greek Ordinale for near a thousand years after Christ The most antient account of the manner of Ordaining is in the fourth Council of Carthage where there is nothing else but †Presbyter cum Ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius tenent Canon 3. Concil Carthag the Episcopal Benediction and Imposition of hands by the Bishop and all the Priests In the Apostolic Constitutions there is a pretty long prayer of the Bishops over the Priest who is to be Ordained †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constitut Apostol de Ordinat Presbyt l. 8. c. 16. that God would look
be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest for since they have made a God of the Sacrament they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it nor take it into their hands and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament this is now to serve for another use to be adored as a God and it would be as true heresie in the Church of Rome not to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored as not to say that Christ himself is to be adored But what according to them is this Sacrament It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine and the natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration which they call Sacramentum for Christs body without those Species and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine would not according to them be a Sacrament they being the outward and visible part are according to their Schoolmen properly and strictly called the Sacramentum and the other the res Sacramenti Lombard sentâ—li 4. dist 19. and to this external part of the Sacrament as well as to the internal they give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration to these remaining Species which be they what they will are but Creatures religious Worship is given together with Christs Body and they with that are the whole formal Object of their Adoration Non solum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adorari says Suarez a In Th. Quaest 79. disp quia est unum constans ex Christo Speciebus Not only Christ but the whole visible Sacrament which must be something besides Christs invisible Body is to be adored with one and the same Worship because it is one thing or one Object consisting of Christ and the Species So another of their learned men b Henriquez Moral l. 8. c. 32. Speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist because of Christ whom they contain Now Christ whom they contain must be something else than the Species that contain him Let him be present never so truly and substantially in the Sacrament or under the Species he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present and as subtil as they are and as thin and subtil as these Species are they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them and they can never be left out but must be part of the whole which is to be adored totum illud quod simul adoratur de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. as Bellarmine calls it must include these as well as Christs Body Adorationem saies Bellarmine a Bellarmine de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. ad Symbola etiam panis vini pertinere ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent Adoration belongs even to the Symbols of Bread and Wine as they are apprehended to be one with Christ whom they contain and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him and may be Worshipt together with Christ as T. G. c Cathol no Idolaters p. 268. owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary and are the very term of Adoration as Gregory de Valentia d De Idol l. 2. c. 5. says who further adds that they who think this Worship does not at all belong to the Species in that heretically oppose the perpetual customand fence of the Church Qui censeunt nullo modo ad Species ipsus eam Venerationem pertinere in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum sensum Ecclesiae de Venerati one Sacram. ad Artic. Thom. 5. Indeed they say That these Species or Accidents are not to be Worshipt for themselves or upon their own account but because Christ is present in them and under them and so they may be Worshipt as T. G. says d Ib. with Christ in like manner as his Garments were Worshipt together with him upon Earth which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine the Magazine not only of Arguments and Authorities but of Similitudes too it seems which are to Defend that Church Quemadmodum saies he e de Euch. Venerat qui Christum in terris vestitum adorabant non ipsum solum sed etiam vestes quodam modo adorabant And are Christs Garments then to be Worshipt with Latria as well as Christ himself or as the Sacrament I think they will not say this of any of the Relicks they have of Christ or his clothes Did they who Worshipt Christ when he was upon the Earth worship his clothes too Did the Wise men worship the blankets the clouts and the swadling-cloths as well as the blessed Babe lying in the Manger Might it not as well be supposed that the People worshipt the Ass upon which Christ rode not for himself but for the sake and upon the account of Christ who was upon him as that they worshipt his clothes or his Sandals on which he trod or the Garments which he wore Bellarmines quodammodo adorabant shews his heart misgave him and that he was sensible the Similitude would not do when he used it but T. G. is a man of more heart and courage or front at least and he found the cause was in great need of it and so he saies boldly without any trembling quodammodo that they worshipt his Garments The humane Nature it self of Christ considered alone and being a meer Creature is not an object of Worship as St. Augustin saies a St. Aug. Serm. 58. De verbis Dom. Si natura Deus non est filius sed Creatura nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus Adorandus Ego Dominicam carnem imo perfectam in Christo humanitatem propterea adoro quod a divinitate suscepta atque Deitati unita est Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo ut Photinus vel Paulus Samosatenus illi ego nunquam credo nec servio but only as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it as to make one Person with it with God himself one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so one Object of Worship and if the Sacramental Symbols or Species are to be adored with true latria not per se or upon their own account but by reason of the intimate Union and Conjunction which they have with Christ as they say not only with Christs body for that alone is not to be worshipt much less another thing that is united to it but with Christs Person and then there must be as many Persons of Christ as there are consecrated Wafers then these Species being thus worshipt upon the same account that Christs humanity is
as Gregory de Valentia owns they must This Worship saies he belongs after a certain manner to the species as when the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is worshipt in the humanity which he assumed the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity Pertinet per accidens suo quodam modo ea veneratio ad Species quemadmodum suo modo etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus cultus ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario neque in hoc est aliqua Idololatria must be also united to Christ Valentia Disput 6. Quaest 11. de ritu oblat Eucharist the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity so as to become with that one entire object of Worship as the Species are according to them with Christ in the Eucharist that is they must become one suppositum or one Person with Christ This is so weighty a difficulty as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not only sweat but sink under it Valentia a De Idol l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjunction the Species have with Christ but denies their being hypostatically united to him but then how are they to be worshipt Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Creatures yet they are not to be worshipt notwithstanding that presence because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him or are not hypostatically united to him Bellarmine being pincht on this side removes the burden to t'other that is as sore and can as little bear it Christ says he b Longe aliter est Christus in Eucharistia in aliis rebus Deus Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum Suppositum est idque Divinum caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent cum illo unum quid faciunt licet non eodem modo Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist than God is in other things for in the Eucharist there is but one only suppositum and that Divine all other things there present belong to and make one thing with that If they do so then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ as T. G's learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place if they make but one suppositum with him and but one with him let it be in what manner it will they must be hypostatically united to him Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo tho not after the same manner is both unintelligible and will not at all help the matter 't is only a Confession from him that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ and make one suppositum with him and one object of Worship that he does not know how this can be and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so for this is no way imposed upon him as T. G. saies notwithstanding his non eodem modo If in the Incarnation of Christ one should say That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity but that both were not united after the same manner but the Soul in such a manner as being a Spirit and the Body in another yet so that both made but one Suppositum with it and that Divine and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that and made one with that tho not after the same manner would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Divinity and his Soul and Body and so must the other be between Christs Divinity and his Body and the Species if they make one Suppositum and are as they hold to be worshipt as such Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine and state the Case with some exactness tho I am sensible with too much length but that is the way to shorten the Controversie and by this means I have cut off their common retreats and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to and in which they are wont to Earth themselves As that they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear witness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with Christ as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of Christ for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whether it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito
that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance God we know is present in all his Creatures but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them unless where he makes a sensible Manifestation of himself and appears by his Shechinah or his Glory as to Moses in the burning Bush and to others in like manners and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God which appears without any Alteration just as it was before it was made such and especially to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do that Christ is present in it not only in the action and solemn Celebration but extra usum as they speak and permanenter even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over that he should continue there as a praesens Numen as Boileau expresly calls it a de Eucharistiae Adorat p. 140. and be showed and carried about and honoured as such and dwell in the Species as long as they continue as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh before that was crucified this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament but not so as the Papists believe nor so as to be worshipped I mean the Lutherans But to bring the matter to a closer issue the Papists themselves are forced to confess that if the Bread remain after Consecration and be still Bread and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that they are then Idolaters So Fisher against Oecclampadius l. 1. c. 2. in express words So Coster in his Enchiridion de Euch. c. 8. In tali errore atque Idololatria qualis in orbe terrarum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam aut alterius materiae imaginem quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur vel panum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii quam eorum qui frustum panis Coster Ench. c. 8. S. 10. Longe potiori ratione excusandi essent infideles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt Ib. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacrament then they are left in such an Error and Idolatry as was never seen or heard for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable who Worship a golden or silver Statue for God or any other Image or even a red Cloth as the Laplanders are said to do or living Animals as the Egyptians than of those who worship a piece of Bread. And again Those Infidel Idolaters would be more excusable who worshipt their Statues To whom I shall add Bellarmine a Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum Idololatriam appellant ejusmodi Adorationem neque id mirum videri debet cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse praesentem panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. who saies It does not seem strange that they call the Adoration of the Sacrament Idolatry who do not believe that Christ is there truly present but that the Bread is still true Bread. If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host and the Elements in the Eucharist are not substantially changed into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ then it is confest Idolatry and it is not strange according to Bellarmine that it should be so and then sure it will be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bread-worship too if that be Bread which they Worship and be not the natural Body of Christ that which is there present that they adore and if that be only Bread then they adore Bread. And here I should enter that controversie which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errors about the Eucharist the making both a God of it and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament which Christ intended it and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation but a great man has spared me this trouble by his late excellent Discourse against it to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present Controversie and shall take it for granted as any one must who reads that that unless in Boileau's Phrase a Homo opiniosus cui tenacitas Erroris sensum communem abstulit Boil p. 159. he be such a Bigot whose tenaciousness of his Error has quite bereaved him of common Sense which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends that Doctrine is false and therefore that the charge of Idolatry in this matter is by their own Confession true But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them who out of very just and reasonable Fears and Suspicions that Transubstantion should not prove true and that they may happen to be mistaken in that have thought of another way to cover and excuse their Idolatry and that is not from the Truth but meerly from the Belief of Transubstantiation As long say they as we believe Transubstantiation to be true and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account tho we should be mistaken in this our belief yet as long as we think that Christ is there present and design only to Worship him and not the Bread which we believe to be done away this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry To which because it is the greatest and the best Plea they have and they that make it have some misgivings I doubt not that Transustantiation will not hold I shall therefore give a full Answer to it in the following Particulars 1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken belief and a false supposal of the mind which being gross and unreasonable will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it there were never any Idolaters but might plead the excuse of a mistake and that not much more culpable and notorious one would think than the mistake of those who think a bit of Bread or a Wafer is turn'd by a few words into a God. They all thought however blindly and foolishly that whatever it was they worshipt ought to be worshipt upon some account or other that it was a true and fit Object and that Adoration rightly belong'd to it Idolatry tho it be a great Sin and a great injury and affront to God yet arises not so much from the malice of the will as the blindness and darkness of the understanding there were hardly ever any such Idolaters as maliciously and designedly intended to affront the true God by worshipping false Gods or Creatures as if a Subject should pass by his Prince out of ill will and a purpose to affront and defie him and give the Reverence and
eosque veneramur quos dedicatio infert Sacra Arnobius contra Gentes and in St. Austin again Do ye think we or our Forefathers were such Fools as to take these for Gods b Vsque adeone Majores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est ut Deos No they would disown it as much as Boile au does With his who shall say we adore the Bread or Wine c Quis nos adorare panem vinum Boileau p. 160. or T. G's pretending that we run upon that false ground that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God. And yet I see not why there may not be good reason to charge the one as well as the other 5. If those other Idolaters had been so foolish and absurd as to believe and think that those things which they worshipt were their very Gods themselves substantially present and that the visible substance of their Idols had been converted and turned into the substance of their Gods this would have made their Idolatry only more horribly sottish and ridiculous but would not in the least have made it more excusable If the Jews had thought that by the powerful words of Consecration pronounced by Aaron their High Priest the Calf had been turned into the very sustance of God and that tho the Figure and Shape of the Calf had remained and the Accidents and Species of Gold which appeared to their sight yet that the substance of it had been perfectly done away and that only God himself had been there under those appearing Species of a golden Calf would this have mended the matter or better excused their Idolatry because they had been so extremely sottish That they conceived the Gold not to be there at all but in the place thereof the only true and eternal God and so altho the Object or rather Subject materially present in such a case would have been the golden Calf yet their Act of Adoration would not have been terminated formally upon that but only upon God as T. G. saies of the Bread p. 329. Or if the Manichees had thought the Body of the Sun had been converted into the glorious Body of Jesus Christ would this have signified any thing to bring them of if their mistake had been as T. G. saies p. 327. their 's is concerning the Bread that they believed the Sun not to be there at all and therefore what they would have in their minds would not or could not be the Sun but the only true and eternal Son of God. Indeed they had as it appears from St. Austin a Eum sc Christum navim quandam esse dicitis eum triangulum esse perhibetis id est per quandam triangulam caeli Fenestram lucem istam mundo terrisque radiare August contra Faustum Manichaeum l. 20. c. 6. Nescio quam navim per foramen Triangulum micantem atque lucentem quam confictam cogitatis adoretis Ibid. some such absurd Imagination they did think that it was not the material Sun which appeared to their senses but a certain Navis which was the substance of Christ that did radiate through the triangular Fenestra in the Heavens to the World and to the Earth These wretched Figments of theirs whereby they made the Father the Light that was inaccessible and placed Christ in the Sun and Moon and the Holy Ghost in the Air b Trinitati loca tria datis patri unum i. e. lumen in accessibile filio duo Solem Lunam spiritui sancto rursus unum Aeris hunc omnem ambitum Ibid. c. 7. and called these the Seals of their substance c Sedes ejusdem substantiae dicatis Ibid. c. 8. these made them indeed as he says worship only the Figments of their own crazy heads and things that were not d In iis non quod sunt sed quod vobis dementissime fingitis adoratis Ib. c. 9. Vos autem colitis ea quae nec dii nec aliquid sunt quoniam prorsus nulla sunt Ib. c. 9. but yet this madness and extravagance did not excuse them from Idolatry which he still charges them withal They worshipt that in the Sun which was not there as the Papists do in the Sacrament to wit Christs natural Body let it be Phantastick or not and they endeavoured to turn away the Senses of men as he says e Sensus Simplicium conantur avertere nonnullorum avertunt Id. Enarrat in Psal 10. from that visible Sun and perswade them that it was Christ himself So that as T. G. says of their mistake concerning the Bread They did not in their minds affirm the Sun to be but not to be p. 330. and so it could not according to him be the Object of their worship because whatever is so the understanding must affirm either truly or falsly to be p. 329. There was an Idolatry among the Persians which Xenophon f Cyrop l. 8. and Quintus Curtius g l. 3. give an account of in their worship of Fire and carrying it about with the most stately Pomp and Solemnity upon silver Altars and a great Train of Priests and others which does the most resemble the carrying about the Host in Procession of any thing I have met with as it is described by Curtius Here the sacred Fire as they call'd it which no doubt was consecrated by some Religious Ceremonies and was no more counted ignis ex culinâ than the holy Bread is panis ex furno if they had supposed it by the magical Charms of the Priests to have been turned into some other substance than common Fire and had thought it to have become the most noble Symbol of the great God or the illustrious Veil under which lay the Divinity of the great Lord of the World and that all the substance of common Fire was quite changed and done away in this sacred and eternal Fire as they accounted it a Ignis quem ipsi sacrum aeternum vocabant argenetis altaribus perferebatur Curt. Ib. this would not sure have made them to be no Idolaters T. G. will make himself a very great Patron of dolaters if with this Art and Sophistry of his he can bring them off as he would the Worshippers of the Host by the meer adding of more thick Grosness and more Absurdities to their other mistakes He will have b P. 322. the Israelites to take the golden Calf for God and the Egyptians the Sun to be God and perhaps some of the most stupid Heathens did take their very Images for Gods and by his way these were the most excusable because they were the most mistaken These mistakes would after this rate do great and extraordinary things for Idolaters and would be much better security for the Roman Church than her pretended Infallibility and indeed 't is these must bring off her and her Members from the guilt tho not from the Acts of Idolatry as well as from other things or else she and they are
Gentleman however taking he was lest I should consequently adore him or because I am not to abuse him therefore it would follow that I must worship him 2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church as I shall show 1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians 2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms 3. From some very antient Customs 1. Those most ancient Writers 1. Justin Martyr 2. Justin Marty 2. Apolog. versus finem Apostol Constitut l. 8. c. 11 12 13 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol Cateches mystagog c 5. The Author of the Apostolick Constitutions And 3. St. Cyril of Hierusalem who acquaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist which was generally then one constant part of their publick worship they give no account of any Adoration given to the Sacrament or to the consecrated Elements tho they are very particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use the Kiss of Charity in token of their mutual Love and Reconcilliation this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apol. 2. In St. Cyril's time z Catech. mystagog 5. Apostol Constit l. 8. c. 11. the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon and the Priests washing their hands in it to denote that purity with which they were to compass Gods Altar and then the Deacon spoke to the people to give the holy Kiss then Bread was brought to the Bishop or Priest and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Martyr Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries and after Prayers and Thanksgivings by the Priest to which the people to joyned their Amen b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Martyr Ib. The Deacons gave every one present of the blessed Bread and Wine and Water and to those that were not present they carried it home this says Justin Martyr we account not common Bread or common Drink but the Body and Blood of Christ c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. the blessed Food by which our Flesh and Blood is nourisht that is being turned into it which could not be said of Christs natural Body nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that as there present or to any of the blessed Elements The others are longer and much later and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgivings that were then used by the Church of the Sursum Corda lift up your heart which St. d Cyril Hierosol mystagog Cat. 5. Cyril saies followed after the Kiss of Charity of the Sancta Sanctis things holy belong to those that are holy then they describe how they came to Communicate how they held their hand e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. when they received the Elements how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and manner of receiving the Sacrament no account is there of their adoring it which surely there would have been had there been any such in the Primitive Church as now is in the Roman We own indeed as Boileau objects to us f L. 2. P. 106. that from these it appears that some things were then in use which we observe not now neither do the Church of Rome all of them for they are not essential but indifferent matters as mixing Water with Wine the Priest's washing the Kiss of Charity and sending the Sacrament to the absent but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion but Adoration to the Sacrament if it be ever a Duty is always so and never ought upon any account to be omitted nor would have been so by the Primitive Christians had they had the same Opinion of it that the Papists have now 2. From the oldest Lyturgies and the Eucharistick Forms in them it appears that there was no such Adoration to the Sacrament till of late for in none of them is there any such mention either by the Priest or the People as in the Roman Missal and Ritual nor any such Forms of Prayer to it as in their Breviary Cassander g Cassandri Lyturgic has collected together most of the old Liturgies and Endeavours as far as he can to shew their agreement with that of the Roman Church but neither in the old Greek nor in the old Latin ones is there any instance to be produced of the Priests or the Peoples adoring the Sacrament as soon as he had consecrated it but this was perfectly added and brought in a new into the Roman Lyturgy after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was establisht in that Church which has altered not only their Lyturgy but even their Religion in good part and made a new sort of Worship unknown not only in the first and best times of the Church but for above a thousand years after Christ Boileau finding this tho a negative Argument press very hard upon them and sure it cannot but satissie any reasonable man that there is no Direction in the ancient Lyturgies for adoring the Sacrament and it is very hard to require us to produce a Rubrick against it when no body thought of that which after-Superstition brought in He would fain therefore find something in an old Liturgy that should look like that of their own and no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn Office of the Christian worship the blessed Sacrament and therefore out of the Liturgy called St. Chrysostomes which he owns to be two hundred years later then St. Chrysostome he produces a place h Boil l. 2. p. 74. ex Chrysost Liturg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein it is said That the Priest and the Deacon worship in the place they are in and likewise the people but do they worship the Sacrament Is that or only God and Christ the object of their worship there Is there any such thing to determine this as they have taken care there should be in their Missal where it is expresly several times they shall worship the Sacrament i Sacramentum Adorare Rom. missal Cooperto calice Sacramentum adorare genuflexus Sacramentum adorare but here in St. Chrysos Liturgy 't is God who is to be worshipt God be merciful to me a Sinner k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Lyturg. but in the Roman 't is the Sacrament is prayed to l Stans oculis ad Sacramentum intentis precari and they would reckon and account it as true Irreligion not to worship and pray to that as not to worship God and Christ So in the Lyturgy that goes under the name of St. James the Worship is only before the Holy Table m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. St.
the Church of Rome generally demurs to that we shall not fear to allow them to bring all the Fathers they can for their Witnesses in this matter and we shall not in the least decline their Testimony Boileau Musters up a great many some of which are wholly impertinent and insignisicant to the matter in hand and none of them speak home to the business he brings them for He was to prove that they Taught that the Sacrament was to be adored as it is in the Church of Rome but they only Teach as we do That it is to be had in great reverence and respect as all other things relating to the Divine Worship that it is to be received with great Devotion both of Body and Soul and in such a Posture as is to express this A Posture of Adoration that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this Office especially as well as he is in all other Offices of our Religion that his Body and his Flesh which is united to his Divinity and which he offered up to his Father as a Sacrifice for all Mankind and by which we are Redeemed and which we do spiritually partake of in the Sacrament that this is to be adored by us but not as being corporally present there or that the Sacrament is to be worshipt with that or for the sake of that or that which the Priest holds up in his Hands or lyes upon the Altar is to be the Object of our Adoration but only Christ and his blessed Body which is in Heaven To these four Heads I shall reduce the Authoriâ—ies which Boileau produces for the Adoration of the Host and which seem to speak any thing to his purpose and no wonder that among so many Devout Persons that speak as great things as can be of the Sacrament and used and perswaded the greatest Devotion as is certainly our Duty in the receiving it there should be something that may seem to look that way to those who are very willing it should or that may by a little stretching be drawn further than their true and genuine meaning which was not to Worship the Sacrament it self or the consecrated Elements but either 1. To Worship Christ who is to be adored by us in all places and at all times but especially in the places set apart for his Worship and at those times we are performing them in the Church and upon the Altar in Mysteriis as St. Ambrose speaks w De Spir. St. l. 3. c. 12. in the Mysteries both of Baptism and the Lords Supper and in all the Offices of Christian Worship as Nazianzen x Orat. 11. de Gorgon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said of his Sister Gorgonia that She called upon him who is honoured upon the the Altar That Christ is to be honoured upon the Altar where we see the great and honourable work of mens Redemption as 't was performed by his Death represented to us is not at all strange if it had been another and more full word that he was to be worshipt there 't is no more than what is very allowable tho it had not been in a Rhetorical Oration 't is no more than to say That the God of Israel was worshipt upon the Jewish Altar or upon this Mountain For 't is plain She did not mean to worship the Sacrament as if that were Christ or God for She made an ointment of it and mixt it with her tears and anointed her Body with it as a Medicine to recover her Health which she did miraculously upon it Now sure 't is a very strange thing that she should use that as a Plaister which She thought to be a God but She still took it for Bread and Wine that had extraordinary Vertue in it and it is so called there by Nazianzen the Antitypes y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. of Christs Body and Blood which shews they were not thought to be the substance of it and she had all these about her and in her own keeping as many private Christians had in those times and there was no Host then upon the Altar when she worshipped Christ upon it for it was in the night z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. she went thus to the Church So St. Chrysostom a Vid. Boileau c. 7. l. 1. ex Chrysost in all the places quoted out of him only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Saviour and our coming to the Sacrament with all Humility and Reverence like humble Supplicants upon our Knees and with Tears in our Eyes and all Expressions of Sorrow for our Sins and Love and Honour to our Saviour whom we are to meet there and whom we do as it were b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c. see upon upon the Altar which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him That we do not truly see him upon the Altar the Papists must own tho they believe him there but not so as to be visible to our Senses and he is no more to be truly adored as corporally present than he is visibly present St. Ambrose c In Sermone 56 Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo says of St. Stephen that he being on Earth toucheth Christ in Heaven just as St. Chrysostom says Thou seest him on the Altar and as he and any one that will not resolve to strain an easie figurative Expression must mean not by a bodily touch or sight but by Faith d Non corporali tactu sed fide and by that we own that we see Christ there and that he is there present 2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ which tho considered without his Divinity it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria says e In actis Concil Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet as it is always united to his Divinity 't is a true object of Worship and ought to be so to us who are to expect Salvation by it f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 108. even from the Blood and the Body and Flesh of Christ and therefore as we inwardly trust in it so we ought to adore it as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion tho that be in Heaven yet we are to worship it upon Earth and especially when it is brought to our minds and thought by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it the blessed Sacrament there and in Baptism especially when we put on Christ and have his Death and Rising again represented to us and have such great benefits of his Death and Incarnation bestowed upon us in these Mysteries we are as St. Ambrose g Caro Christi quam hodie in Mysteriis adoramus Ambros l. 3. de Sp. San. c. 12. apud Boil p. 32. says to Adore the Body and the Flesh
in Bishop Jewels reply but however if no such misfortune come to it it will in a little time if it be kept prove sowre and grow mouldy and when it does so what should then thrust out the Deity and bring in again the substance of the Bread that was quite gone before is an unaccountable Miracle and that which is taken of it into our Bodies is not like one would think to have any better or more becoming treatment there than by the other ways so that upon all these accounts this which is worshipped by Christians is in as ill Condition as that which was worshipped by Heathens and those witty Adversaries Celsus and Porphyry and Julian would have thrown all that the Christians had said against the Heathen Idols back upon themselves and have improved them with as great Advantage and retorted them with as much force had the Christians in those times worshipt the Host or the Sacramental Elements as the Papists do now and 't is more than a Presumption no less than a Demonstration that the Christians did not because none of these things that were so obnoxious and so obvious were ever in the least mentioned by the Heathens or made matter of Reflection upon them when they pickt up all other things let them be true or false that they could make any use of to object against them But the Primitive Christians gave them no such occasion which was the only Reason they did not take it As soon as the Church of Rome did so by setting up the worship of the Host ſ Apud Dionys Carthus in 4. dist Nullam se sectam Christiana deteriorem aut ineptiorem reperire Quem colunt Deum dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant Averroes the Arabian Philosopher in the 13th Century gave this Character of Christians that he had found no Sect more foolish or worse than they in all his Travels and Observations upon this very account For they eat the God whom they worship and t Bullaeus Gultius in Itin. Mange Dieu a later Historian and Traveller tells us that 't is a common Reproach in the Mouths of the Turks and Mahumetans to call the Christians Devourers of their God and a Jew in a Book Printed at Amsterdam in the year 1662 among other Questions put to Christians asks this shrewd one If the Host be a God why does it corrupt and grow covered with Mold and why is it gnawn by Mice or other Animals v Si Hostia Deus est cur situ obducta corrumpitur curagliribus umribus correditur Lib. quaest Resp The only way the Papists have to bring themselves off from these manifest Absurdities is only a running farther into greater and their little Shifts and Evasions are so thin and subtil Sophistry or rather such gross and thick falshoods that it could not be imagined that the Heathen Advertaries could ever know them and therefore be so civil as Boileau would make them a Cap. 10. l. 2. de ador Euch. as not to lay those charges upon them as others do nor can any reasonable and impartial man ever believe them for they are plainly these two That they do not worship what all the World sees they worship And that they do not eat what they take into their Mouths and swallow down Which is in plain words an open Confession that they are ashamed to own what they plainly do We do not worship the Bread say they for that we believe is done away and turned into the natural Body of Christ and so we cannot be charged with Bread-worship But do ye not worship that which ye see and which ye have before ye and which is carried about And would not any man that sees what that is think ye worship Bread or Wafer And could you ever perswade him that it was any thing else And if notwithstanding what you think of it against all Sense and Reason it be still Bread then I hope it is Bread that ye worship and till others think as wildly as ye do ye must give them leave to think and charge ye thus But if it were true that ye did not worship the Bread yet ye must and do own that ye worship the Species of the Bread and how ye should do that without being guilty of another very gross Absurdity ye do not know your selves for ye must make them so united to Christ as to make one Suppositum and so one Object of Worship as his Humanity and Godhead are and then according to this way of yours Christ may as well be said to be Impanated and United to Bread or its Species as Incarnated and United to Flesh as some of you have taught w Bellarm. de Ruperto Abbate Tuitiensi l. 3. de Euch. c. 11. that the Bread in the Eucharist is assumed by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the humine Nature was But not to mention these which wheresoever ye turn ye state ye full in the face and should make ye blush one would think had ye not put off all shame as well as all sense in this matter grant ye what ye would have that it is not Bread but the substantial Body Flesh and Blood of a man that is in the Host will this help much to mend the matter or to lessen the Absurdity and not rather increase and swell it For besides the incredible wonder that a bit of Bread should by a few words of every common Priest be turned immediately into the true and perfect Body of a man nay into ten thousand Bodies at the same time which is a greater Miracle than ever was done i' th' World and is as great almost as creating the World it self out of nothing and if it were true would make the Priest a God certainly and not a man and much rather to be worshipt than a bit of Bread as Lactantius saies of the Heathen Idols He that made them ought rather to be worshipt than they x Meliorem esse qui fecit quam illa quae facta sunt si haec adoranda sunt artificem a quo facta sunt ipsum quoque multo potiori jure adorandum esse Lactant. Instit l. 2. c. 2. Besides this it seems it is the whole Body of a man then which is eaten and swallowed down instead of Bread for sure the same thing is not one thing when it is worshipt and another thing when it is eaten and then how barbarous and inhumane as well as absurd and ridiculous must this appear to any man that is not used to swallow the most substantial Nonsense as well as the whole Body of a man for a Morsel and then all the former Absurdities which I mentioned do return again of the Eating that which we worship which the Apologists thought so wild and extravagant in the Egyptian God eaters Well then there is no other way but to say we don't eat him as we eat other food y Boil c. 10. l. 2.
presume he will not say they have the same right to it or interest in it that Christians have and yet I own they ought as much to have the Cup as they ought to turn Christians that is they ought to do both But yet first I think to become Christians and be Baptized before they have ordinarily a right either to Christ's Blood or to the Sacrament and it must seem very strange and grate very much upon all Christian ears to have it said that Turks and Infidels have a right to the Cup and Blood of Christ as well as Christians from this reason here of our Saviour to his Disciples concerning which it is I think very observable that to partake of the Sacrificial Blood and to drink that Sacramentally which was shed for the expiation of our Sins is a peculiar and extraordinary priviledge allowed to Christians The Jews were forbid all blood for this reason given by God himself ‖ Levit. 1◠10 11. For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls The life of the Beast which was given and accepted by God for the life of the Offender that was forfeited by the Law was supposed to be in the Blood as 't is there added the life of the flesh is in the blood and therefore the Blood of the Sacrifice was poured out and so given to God at the Altar the peculiar vertue and atonement of Christs Sacrifice is attributed to his Blood We have redemption through his blood * Eph. 1.7 We are justified by his blood †Rom. 5.9 In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins ‖ Coloss 1.14 And without shedding of blood either under the Law or under the Gospel there was no remission to be had * Heb. 9.22 Now for Christians to partake and Communicate of that Blood in the Sacrament which was shed and sacrificed for them and by which they have atonement and expiation of Sins this is a peculiar favour and singular priviledge which Christ has vouchsafed to Christians and which he takes notice of at his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins The Author of the Treatise de caenâ Domini in the Works of St. Cyprian ‖ Nova est hujus Sacramenti doctrina scholae Evangelicae hoc primum Magisterium protulerunt doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina ut biberent sanguinem Christiani cujus esum legis antiquae auctoritas districtissimè interdicit Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet Evangelicum praecipit ut bibatur has remarked this as first brought in by Christ and as a new thing belonging to the Sacrament of the Gospel That Christians should drink Blood which the old Law did absolutely forbid but this says he the Gospel commands and St. Chrysostome †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. observes It is not now as it was formerly when the Priest ate of that which the People might not partake of but now one Body and one Cup is offered to all So it was it seems in his time and they had not then learnt the way of drinking the Blood by eating the Body which now they pretend to do in the Church of Rome we do say they partake of the Blood and the Body both together for the Blood is in the Body and necessarily joyned with it but besides that this depends upon that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon which this and a great many other things are built when it is yet too heavy and ruinous to bear its own weight yet this cannot here do the business for we are to drink the Blood and not to eat it that is we are to partake of it as separated from the Body as shed for us or else it is not a Sacramental partaking of it we are to receive Christ's Body as it was a Sacrifice for us but it was not a Sacrifice but as the Blood was poured out and separated from it and we cannot any other way partake of the Sacrificial Blood which is to be drunk by all Christians 5. It is a most groundless fancy and an Opinion perfectly precarious to suppose the Apostles were made Priests at our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament by those words Hoc facite and that they received the Cup onely as Priests None of the Ancients who write upon this Sacrament or upon these words of its Institution ever thought so nor did it ever enter into the head of any man till a few late School-men invented this new subtilty that they might have something to say against the clearest cause and to shift off if they could the plainest Evidence in the World and though they now generally take up with this Sophistical Evasion which Monsieur Boileau †Creavit instituit Sacerdotes his verbis hoc facite p. 189. insists upon yet some of the wisest men among them are ashamed of it Estius owns that this appears not at all solid nor agreable to ancient Interpreters * Nobis parum solidum videtur nec apud veteres interpretes Dist 12. §. 11. and confesses that Hoc facite belongs to the common People eating and drinking of this Sacrament and that St. Paul refers it to them ‖ Et Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illad facere etiam ad plebem refert edenter bibentem de hoc Sacramento quando ait hoc facite quotiescunque Suarez acknowledges it is not convincing †Hoc argumenti genus per se non convincere Disp 74. Tom. 3. And Alfonsus à Castro * Contra haeres Tit. Euch. p. 99. would not make use of it because he says it does not appear whether those words were spoken by Christ before or after he gave the Eucharist to the Apostles and he rather thinks after and that they took it not as Priests * Ib. He was aware of a difficulty if the Apostles took the Cup onely as Priests and by the right of Priests at the first Institution then it would be contrary to that to have any but Priests receive the Cup And then why is it ever given to the Laiety as it is sometimes by the Pope's favour and concession if it belong onely to Priests and the Priests onely have right to it from the first Institution because the Apostles received it only as Priests But so inconsistent are they to their own Principles that they do not give the Cup even to their Priests unless when they themselves Consecrate and Officiate None but the Minister Conficiens is to receive that though never so many other Priests be by so much at variance are they between this their pretence and their own practice and so do they fight even with their
gave the Sacrament should be found to break Christ's Institution and Command about it which were so very plain if St. Peter and the rest of those holy men did this I shall never blame the Church of Rome nor any of his Successors for doing it afterwards and if they did it just after they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and had that in such a Miraclous manner given unto them I shall conclude it was not the office of that blessed Spirit to bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had said unto them as he told them it should be but to teach them things quite contrary to what he had a little before commanded and appointed them And it will be more strange if Christ himself after his Resurrection should give the Sacrament in another manner then he had done four days before Let us therefore examine those places from which all these strange things are pretended and see if any such matter is to be found in them which I confess will be very surprizing if they be As to the first St. Luke tells us Chap. 24. That the same day Christ was risen two of the Disciples the name of one of which was Cleophas going to Emmaus a Village near to Hierusalem Christ as they were Communing together about him and his Resurrection drew near and went along with them and discourst to them about those things as a person unknown and going into a House and fitting at meat with them he took bread and blessed it and brake and gave to them v. 30. Here say they Christ gave the Sacrament and gave it onely in Bread for he took bread and blessed and brake and gave to them which are the very words used at his giving his last Supper But must Christ always be supposed to give the Sacrament whenever he took bread and blessed and brake it and gave it to others Then he did so when he filled the five thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes for then he looked up to heaven and blessed and brake the loaves and gave them to others Mark 6.41 Mat. 14.19 And so he did when he filled four thousand at another time he took the seven loaves and gave thanks and brake and gave to his disciples to set before them Mark 8.6 Here though he blessed the Bread and gave thanks as was always the custom of Pious and Religious Men at their ordinary meals and though he brake the Bread which is a Jewish phrase for distributing and giving it yet it cannot in the least be pretended that in any of these places he gave the Sacrament nor is there any manner of reason to suppose he did so at Emmaus with these Disciples but to satisfie them of the truth of himself and his Resurrection he took meat with them as he did afterwards with the Eleven Apostles and by his behaviour at Table and by his form of Blessing which was probably the same he used at other times and by thus seeing and conversing with him more intimately at Table they came to understand who it was and their eyes were opened and they knew him or as is v. 35. he was known to them in breaking of bread that is in eating with him not that any thing miraculous or extraordinary was here shewn by Christ or wrought upon them any more than was to the Apostles afterwards to whom he shewed himself likewise and took meat with them to give them full satisfaction that it was the same person who was Crucified and who was risen with the same Body he had before or if they were illuminated and their eyes open'd in an extraordinary manner at that time yet it was not necessary this should be done by the Sacrament of all the vertues of which the opening mens eyes and curing them of Infidelity is the least to be ascribed to it since it is onely to be taken by those who do believe and whose eyes are opened before though this may sometimes be applyed to it by way of Allegory and allusion as it is by St. Austine Theophylact and others who make the Pool of Bethesda and the curing of the Lame and the Leprous by a word to be as much Sacramental as they do this that is to have some signification or resemblance to Spiritual things But there is not one Father or ancient Interpreter who does plainly affirm that Christ did here give the Sacrament to those Disciples at Emmaus The Bread which Christ blessed was no more truly made a Sacrament thereby than the House of Cleophas was dedicated into a Church by Christ's presence and Divine Discourses there which yet it might be according to St. Hierom's words without any administring of the Sacrament of which that place quoted out of him makes no mention Boileau p. 192. But if it must be supposed without any Authority and without any Reason that Christ did here give the Sacrament it must also be granted that he did something more than is related in that short account which is there given he must not onely have blessed and brake the bread and given it to them but he must have done it with those words This is my body which they say are always necessary to the true Consecration of this Sacrament And if he may be supposed to have used those though they are not mentioned which is a good argument to prove it was not the Sacrament but onely an ordinary Meal then we may as well suppose that at the same time he used Wine too though that is not mentioned and though we have no account of any Drink which yet we cannot but think they had at that Supper let it be what it will eating together and sitting at meat includes and supposes drinking too though there is no particular or express mention of it As in the 2. Second place in those several instances out of the Acts of the Apostles wherein it is said of the first Converts to Christianity that they continued in breaking of Bread and in Prayer †Acts 2.42 and in breaking Bread from house to house ‖ Acts 2.46 and that they came together on the first day of the Week to break Bread * Acts 20.7 which I am willing to allow may be meant of the Sacrament though a great many Learned men think they belong to the charitable and friendly way of living among those first Christians who had all things in common and who came to eat together at the same time that they came to pray and contrived these daily meetings for Worship and Refreshment in the same house for greater conveniency Yet that they did not drink together as well as eat and that by an usual Synecdoche both those are not included in the Phrase of breaking of Bread is not to be imagined Bread was a word by which not onely amongst the Jews but all Nations all manner of food and nourishment necessary to life was signified as being the most considerable part of it so
Tradition being well made out does more fully explain the Law and shew the necessity of observing it The Universal practice of the Catholic Church being a demonstration how they understood it contrary to the new Sophistry of our Adversaries and how they always thought themselves obliged by it And because none are more apt to boast of Tradition and the name of the Catholic Church upon all accounts than these men I shall more largely shew how shamefully they depart from it in this as they do indeed in all other points of Controversie between us and how they set up the Authority of their own private Church in opposition to the Universal as well as to the Laws of Christ and Practice of the Apostles Their Communion in one kind is such a demonstration of this that we need no other to prove this charge upon them and as I have showed this to be contrary to the Institution and command of Christ and the writings of the Apostles so I shall evidently make it out to be contrary to the whole Primitive and Catholick Church in all Ages and this First From the most ancient Rituals or the earliest accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in Christian Churches Secondly From the most ancient Lyturgies Thirdly From the Testimony and Authority of the Fathers or antient Writers Fourthly From some ancient Customs Fifthly From the Custom still remaining in all Christian Churches of the World except the Roman Sixthly From the Confession of the most learned of our Adversaries 1. From the most ancient Rituals or the earliest accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the blessed Eucharist in the Christian Church The first and most Authentic of which is in Justin Martyr's second Apology where he describes the publick Worship of Christians upon Sundays according to its true Primitive Simplicity and as to the Eucharist which was always a part of it * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justia Martyr Apolog. 2. There was brought he says Bread and Wine with water according to the custom I suppose of the Greeks and Eastern Countries who generally drank their Wines so mixt and these being offered to the chief Minister he receiving them giveth Honour and Glory to the Father of all things through the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost and rendreth thanksgiving to him for these things and having finished his Prayers and giving of Thanks to which the People that were present joyn their Amen The Deacons give to every one that is present to partake of the blessed Bread and Wine and Water and to those that are absent they carry them Having discoursed of the nature of this Sacramental food and shewn the Institution and design of it out of the Gospel and from the words of our Saviour he again repeats their manner of Celebrating in the same words almost which he had used before and says †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. propè fiaem That the distribution and participation of what is blessed by the President is made to every one which every one belongs plainly to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that just goes before Nothing is more evident than that all the Elements were given to the People and to every one of them and no man I think ever had the impudence to question this or make the least doubt of it before Monsieur Boileau who if ever he read this place may be ashamed to say as he does ‖ Haec Sti. Justini verba perperà m assumuntur ad concludendum verè castigatè aetate sancti Martyris Eucharistiam plebi administratam fuisse sub utraque specie Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utraque specie p. 215. That it cannot be truely and strictly concluded from hence that the Eucharist was Communicated to the People under both kinds in the Age of this Holy Martyr And what man of modesty or creticism besides Monsieur Boileau would have observed that both the Elements were not then carried to the absent which Monsieur de Meaux * In the example of S. Justinus the two Species 't is true were carried p. 112. owns were though it is plainly said they carried the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same things that were blessed and that those who were present did partake of yet it is not said that they †Non dicit ta conjunctìm vel alternatìm ad absentes perferunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed tantummodò ad absentes perferunt Ib. p. 214. carried both together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He might as well have pretended that though they carried yet they carried nothing at all And they that make such answers to such plain places had I am sure better say nothing at all Next to Justin Martyr St. Cyril of Hierusalem gives us the fullest account of the manner of Celebrating the blessed Eucharist in his Mystagogic Catechisms they are called wherein having discoursed of all the Christian Mysteries to those who were newly Baptized and so fit and capable to be instructed in them he comes at last to the highest Christian Mystery that of the Lord's Supper and in his fifth Catechism largely describes the performance of it with a great many more particular Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer then were used before And having told his young Christians in the foregoing Homily †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Catech. Mystag 4. That in the Species of Bread is given the Body of Christ and in the Species of Wine his Blood that so by partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ he may become one body and one bloud with him he bids him come with firm Faith and great Devotion and tells him how he should receive the Holy Bread very particularly and directs him to the very posture of his Hands and Fingers and afterwards he as particularly orders him how and in what manner he should come to receive the Cup ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ic. Catech. 5. of the Lord's Blood not stretching out his hands but bending and in the posture of worship and adoration and whilst the moisture is upon his lips * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. he bids him take it with his finger and touch his eyes and forehead and other parts and so sanctifie them However superstitious that was for I cannot but think this use of the Sacrament to be so as well as many others that were yet very ancient it is plain that the newly baptized Christians did then receive the Eucharist in both kinds and were commanded †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. to come to receive the Cup and to drink of the Wine as well as to partake of the Bread. To St. Cyril who lived towards the latter end of the fourth Century I shall joyn the Apostolic Constitutions as they are called which I suppose not to be ancienter and in these in one place ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constit Apostol l. 2. c. 57. The Sacrifice or
the Bodies of all Christians unless the Resurrection of the Body belong onely to the Priests as well as the Cup. Tertullian upon the Resurrection says the same with Irenaeus Our flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ * Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur Tertul. de Resur carnis And in his Book to his Wife he speaks of her taking the Cup in two several places †Dâ—â—câ—jus manu desiderabit dè cujus poculo participabit Id. ad uxor l. 2. c. 6. De cibo de poculo invadere desiderare in mente habere Id. c. 4. Upon one of which a very learned Critic of the Roman Church who owns those places to belong to the Communion has made this observation to our hands At that time the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated in both Species ‖ Sub utrâque specie illo tempore convivium Domini cerebratur quod tantâ aviditate arripiebatur ut illud invadere desiderare in mente habere De la Cerda Not. in locum p. 634. Even to Women it seems who I suppose were no Priests Origen upon the Book of Numbers says We drink the bloud of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist as well as Spiritually by believing his Doctrine * Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se cum sermenes ejus recipimus Quis est iste populus qui in usa habet sanguinem bibere Origent homil 16. in Num. When he had before asked What people drink of Bloud St. Cyprian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters as the Souldiers of Christ Considering that for this very purpose †Gravior nunc ferocior pugna immicet ad quam parare debent milites Christi considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bibere ut possint ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam Edit Oxon. they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Bloud that so they may also shed their bloud for Christ. And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lapsed upon this very account to arm and fortifie them for farther tryals and persecutions How can we teach or provoke them to shed their bloud for the confession of Christ if we deny them the Bloud of Christ ‖ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrit poculum idoneos facimus si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communionis admittimus Ep. 57. ad Cornel. Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord in the Church by the right of Communion The excellent Epistle * Ep. 63. Caecilio fratri of that Holy Martyr against those who out of a principle of abstaining wholly from Wine or lest they should by the smell of Wine which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacrifices Simili modo calicem quod si à Domino praecipitur ab Apostoloejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divine Magisterio non recedamus Ib. Quod nos obandire facere oportet quod Christus fecit faciendum esse mandavit Ib. discover themselves to be Christians used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine is so full a demonstration that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sacrament and that Christ's Institution and Command could not otherwise be observed that there needs no other Arguments but what that great Man there uses to shew the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine Christ Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quod alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prier fecerit Ib. Quomodo autem de creaturâ vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno patris bibemus si in sacraficio Dei Patris Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus Ib. says he gave the Cup and we are to do that which Christ did and ought by no means to depart from what was commanded by Christ and delivered by the Apostles upon any custom or pretence whatsoever How shall we drink says he of the fruit of the Vine with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father if we do not now offer the Wine in the Sacrifice and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians is plain from that fear which some had lest by their drinking it in the morning they should smell of it * Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi Ib. p. 155. and so discover themselves to the Heathens It was then it seems a mark to know Christians by That they did smell of the bloud of Christ which if they had done as the Papists now do they need not have been afraid of But to proceed to others who though they speak less of this then St. Cyprian yet speak plainly of Christians taking the Bloud as well as the Body Athanasius speaking of the Cup says It belongs to the Priests of right to give this to the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apolog 2. St. Basil in one of his Epistles says It is good and profitable to Communicate every day of the Body and Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Caesar And speaking of the peculiar Vertues of Christians asks What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Moral denoting that to belong to all Christians St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner speaks of Christians as being all Died and Purpled with the Bloud of Christ †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacerdot l. 3. And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites As thou eatest the Body of Christ so did they Manna as thou drinkest the Bloud of Christ so did they Water out of the Rock ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor. And in another place he expresly observes what I have taken notice of before That 't is not now as under the Jewish Law where the Priest partook of several things from the Altar which the People did not There is no difference between the Priest and the People when we come to receive the Holy Mysteries for one Body and one Cup is offered to all †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. St Hierom says The Priests serve the Eucharist and divide the Bloud of the Lord among the People * Sacerdotes Eucharisticae serviunt sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt Hieron in Sophon c. 2. And upon occasion speaks of some loose and vitious Women who yet would not abstain from the bloud of Christ ‖ Ebâ—â—â—tati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt Absit ut ego me à Christi sanguine abstineam Id Ep. ad Eustoch So that this it is plain was taken by the Women St. Austin to the newly Baptized Christians says That in all their tryals and their time of being Catechumens they did approve themselves that they might eat the Lord's Body and drink the Cup * Vt cum seipsos probaverint tunc de mensâ Domini manducent de calice bibant August de fide Oper And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews because it was offer'd in Sacrifice but from taking the Bloud of the Sacrifice of our Lord no one says he is not onely forbidden but all are exhorted to drink of it who will have Life †Ab hujus sacrificii sanguine in alimeatum sumendo non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam Id. in Levit. qu. 57. I might easily bring down the like clear authorities of ancient Writers much lower even to the times of the very Schoolmen who are the first that ever mention any thing about the Communion in one kind But that I may not over-load my self or my Reader I shall onely offer one or two more of much later date but yet more considerable to our Adversaries at least because they believed Transubstantiation but had not it seems improved it into that consequence which Superstition afterwards did of Communicating in one kind Paschasius Ratbertus Abbot of Corbey was the very Parent of Transubstantiation and the first founder of that Doctrine in the Ninth Century yet in the same Book in which he broaches that new Opinion he fully and plainly asserts the old Practice of the Communion in both kinds The Priest says he consecrates by the power of Christ and performs the part of Christ between God and the People he offers their Prayers and Oblations to God and what he hath obtained of God he renders to them by the body and bloud of Christ which he distributes to every one of them ‖ Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum populum agere videtur infert per manûs Angeli vota populi ad Deum refert Vota quidem offert munera refert autem imperata per Corpus sanguinem distribuit singnlis Paschas de Corpore sanguine Domini c. 12. Those Singuli must be the People whose Prayers the Priest offered and to whom he distributed the Bloud as well as the Body of Christ and to shew further that the Bloud was given in the Sacrament not to the Priest onely but to the People he most expresly says That when Christ gives the Sacrament by the hands of the Ministers he says also by them Take and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as all the rest that believe This is the cup of my bloud of the new and everlasting testament * Et ideo hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens Accipite bibete ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui credeates hic est calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni testamenti Ib. c. 15. Then which words there could nothing have been said that does more directly destroy the late pretence of our Adversaries of the Cup 's being given and belonging onely to the Priests or Ministers and not to all the Faithful or the Reliqui Credentes But he still goes further as to this matter and makes the partaking of the Bloud to be necessary to Salvation in another Chapter It is manifest says he †Constat igitur liquet omnibus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine cibo potu non vivitur sic itaque ad illam aeternam non pervenitur nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur Ib. c. 19. that in this mortal life we cannot live without meat and drink so therefore likewise can we not come to eternal life unless we are spiritually nourisht with those two unto Immortality and speaks of the Cup in the very next words To him I shall add Algerus a very zealous defender of Paschasius his Doctrine of Transubstantiation and as heartily agreeing with him in the practice and necessity of Communicating in both kinds Because says he we live by meat and drink that we can want neither therefore Christ would have them both in his Sacrament ‖ Vnde etiam quia potu clod ita vivimus ut alterntro carere nequeumus ntrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit Algerus de Sacramento l. 2. c. 5. And as he redeemed both our body and our soul by his body and blood so he argues * Nos qui corpore animâ perieramus corpus per corpus animam per animam Christus redimens simul corpus sanguis sumitur à fidelibus ut sumpto corpore animâ Christi totus homo vivificetur Ib. c. 8. we ought to partake both of his body and of his blood that our whole man may be quickned by both Then he quotes St. Austin and Gelasius for the taking of both Species †Vnde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur Item Gelasius Majorico Joanni Episcopis Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantùm corporis portione à calice sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab Integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Ib. c. 8. From whence as St. Austin says neither the flesh is rightly Communicated without the blood nor the blood without the flesh So also Gelasius to Majoricus and John Bishops We find that some taking onely the part of the body abstain from the Cup of the holy bloud who ought unquestionably either to take the whole Sacrament or to be kept wholly from it because the division of one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge He that had this Belief and these Arguments for it could not but be a great enemy to the Mutilated and Sacrilegious Communion in one kind however great a friend he was to Transustantiation and his authority and his words are the more remarkable because he lived in the Twelfth Century which makes him as a great many others then were which I could produce an undeniable Evidence that that corruption was not brought into the Latine Church till the next Age against which we have
of his extremity and nearness to death for he had lain three days speechless and senseless before he came to himself and had desired this the Priest rather than he should want this comfort sent him by the young man who came to him a small parcel of the Eucharist bidding him moisten it and so put it into the mouth of the old man which he did and so he immediately gave up the Ghost Now here says de Meaux †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. although it appears from this relation that the Priest sent onely to his Penitent that part of the Sacrament which was solid in that he ordained onely the young man whom he sent to moisten it in some liquor before he gave it to the sick person yet the good old man never complained that any thing was wanting But how does it appear from this relation that he sent onely the Bread or what was solid does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little of the Sacrament which is the thing he is said to send signifie onely Bread or the solid part or does it not rather signifie a little of both the Species which make the Sacrament as it plainly does in Justin Martyr who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds says this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called by us the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ Apolog. 2. And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread and why may we not suppose that the liquour he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine And not as Valesius without any grounds puts in his Translation Water I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiquity to mix the Eucharistic Bread with meer Water and so take it infused in Water without any Wine Monsieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together was not in use till after-Ages not in public I own but in private it might will be more hard put to it to shew the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water and this was so mixt with some liquor that it was rather fluid than solid and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread is plain from Justin Martyr if those who were absent from the Public Communion were as it is probable the sick for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they gave to those that were present without any manner of difference †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. as is plain from that fore-quoted place in his second Apology And St. Hierom relates of Exuperius Bishop of Tholouse that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket and the Bloud in a Vessel of Glass ‖ Qui corpus Domini canistrivimineo sanguinem portat in vitro Ep. ad Rustic Monach. after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread that it commands that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins and to eternal Life This Cassander * Ego sane demonstare possum etiam infirmis plenum corporis sanguinis Sacramentam dispensatum certè in promtu est Capitulum Turonensis Concilii quod ab Ivone Reginone Burchardo anducitur quo jubetur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium rese vatur intincta sit in Calicem D ni ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere Corpus sanguis D ni nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 5. produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds and the reason which is there given for this is so considerable that it plainly shews that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament and that neither the Body and Bloud of Christ nor the vertue and benefit of them could be given without both and this forces de Meaux to confess †P. 52. after all his shifts and artifices that in effect it is true that in some sense to be able to call it the Body and the Bloud the two Species must be given And further from hence also the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy grounded upon it whereby they suppose the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in either of the Species is wholly overthrown and destroyed but this by the by as to Serapion it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone if he had intended him but one Species that being more fit to be received and more proper to enter the parcht throat of an agonizing man as de Meaux speaks then the Bread however moistened and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some Councils ‖ Concil Carthag 4. Toled 11. and the Decrees of some Popes * Paschal 2. Vrban 2. that in cales of extraordinary necessity which dispence with positive Precepts the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread might Communicate onely with the Wine but to give them onely Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose who were both a dying and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine was very strange if they had designed them but one onely Species without the other But I pass to consider St. Ambrose by it self Paulinus who wrote his Life relates this of his Death That Honoratus Bishop of Verceills being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his repose he heard this Voice three times Rise stay not he is a dying He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the Ghost So that it seems he died and received only one kind but who can help that if he did if he died before he could receive the other as it is probable from the History he did If the Roman Priests did like Honoratus give onely the Bread to those who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup this would be a very justifiable excuse and needs no great Authority to defend it but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died which they must meerly by supposing some thing more than is in the History then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive And I am sure I
have a better argument for this than they can have against it or than these two Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose are for the custom of Communicating the Sick in one kind and that is a full proof of a contrary custom for their Communicating in both I confess I cannot produce any very ancient testimonies for this because in the first Ages the faithful who used to receive the Communion very frequently in public it being in its self and its own nature a true part of public Worship did seldom or never take it upon their Death beds in private †Vide Dallaeum de Cult l. 4. c. 3. and therefore they who give us an account of the death of several very pious and devout Christians as Athanasius of St. Antony Gregory Nazianzen of Athanasius of his own Father and of his Sister Gorgonia yet they never mention any thing of their receiving the Sacrament at their deaths no more does Eusebius ‖ De vitâ Constant l. 3. c. 46. in his History of the Death of Helena the most zealous Mother of Constantine but so soon as Christians came to receive the Sacrament as the most comfortable Viaticum at their deaths which was not till after-Ages then by whatever instances it appears that they received it at all it appears also that they received it in both kinds and it is plain that among the numerous examples of this nature which are to be found in Bede and Surius and the Writers of the Saints Lives there is not one to be produced to the contrary else no doubt the learned Bishop of Meaux who picks up every thing that seems to make for his purpose and who was fain to content himself with those two insignificant ones of Serapion and St. Ambrose would not have omitted them I shall mention some few in opposition to those two of his of those who according to St. Austine's advice * Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit Corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Sermo 215 de Tempore When they were sick did partake both of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ contrary to what they would have Paulinus report of St. Ambrose to St. Austine himself that he did onely receive the Body And the first shall be that of Valentinus of Pavia in the fifth Century †Ante obitum propriis manibus accepit corporis sanginis Domini Sacramentum Surius August 4. who before his death took with his own hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The second that of Elpidius as it is in the next Century reported by Gregory the Great ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorii Dialog 616. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That calling his Brethren and standing in the midst of them he took the Body and the Blood of the Lord and continuing in prayer gave up the Ghost And he mentions this no less then of three others in the same Dialogues and in his Office for Visiting the Infirm after Prayers and other things then says he * Deinde communicet eum corpore sanguine Domini Gregor Sacram Visit infirm Let the Priest Communicate him with the Body and Bloud of Christ. In the same Age the Writer of St. Vedastus his Life says †Sacrosancto Corporis sanguinis Domini Viatico confirmatus obiit Alcuin in vit Vedast He died being confirmed with the most sacred Viaticum of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the same also of Richarius very near in the same words Isidore the famous Bishop of Sevil Received with a profound sigh the Body and Bloud of the Lord and died presently after ‖ Corpus sanguinem Domini cum profundo gemitu suscepit Redemptus de obit Isidor And to go down no lower than the next Age Bede then reports of Ceadda a British Bishop That he fortified his departure with the perception of the Body and Bloud of our Lord seven days before * Obitum suum Dominici Corporis sanguinis perceptione septimo ante mortem die munivit Bed. Hist Angl. l. 4. And the same of St. Cuthbert Who received from him the most wholsome Sacraments of Christ's Body and Bloud †Acceptis à me Sacramentis salutaribus Dominici Corporis Sanguinis Id. in vit Cuthberti And thus did that glorious Prince Charles the Great make his pious exit Commanding his most familiar Priest Hiltibald to come unto him and give him the Sacraments of the Lords Body and Bloud ‖ Jussit familiarissimum Pontificem suum Hiltibaldum venire ad se ut ei Sacramenta Dominici Corporis Sanguinis tribueret Eginhard vit Caroli Mag. And the same universal Custom and Practice I might bring down to all those other Ages that succeed till a new Doctrine of the Sacrament brought in a new Practice by degrees but I cannot omit one in the Eleventh Age though it has a Legendary Miracle joyned with it 't is an account Damianus * Presbyterum quendam Cumanae Ecclesie Eucharistium detalisse aegroto illum mox cum in Ecclesiam rediens aliquantulum Dominici sanguinis comperisset remansisse in calice Peri Damian Opusc gives of a Priest Who had carried the Eucharist to a sick person and by negligence brought back and left in the Cup a little of the Bloud of the Lord So that it is plain nowithstanding the fear either of keeping or spilling they carried the Wine with them to the sick as well as the Bread and Communicated them with both And now if we adde to these the Decree of Pope Paschal the Second forbidding to mix the Sacramental Elements but to give them seperately and distinctly unless to young Children and to the Sick which exception makes it unquestionable that both were then given to the Sick and the fore-mentioned Canon of the Council of Tours which is in Burchard Ivo and Regino commanding the Bread to be dipt in the Wine that the Priest may truely say to the sick The Body and Bloud of Christ be profitable to thee these being all laid together make it clear beyond all contradiction that the Communion of the Sick was not as de Meaux pretends in one kind but in both and as a parting blow upon this point I shall onely offer that observation of their own learned Menardus †Cum communicat infirmus quem vis morbi non ad tantam virium imbecillitatem adduxit dicitur utrâque formâ Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi redimat te in vitam aeternam quae distinctam sumptionem indicant at dum communicat infirmus qui ingravari caeperit unica tantum formula recitatur in hunc modum Corpus Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam Menard notae in Greg. Sacram. p. 379 380. from an ancient Mass in his Notes upon the Sacramentary of St.
est latenter accipere sanctum Domini edere contrectare non potuit cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invenit Cyp. Ib. de Laps so that they received that it seems as well as the Wine which was as miraculously turned into Ashes But why was not the Child as much disturbed at the receiving the Bread if that was given it as at the receiving the Wine Why so it was during the whole time of being there at the Prayers and at the whole Solemnity it was under the same trouble agitation and discomposure but most remarkably at the end and conclusion of all when it had taken the whole Sacrament If the other Christians received the other part of the Sacrament though it be not mentioned so might this child and as I think none will from hence attempt to shew that all Christians were then deprived of the Bread so it is plain they all had the Cup and that the Children as well as the Adult did then partake of both appears from the same Treatise of St. Cyprian de Lapsis where he represents the Children who were thus carried to partake of the Idol Offerings as blaming their Parents for it and making this Vindication for themselves †Nos nihil secimus nec derelicto cibo poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Perdidit nos aliena persidia Cypr. de Laps We have not left the Meat nor the Cup of the Lord nor gone of our selves to the profane Banquets but anothers perfidiousness has destroyed us So that they were then to partake not onely of the Cup but of the Meat of the Lord. Monsieur de Meaux was in a great streight sure for some other instances of the Communion of Children in one kind when he brings in ‖ P. 91 92 94. the School-Boys at Constantinople who according to Evagrius * Hist l. 4. had the remainders of the Bread that was left at the Communion given to them which custom he finds also in a French Council †Mascon Were these Boys true Communicants for all that were not the Elements given them as they were sometimes to the Poor who were not present at the Office meerly that they might consume them that so they might not be undecently kept or carried away As for the same reason it was the custom to burn them in the Church of Hierusalem ‖ Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. and as it is now with us in the Church of England for the Communicants to eat them before they go out of the Church If we should have some remainders of consecrated Bread which we might call the particles of Christ's Body as Evagrius there does would the eating of them be an argument that we had a custom to Communicate in one kind and yet Monsieur de Meaux's Wit and Eloquence must be laid out on such ridiculous things as these to shew what Customs there remain in History in testimony against the Protestants P. 94. and how the Communion of some Infants under the sole Species of Wine and some under that of Bread is a clear conviction of their errour It would be to little other purpose but to tire my self and my Reader to follow that great man through all his little Arguments and Authorities of this Nature and especially into the dark and blind paths of later Ages when Superstition and Ignorance lead men out of the way both of Scripture and Antiquity which are the good old Paths that we are resolved to walk in His French Answerers I hear have pursued him through all these and driven him out of every private skulking-hole he would make to himself I am rather for meeting him in the open Field and for engaging his main strength and most considerable arguments and objections and I seriously profess though I never met with any Book written so shrewdly and cunningly with so much Art and Eloquence upon a subject that I thought could hardly bear it though it stood in need of it above any other yet there is not any thing of strength in it that I have not fairly considered and I hope fully answered The third Custom is the Domestic Communion Of Domestic Communion when after the Christians had received the Sacrament in their publick Meetings they carried it also home with them to receive it alone in their private Houses this must be allowed also to be very ancient being mentioned both by Tertullian * Accepto corpore Domini Reservato de orat Cap. ult Nesciat maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes Ad Uxor l. 2. and St. Cyprian †Cum quaedam arcam suam in quâ Domini sanctum fuit De Laps and the reason of it was that in those times of Persecution when they could not come so frequently to the public Communions and yet stood in need of the greatest aids and supports they might not want the benefit and comfort of what was so precious to them but though there might be great zeal and piety in this practice yet I cannot wholly excuse it from superstition nor think it to be any thing less than an abuse of the Sacrament and the same opinion the Church quickly had of it and therefore universally forbad it ‖ Concil Caesar Augustan and as Petavius says * De paenit publ l. 1. c. 7. It would be now a very punishable action and accounted a great profanation of the Sacrament Howe-ever angry Monsieur de Meaux is with the Protestants for calling it so †P. 105. undoubtedly the Eucharist was not intended by our Saviour for any such private use but to be a public part of Christian Worship and a solemn Commemoration of his Death and Passion And I know not how to call this a true or perfect Communion unless as it was a part of the same Communion that was in the Church as the sending a person part of the entertainment at a common Feast or Banquet is a making him partaker of the same Feast though he be not present at the Table but eats it by himself however let it be allowed to be never so true a Communion yet I know no advantage that can be made of it to the purpose of Communion in one kind unless it can be made appear that after the Faithful had communicated of both kinds in the Church that they onely reserved and carried home one Species to be received in their private Houses How improbable is this if it be granted that they received both in public which is not denied why should not they be as desirous to partake of both at home as they were in the Church Vpon what account as de Meaux says ‖ P. 114. should they refuse them both And believe that the the sacred Body with which they trusted them was more precious than the Bloud He is forced to own That the Bloud was not refused to the Faithful to carry with them when they
is much of the like nature This fraudulent design says he of the Manichees could hardly be discovered because Catholics themselves did not all of them Communicate under both Species But how knows he that That is the question that is not to be begged but proved and 't is a strange way of proving it by no other medium but onely supposing it and that very groundlesly and unreasonably Is this poor weak supposition to bear the weight of that bold assertion which contradicts all manner of Evidence and Authority that the Public Communion in the Church was in one kind If it had been so and Catholics had not all of them Communicated under both Species the Manichees would not have been discovered at all for they would have done the same the Catholics did and to all outward appearance been as good Catholics as they they might have kept their Opinion and Heresie to themselves and that it seems they intended to dissemble and keep private but as to their Practice it would have been but the same with others and so they could not have been found out or discovered by that But it was taken notice of at the last says de Meaux that these Heretics did it out of affectation insomuch that the holy Pope St. Leo the Great would that those who were known as such by this mark should be expelled the Church How does it appear that their affectation was taken notice of or that they did it out of that does Pope Leo say any thing of this but onely points at their Practice without so much as intimating their reason Was their affectation the mark by which the Pope would have them known As de Meaux slighly but not honestly makes him speak by putting those words of his as relating to his own that went before whereas in Leo they relate not to the doing it outof affectation for he speaks not a word of that but meerly to the not drinking the Bloud This was the onely mark by which they were known as such by these indicia these marks and tokens of not drinking the Bloud they were to be known and discovered and made manifest according to the words of St. Leo by their visible Practice not by their Opinion or their Affectation and for this they were to be expelled the Society of Christians because they refused to drink the Bloud of our Redemption without regard to their private or particular reasons which St. Leo takes no notice of These cunning and dissembling Heretics to cover their dissimulation and infidelity and hide themselves the better which was it seems their main end and design might take the Cup but yet not drink of it nor tast the least drop of Wine and for this cause there must have been time and a particular vigilance to discern these Heretics from amongst the Faithful and not because there was a general liberty to receive one or both Species as de Meaux pretends That liberty is a very strange thing which has no manner of evidence for it which Pope Leo says nothing of but the quite contrary namely that the Body and Bloud were both received in the Communion and which if it had been allowed as it would have bred infinite confusion in the Church so the Manichees might have made use of it to their wicked purpose of receiving onely in one kind The continuance of this fraud and dissimulation either in the Manichees or some other Heretics and superstitious Christians for it does not appear who they were caused a necessity at last in the time of Pope Gelasius to make an express Order and Decree against the sacrilegious dividing of the Sacrament and the taking of one Species without the other And let us now come to consider that as it is in Gratian's Decree * Comperimus autem quod quidam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione à calice Sacrati cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi aut integra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire Gratian. decret 3. pars dist 2. We find says he that some taking onely a portion of the Body abstain from the Cup of the holy Bloud which persons because they seem to adhere to I know not what superstition let them either take the Sacraments entirely or else be wholly kept from them because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot be without great Sacriledge Can any thing be more plain or more full than this against mangling and dividing the blessed Sacrament and against taking it in one kind is it possible to put by such a home-thrust against it as this is and will it not require great art to turn this into an argument for Communion in one kind which is so directly against it Surely the substance of words and arguments must be annihilated and transubstantiated into quite another thing before this can be done Let us see another tryal of Monsieur de Meaux's skill Gelasius says he was obliged to forbid expresly to Communicate any other ways then under both Species A signe that the thing was free before and that they would not have thought of making this Ordinance but to take from the Manicheans the means of deceiving Was it then free till the time of Pope Gelasius to receive either in one or both kinds does any such thing appear in the whole Christian Church or is there any instance of any one Public Communion without both kinds is a Decree of a Church-Governour upon a particular occasion against particular Heretics and superstitious Persons new rose up and persuant to a general Law of Christianity and the Custom of the whole Church is that a sign the thing was free before Then it was free for Christians not to come to the Sacrament at all before such and such Councils and Bishops commanded them to come at such times Then it was free for the Priests who minister'd to receive but in one kind before this Decree of Gelasius for 't is to those it is refer'd in Gratian where the title of it is The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Bloud †Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere Ib. Though there is no mention of the Priest in the Decree neither was there in the title in the ancient MSS Copies as Cassander assures us ‖ Ep. 19. and it seems plainly to concern neither the Priest nor the Faithful who by a constant and universal custom received in both kinds but onely those superstitious persons who were then at Rome and for I know not what reason refused the Cup and though there was a particular reason to make this Decree against them yet there needed no reason to make a Decree for the Faithful who always Communicated in both kinds and it is plain from hence did so in the time of Gelasius
The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body and the reason why they did not was some either Manichean or other Superstition so that this Decree I own was occasioned by them and particularly relates to them and shews that they herein differed from the Faithful not onely in their superstition but in the practice too but to say that he forbad this practice onely in respect of such a Superstition going along with it and that he did not forbid the Practice it self which was the effect of it is so notoriously false that the Decree relates wholly to the Practice and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was or wherein it consisted no doubt it must be some Superstition or other that hinders any from taking the Cup the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood or the superstitious belief that one Species contains both the Body and Bloud together and so conveys the whole vertue of both which is truely Superstition as having no foundation in Scripture or in the Institution of Christ which gives the Sacrament its whole vertue and and annexs it not to one but to both Species And whatever the Superstition be Gelasius declares it is Sacriledge to divide the Mystery or to take one Species without the other the reason which he gives against taking one kind is general and absolute because the Mystery cannot be divided without Sacriledge so that however our Adversaries may assoile themselves from the Superstition in Gelasius they can never get off from the Sacriledge How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark which de Meaux aims at I shall let him see from one of his own Communion whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way inferiour to his own and his honesty much greater who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit nam ex iis Manifestè constat horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâque specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fuisse Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur quod ingredientes Ecclesiam percepto cum reliquis corpore Domini à sanguine Redemptionis abstinerent nisi calix Dominici sanguinis distributue fuisset quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis pertione à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus in Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus non igitur ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontisices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos evitandos hic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censait Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant Cassand de Com. sub utrâque p. 1026. The Conjecture says he which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo and the Decrees of Gelasius does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends for from them it manifestly appears that in the time of these two Popes the Communion was onely used in both kinds for how should the Manichees be known by this mark that when they came to the Churches they abstained from the Bloud of our Redemption after they had with others taken the Body of the Lord unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed and how should they be convicted of Superstition who took a portion of the Lord's Body and abstained from the Cup unless the Cup of his sacred Bloud had been offered to all in the Church These holy Popes did not therefore as some imagine appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree but those who neglected this solemn and received custom of taking the Cup one of these Popes would have them avoided and markt as those who were a-kin to the Manichean Heresie the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament or else to be wholly kept from all Communion for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely that is in both kinds There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind than such improbable Guesses and forced Conjectures whereby plain and full evidences are rackt and tortured to get that out of them which is contrary to their whole testimony sense and meaning Let us enquire then whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact which will make it appear that the Church ever used onely one kind in its Public Communions this de Meaux attempts to shew in the last place and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his otherwise vanquisht cause He brings both the Latine and Greek Church to his assistance though the latter he owns appears not for the most part very favourable to Communion under one Species but yet this manner of Communicating is practised however and consecrated too by the Tradition of both Churches If it be but practiced in both Churches this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church though neither of those Churches singly nor both of them together do make the Catholic But let us see how this is practiced in those two great though particular Churches Why in the Office of Good-Friday in the Latine Church and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday at those times it seems these two Churches have the Communion onely in one kind as appears by their public Offices if they have it so at those times at other times then I suppose they have it in both or else how come those particular times and those particular Offices to be singled out and remarked as distinct and different from all the rest then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds according to the Tradition of both those Churches and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church is violated by the Roman But the Priest himself who officiates takes but in one kind in the Missa Parasceues as they call it or the Mass on Good-Friday as appears by the Office this custom then will shew that the Priest himself or the Minister Conficiens may receive onely in one kind in the Public Communion as well as the People which I think they ordinarily think unlawful and call it Sacriledge if he should ordinarily do so and if I
uncertain and there is no evidence for it till towards the ninth Century In a Council held under Justinian in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople called therefore in Trullo An. 686. there is a Canon which commands that on all days of Lent except Saturday and Sunday and the day of the Annunciation the Communion be made of the Presanctified there was long before a Canon in the Council of Laodicea which forbad any Oblation to be made in Lent but upon those days viz. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day but that says nothing of the Presanctified nor of any Communion on the other days but let it be as ancient as they please although it be a peculiar Office which is neither in the Lyturgy of St. Basil or St. Chrysostom but is to be found by it self in the Bibliotheca Patrum where it is translated by Genebrardus it is most abominably false that it was onely the Bread which they reserved or which they distributed in those days to the People for they pour some of the consecrated Wine upon the consecrated Bread which they reserve on those days and make the form of the Cross with it upon the Bread as appears from the Rubric in the Greek Euchologion ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Eucholog And whatever any private men may pretend to the contrary as Michael Cerularius or Leo Allatius a Latinized Greek this can with no manner of reason prejudice or confront the public Ritual of a Church which as it in no instance practices Communion in one kind but to prevent that uses often the mixture of the two Species where never so little of each is sufficient to justifie the use of both so by this custom of dropping some of the consecrated Wine upon the reserved Bread it shews both its judgement and its care never to have the Communion wholly in one kind But to take off this custom of theirs of dropping some Wine upon the Bread which they reserved for this Communion de Meaux says That immediately after they have dropped it they dry the Bread upon a Chafendish and reduce it to Powder and in that manner keep it as well for the Sick as for the Office of the Presanctified So that no part of the fluid Wine can remain in the Bread thus dryed and powdered however this is for I must take it upon de Meaux's credit finding nothing like it in this Office of the Greeks yet to a man that believes Transubstantiation and thinks the most minute particle of the Species of Wine or Bread contains in a miraculous manner the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood this difficulty methinks might in some measure be salved however small parts of the Wine may be supposed to remain in the crums of Bread and as the Greeks when they mix the Wine and the Bread together for the Sick and Infants yet believe that they give both the Species however small the margaritae or crums be which are in the Wine so they do the same as to the presanctified Bread however few unexhaled particles of Wine remain in it But Monsieur de Meaux knows very well and acknowledges that the Greeks do further provide against a meer dry Communion in this Office by mixing this sacred Bread with more Wine and Water at the time of the Communion and then as I proved in the case of the Latine Office on Good-Friday that the unconsecrated Wine was consecrated by this mixture and by the Prayers and Thanksgivings that were used at that Solemnity so by this way as well as by the first mixture of some drops of Wine with the Bread the Communion in both kinds will be secured in the Greek Church in their Office of the Presanctified and to put it out of all doubt that this is such a Communion let us but look into their Office and we shall find there it plainly is so Behold say the Faithful in their Prayer before the Communion the immaculate Body and the quickning Bloud of Christ are here to be set before us on this mystical Table * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Priest in his low Prayer Begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe to communicate to them his immaculate Body and sacred Bloud and by them to the whole People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Then after he has Communicated He returns God thanks for the Communion of the holy Body and Bloud of Christ. So that it is most remarkable as de Meaux says that the Greeks change nothing in this Office from their ordinary Formularies the sacred Gifts are always named in the plural and they speak no less there in their Prayers of the Body and the Blood Is it to be imagined they could do this if they received not any thing upon these days but the Body of our Lord would they not then as the Church of Rome has done change in this Office from their ordinary Formularies but so stedfastly is it says he imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the Species without receiving at the same time not onely the vertue but also the substance of one and the other So firmly is it imprinted upon the minds of those Christians that they ought not to receive one Species alone without the other contrary to the plain Institution of Christ that they take all care not to do it either in this or any other Office least they should loose the whole vertue and substance and benefit of them If in spite of the opinions of the Greeks themselves which de Meaux owns are of another mind and in spight of their public Rubric their Rituals and Missals they must be understood to celebrate the Communion in their Churches in one kind then so far as I know de Meaux may as confidently impose upon us and all the World and bear us down by dint of Impudence that both the Greek Church and all the Christian Churches that ever were in the World had always the Public Communion in one kind notwithstanding all their Offices and all their Lyturgies speak to the contrary And now having so fully shewen the universal consent and constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for Communion in both kinds and having answered all the Instances by which de Meaux vainly endeavours to overthrow that I have I hope in some measure performed what was the subject of de Meaux's Prayer at the beginning of his Treatise That not onely Antiquity may be illustrated but that Truth also may become manifest and triumphant †P. 9. And I have hereby wholly taken away the main strength and the very foundation of his Book for that lies in those several customs and pretended matters of fact which he brings to justifie the Churches practice for single Communion and if these be all false and mistaken as upon examination they appear to be then his principles upon which he founds this wrong practice if they are not false
kind will be quite taken off and destroyed but because this is the great Plea and the fundamental reasoning which he every-where uses in his Book I shall therefore fully consider it under these two Questions 1. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit do not belong to one Species or be not given by one Species which is by both 2. Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament I. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit be not given by one Species as by both This de Meaux every-where asserts and 't is the foundation he all along goes upon but is it not strange presumption when God has been pleased to appoint such a Religious Rite and Sacramental Action to be performed in such a manner with a promise of such graces and benefits to those who perform it aright to think he will grant the same benefits to those who perform it otherwise than he has appointed and to venture to make a change and alteration from what he positively ordered and yet think to partake of the same benefits another way without any such outward means and without any Sacraments at all for they are wholly in his own free disposal and he is not tied to any outward means nor to such particular means as the Sacraments are but since he has thought fit to make them the ordinary means of conveying those benefits to us we cannot ordinarily hope for the one without the other thus we cannot expect the vertue and benefit of Baptism without the outward ceremony of washing and without observing that in such a way as Christ has appointed i. e. washing with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost neither can we receive the inward grace and vertue of the Eucharist without taking that Sacrament as Christ hath appointed and commanded it for all Sacraments would loose their worth and value their esteem and reverence and would not be necessary to be observed according to the Divine Institution if without the observance of that we had any just grounds to hope for the vertue and benefits of them there is therefore all the reason in the World to fear that God to preserve the integrity of his own Institution and the force and authority of his own Laws will deny the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to those who wilfully violate and transgress the outward observance of it in such a way as he has appointed Has not Christ annexed the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to the outward Sign If he have and we do not receive the outward Sign as he has appointed how can we then hope to receive the inward Grace What is it that makes such an outward sign or ceremony as a Sacrament be a means of conveying such spiritual Grace and Vertue and exibiting such inward benefits to our minds It is not any physical power or natural vertue which they have in themselves it is not the washing with a little Water can cleanse the Soul or the eating a little Bread and drinking a little Wine can nourish and strengthen it but it is the Divine Power of Christ who by his Institution has given such a spiritual and inward vertue to such outward signs and visible actions and made these the means and instruments of conveying and exhibiting such grace and vertue and real benefits to us all the power and efficacy they have to do this is owing purely to the Divine Institution and wholly depends upon that if therefore we do not observe the Institution how can we expect the benefit that comes wholly from that and if Christ by the Institution has annexed the grace and vertue and benefit of the Sacrament to both kinds which he has plainly done by instituting of both how can we then hope to receive it by one contrary to the Institution and how can we be assured that we loose nothing and are deprived of nothing by taking one onely and that this is as good and sufficient as taking of both There is nothing appears from the will and pleasure of him that instituted both upon which the whole vertue of them does entirely depend from whence we can gather any such thing it rather appears from thence that both are necessary because both are instituted de Meaux therefore does not fetch it from thence but from the nature of the thing it self from the inseperableness of that grace which is given in the Sacrament and from the impossibility in the thing to have it otherwise Christ says he cannot seperate the vertue of the Sacrament nor effect that any other grace should accompany his Blood shed than that same in the ground and substance which accompanies his Body immolated †P. 182. But Christ can annex the vertue of the Sacrament to the whole Sacrament and not to any part of it and he can effect that the grace of his Body and Blould should accompany or belong to both the eating his Body and drinking his Blood and not to the doing one of these without the other contrary to his command and institution although the grace be inseparable so that the grace annexed to the Body be no other than that which is annexed to the Blood ‖ P. 3. yet this grace may not be given till both the Body and Blood are received as Bellarmine expresly says it may not in the case of the Priests taking both kinds till the whole sumption of both Species is performed and finished * Possit etiam dici Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam nisi totâ sumptione Eucharistiae absolatâ quia cum sumitur utraque species non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utraque species ideò Eucharistiam sub specie panis conferre quidem gratiam sed non ante sumptionem alterius speciei Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l. 4. c. 23. and if it may not be so in the case of the Priest why not also in all other Communicants unless Christ have made and declared it otherwise which he has not what will it then signifie if as de Meaux says It be impossible to separate in the application the effect of Christ's Bloud from that of his Body †P. 182. If the effect of these be not applied till they are both received and there be no application of the effect as we cannot be assured there is without the receiving of both But did Christ then says he suspend the effect which his Body was to produce until such time as the Apostles had received the Bloud in the first institution of this Sacrament and in the internal between their taking the Bread and the Cup I answer they did not receive the grace of the Sacrament till they had received the
Grace which is given by both Species and not by one If it were no more than this which themselves own yet 't is pitty sure that Christians should be deprived of that but they can never assure Christians that they are not deprived of all even of that which is necessary to Salvation So far as the Grace of the Sacrament is so because this necessary Grace is annexed not to one kind but to both and the taking the species of Wine is as necessary to receive that by Christ's Institution as the species of Bread for no reason can be imagined why the one should give onely the necessary Grace and the other onely the additional Men must make too bold with the Grace of God and the Grace of the Sacrament who think to give it as they please and to part and divide it as they think fit by their presumptuous and ungrounded fancies and do not wholly depend upon his will and pleasure for the receiving of it and that way and manner which he himself has appointed Others there are who though they defend the Communion in one kind yet speak very doubtingly about that question Whether more spiritual fruit or more grace be not received by both than by one Salmeron says It is a difficult question because we have nothing from the Ancients whereby we can decide it ‖ Dissicilis sane quaestio propterea quòd ex antiquis quicquam vix habemus unde possimus eam decidere Salmer de Euch. no truly the question and the reason of it which is their practice is too late and novel to have any thing produced for it out of Antiquity So that those Doctors who speak of this matter have had various opinions about it * Vt propterea Doctores qui de hac reloquuti sunt in varias iverint sententias Ib. Some saw there was no reason for it and that it was perfectly precarious and ungrounded but others thought it necessary to defend their Communion in one kind Bellarmine himself owns that this is not so certain for divers have different sentiments concerning it neither does the Council openly define it †Haec propositio non est adeo certa de hâc enim variè sentiunt Theologi neque Concilium eam apertè definire videtur Bellar. de Euch. But de Meaux has done it very positively and definitively contrary to many learned men in his own Church and without any warrant from the Council of Trent or any other Secondly To make the whole Grace and Vertue and entire Fruit of the Sacrament to be given by one Species is to render the other wholly useless and superfluous as to the conveying any real vertue or benefit to him that receives it When the Priest has taken the Species of Bread and has by that fully received the whole Grace and entire Fruit of the Sacrament what can he further receive by the Cup and what benefit can he have by it De Meaux will by no means have the effect of the Body suspended till the Bloud is received ‖ P. 3. though Bellarmine is willing it should * De Euch. l. 4. c. 23. But if it be so to the Priests why may it not likewise to the people and if the Priests receive any benefit by the Cup which they would not have without it why may not the people also For they have not yet declared that I know of that the Priest is to receive more grace by the Sacrament than the people What a meer empty Cup must the Priest then receive void of all grace and vertue after he has taken the Species of Bread which has before given him the whole and entire fruit and grace of the Sacrament to which the Cup can add nothing at all It must be then as utterly fruitless to him as the Wine of ablution is to the Laiety and if it be so inconsiderable they need not methinks be so afraid of the Laymens spilling it or dipping their Beards and Whiskers in it but it is still the very natural and true Blood of Christ if it be so 't is strange that it should have no true and essential vertue belonging to it surely Christ's Bloud is never without that nor ought any to have so mean and low an opinion of it Why did Christ give the Cup to the Apostles as part of the Sacrament if they had received the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament before and if so soon as they had received his Body at the same instant they received the whole grace that accompanied that and his Blood too Christ if he did not suspend the effect of the Blood till it was taken must have prevented it and given it before it was Christ no doubt might have given the whole grace and effect of the Sacrament by one Species if he had pleased but if he had done that he would not have given the other nor should we have had two Species Instituted by him if he had restrained the effect of those two to one onely When Christ has appointed two and gave two himself for men to come and argue that one alone may give the whole good of both because the Grace of both is the same and inseparable from either and because Christ did not suspend the effect of one till he gave the other and that 't is impossible he should separate the effect of his Bloud from that of his Body this is to argue at all adventures against what is known from what is secret and uncertain against the plain will of Christ from his power and against what he has done from what he might do and is to set up a precarious and ungrounded Hypothesis of our own from the nature of the thing when the thing itself is purely arbitrary and positive and depends wholly upon Christ's will and pleasure If Christ himself has appointed two Species in the Sacrament to convey the whole and entire vertue of the Sacrament to worthy receivers as he seems plainly to have done by instituting both and giving both to his Apostles and commanding both how groundless and arrogant is it in any to say That one is sufficient to give this and that both are not necessary to this end without knowing any thing further of Christ's will about it and when they believe as de Meaux does †P. 130. That Jesus Christ has equally instituted both parts Yet notwithstanding to make one unnecessary to the giving any real vertue and benefit and to dare to affirm as de Meaux does ‖ P. 4. That the receiving the Blood is not necessary for the grace of the Sacrament or the ground of the Mystery Let me then ask what it is necessary for and why it was equally instituted with the other De Meaux gives not a plain answer to that but tells us That the Eucharist has another quality namely that of a Sacrifice * P. 179. and for this reason both Species are always consecrated that
so they may be offered to God and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death But this is no answer to the question for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice which it is not in a proper sence though it be not my business to shew that here but as it is a Sacrament Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament and why did he give both Species to his Apostles He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice for as such if it were so it was to be onely offered up to God but he gave both the Species to his Disciples and why did he do this if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was given by one and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God He does not receive them as a Sacrifice but as a Sacrament And why is the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the
words This is my Body Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present and when they are so what need is there of the other form This is my Blood to make the same thing present again which was truly present before It matters not at all in this case whether they be present by vertue of the consecration or by vertue of Concomitancy for if they be truly present once what need they be present again if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second why do they become the same thing twice or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient when upon the consecration of that it immediately becomes both Christ's Body and Blood and what reason is there for making the same Body and Blood over again by another consecration They might if they pleased say over the Bread alone Hoc est Corpus meum hoc est sanguis meus This is my Body and this is my Bloud for they believe it is so upon the saying those words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body And if it be so as soon as the words are pronounced they may as truly affirm it to be both as one What does it signifie to say they are both present by Concomitancy does not Concomitancy always go along with the Consecration is there any space between the Consecration and the Concomitancy is not the one as quick and sudden as the other and can it be said over the Species of Bread This is my Body before it can be as truly said This is my Blood why therefore may not they be both said together Nay it may be as truly said by vertue of this Doctrine not only This is my Body and Blood but this is my Soul and my Divinity for though they will not say it is made all those yet it becomes all those and truly is all those by this Concomitancy upon the Consecration and it may be said to be all those as soon as it is consecrated and at the same time that those words are spoke There being a distinct Consecration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Sacrament if Christ's Body and Bloud be really present there by vertue of the words of Consecration yet they ought to be as distinctly present as they are distinctly consecrated that is the Body present in the species of Bread and the Blood in the species of Wine for else they are not present according to the Consecration so that this Concomitancy by which they are present together does quite spoile the Consecration by which they are present asunder and so confounds the two Species as to make them become both the same thing after they are consecrated and renders the consecration of one of them to be without either use or sense 2. It makes the distinct Sumption of both the Species to be vain and unnecessary to any persons to the Priests or to any others to whom the Pope has sometimes granted them and even to the Apostles and all the first Christians who received both for if the one contains the very same thing with the other and gives the very same thing what need is there of having or of taking both that is of taking the very same thing twice over at the same time If one Species contain Jesus Christ whole and entire his Body Bloud Soul and Divinity and all these are given by one Species what can be desired more as de Meaux says Then Jesus Christ himself and what then can the other Species give but the same thing is Jesus Christ with whole Humanity and Divinity to be thus taken over and over and to be taken twice at the same time if he be why not several times more and if he were so this might be done by taking several times the same Species since one Species contains the same as both even the whole substance and the whole essential effect of the Sacrament and the very person of Jesus Christ himself This does so alter the nature of the Sacrament by which we have a continual nourishment conveyed to our Souls and receive the Grace and Spirit of Christ by fresh and daily recruits and in several measures and degrees every time we Communicate that it makes it not onely to no purpose for any person to take more than one Species at once but to take the Sacrament more than once all his whole life for what need he desire more who has received together with the humanity of Jesus Christ his Divinity also whole and entire †P. 314. and if he has received that once there is no reason for receiving it again for this as it renders the Grace and Substance of the Sacrament Indivisible as de Meaux often pleades so it renders it Infinite to which nothing can be ever added by receiving it never so often and if we thus make this Sacrament to give the very Body and Bloud of Christ and so the whole and entire Person of Christ and his whole Humanity and his whole Divinity instead of giving the spiritual Graces and Vertues of Christ's Body and Bloud we then make every Communicant to receive all that by one single Communion which he can ever receive by never so many thousands and we make all persons to receive this alike however different the preparations and dispositions of their minds are and even the most wicked and vile wretches must receive not onely Christ's Body and Blood but even his Soul and his Divinity and his whole and entire Person for though the spiritual graces and vertues may be given in different measures and degrees and in different proportions according to the capacity of the receiver yet the Humanity and Divinity of Christ which is whole and entire in each Species never can Thirdly If Christ's Body and Bloud were thus always joyned together in the Sacrament and were both contained in one Species yet this would not be a true Sacramental reception of them for to make that they ought to be taken as separate and divided from one another his Body from his Blood and his Bloud from his Body and not as conjoyned or mixt together this was the way and manner which Christ himself appointed and this is the onely way by which we can be said to eat his Body and to drink his Blood and as they own they ought to be thus consecrated so they ought also to be thus received for I cannot understand why they might not be as well consecrated together as received together and why it would not be as true a Sacrament with such a Consecration as with such a Sumption nay I think the Consecration this way would have more sense in it than
themselves upon the Sabbath on which they were commanded so strictly to rest it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable and not any Tradition or any sentence of the Sanhedrim and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath does not reprove them for keeping it as it was commanded or otherwise than Tradition had explained it but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week this was not done by Tradition but by the Apostolical Authority and whatever obligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven it can neither be proved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now or I may adde if they were that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law. All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up are very short of proving that and though I have examined every one of them except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead which is both false and to no purpose yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down If any instance could be found by de Meaux or others of any Tradition or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution and to a plain Law of God they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ‖ Mar. 15.3 Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law so as to make it of none effect was truly ancient and authentic and derived to them from their fore-Fathers but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void and was contrary to a Divine Law. There is no Tradition nor no Church which has ever broke so plain a Law and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution as that which has set up Communion in One Kind the true reason why it did so was not Tradition no that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it but onely some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first the danger of spilling the Wine and the difficulty of getting it in some places and the undecency of Laymens dipping their Beards in it These were the mighty reasons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie as he calls it of Communicating in both Kinds †Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt or that men wore Beards or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance and therefore he takes very little notice of them and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine because he all along pleades for either of the Species and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament because both are commanded and both instituted and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament and so to the essence of it and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament because that is annext to both by the Institution and cannot warrantably be expected without both To conclude therefore Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament which is to represent the Death of Christ and his Blood separated from his Body a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them to wit His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us and which it is the peculiar priviledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of and lastly a robbing them of that Grace and Vertue and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part but to the whole of it and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life to be tainted and poysoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace and the Cement of Unity among all Christians and to make them all one Bread and one Body may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil be made a means to divide and separate them from each other and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve FINIS A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1. A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion 2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith being an Answer to Three Questions I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sence of Scripture II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession can teach the true
and the most useful and comfortable part of Christian Worship and if it be so it is a great defect in us that want it they charge us very high for being without it without a Sacrifice which no Religion they tell us in the World ever was before and one amongst them of great Learning and some temper in other things yet upon this occasion askes whether it can be doubted where there is no Sacrifice there can be any Religion †An dubitari potest ubi nullum peculiare Sacrisitium ibi ne Religionem quidem esse posse Canus in loc Theol. l. 12. p. 813. We on the other side account it a very great corruption of the Eucharist to turn that which is a Sacrament to be received by us into a Sacrifice to be offer'd to God and there being no Foundation for any such thing in Scripture but the whole ground of it being an Error and mistake as we shall see anon and it being a most bold and daring presumption to pretend properly to Sacrifice Christs body again which implyes no less then to Murder and Crucifie him we therefore call it a Blasphemous Fable †See Article 31. of the 39 Articles of Religion and as it is made use of to deceive people into the vain hopes of receiving benefit by the Communion without partaking of it and a true pardon of sin by way of price and recompence is attributed to it and it is made as truly propitiatory as Christs sacrifice upon the Cross both for the dead and living and for that purpose is scandalously bought and sold so that many are hereby cheated not onely of their mony but of their souls too it is to be feared who trust too much to this easie way of having a great many Masses said for them and because when the priest pretends to do those two great things in the Mass to turn the Bread and Wine into the very substance of Christs Body and Blood and then to offer Christ up again to his Father as truly as he offered himself upon the cross which are as great as the greatest works which ever God did at the very Creation and Redemption of the World yet that he really does no such thing as he then vaunts and boasts of for these Reasons we deem it no less then a dangerous deceit †Ibid. These are high charges on both sides and it concerns those who make them to be well assured of the grounds of them And here I cannot but passionately resent the sad state of Christianity which will certainly be very heavy upon those who have been the cause of it when the corruptions of it are so great and the divisions so wide about that which is one of the most sacred and the most useful parts of it the Blessed Eucharist which is above any other the most sadly depraved and perverted as if the Devil had hereby shown his utmost malice and subtlety to poyson one of the greatest Fountains of Christianity and to make that which should yield the Waters of Life be the Cup of destruction That blessed Sacrament which was designed to unite Christians is made the very bone of Contention and the greatest instrument to divide them and that bread of Life is turned into a stone and become the great Rock of offence between them Besides the lesser corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome such as using thin Wafers instead of bread and injecting them whole into the mouths of the Communicants and Consecrating without a Prayer and speaking the words of Consecration secretly and the like there are four such great ones as violate and destroy the very substance and Essence of the Sacrament and make it to be a quite other thing then Christ ever intended it and therefore such as make Communion with the Roman Altar utterly sinful and unlawful These are the Adoration of the Host or making the Sacrament an object of Divine Worship the Communion in one Kind or taking away the Cup from the People the turning the Sacrament into a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the Quick and the Dead and the using of private or solitary Masses wherein the Priest who celebrates Communicates alone The two former of these have been considered in some late discourses upon those subjects the fourth is a result and consequence of the third for when the Sacrament was turned into a sacrifice the people left off the frequent communicating and expected to be benefitted by it another way so that this will fall in as to the main Reasons of it with what I now design to consider and Examine The Sacrifice of the Mass or Altar wherein the Priest every time he celebrates the Communion is supposed to offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine as truely as Christ once offered himself upon the cross and that this is as true a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the other and that 't is so not only for the Living but also for the Dead The Objections we make against it and the Arguments by which they defend it will fall in together at the same time and I shall endeavour fairly and impartially to represent them in their utmost strength that so what we have to say against it and what they have to say for it may be offered to the Reader at one view that he may the better judg of those high charges which are made he sees on each side First then we say That the very foundation of this Sacrifice of the Mass is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes The one is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or Christs Corporal presence in the Eucharist The other is the Opinion That Christ did offer up his body and blood as a sacrifice to God in his last Supper before he offered up himself upon the Cross If either or both of these prove false the Sacrifice of the Mass is so far from being true that it must necessarily fall to the ground according to their own principles and acknowledgments Secondly There is no Scripture ground for any such sacrifice but it is expresly contrary to Scripture under which head I shall examine all their Scriptural pretences for it and produce such places as are directly contrary to it and perfectly overthrow it Thirdly That it has no just claim to Antiquity nor was there any such Doctrine or practise in the Primitive Church Fourthly That it is in it self unreasonable and absurd and has a great many gross Errors involved in it First we say That the very Foundation of this sacrifice is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes the first of which is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or which may be sufficient for their purpose the corporal presence of Christs natural body and blood in the Eucharist though they disclaim the belief of this without the other but if Christs body and blood be not substantially present under the species of
very improper witnesses of a matter of fact that was so long ago which nothing but the Scripture history can give us any account of to which itis not only precarious but rash to add any of our own guesses and conjectures however tho some of the Fathers do by way of figure and allusion make this bread and wine of Melchisedec to relate to the Sacramental bread and wine as they make Manna and several other things which were not sacrifices yet none apply it to the sacrifice of the Mass nor could they well do it since they believed no such thing in the Romish sense as I shall show afterwards But after all what if Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine What service will this do to the sacrifice of the Mass The Priests do not there sacrifice bread and wine according to this Mystical Type nor did Melchisedec sure offer up Christs body and bloud under the species of his bread wine if we allow all that can be begged and desired that Melchisedec did sacrifice and that this his sacrifice was a Type and figure of another sacrifice why may not that be of the sacrifice of the Cross which is the true and only proper Christian sacrifice when Christ the Bread of Life was offered up unto God for us So that there is no necessity to bring in the sacrifice of the Mass to complete and answer this figure were there any thing in it besides guesse and fancy which I see no manner of reason to believe there is since there is nothing to countenance it in the New Testament and 't is very presumptuous and ungrounded to make any thing a true Type or to have a Typical meaning farther then Gods Spirit which alone could know this has given us warrant to do it by Revelation Yet without any such ground both Bellarmine †de Missâ l. 1. c. 6. and the Council of Trent * Sess 6. c. 1. make this to be the notion of Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec that he was to offer up a visible and unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine and to appoint others to do this for ever whereas as the Scripture makes Christ to be a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec not upon any such account for the Author to the Hebrews makes not the least mention of this in his large discourse of this matter * Heb. 5.7 but in his having no Predecessor nor no Successor in his Priesthood as Melchisedec is represented in Scripture without any account of his Family or Genealogy without Father without Mother without Descent Heb. 7. v. 3. and in the excellency of that in general above the imperfect Aaronic Priesthood and in the Eternity and Immutability of it because he continueth ever and hath an unchangeable Priesthood verse 24. How little the Melchisedecian Priesthood of Christ upon which they lay so much stress will serve the purpose of the Mass-sacrifice nay how contrary 't is to it I shall endeavour to manifest in a few particulars First then Christ it is plain did offer up to God not an unbloody but a bloody sacrifice upon the Cross I ask whether he did this according to his Melchisedecian Priesthood If he did then Melchisedec probably as Priest of the High God might offer the bloody sacrifices of living creatures and if he were Shem the Eldest Son of Noah as is fairly conjectured by Learned men he might learn this of his Father who after the Flood built an Altar unto the Lord and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt-offerings on the Altar Gen. 8.20 but then how will this be reconciled with what our adversaries pretend that it was the proper and peculiar office of Melchisedec to offer the pure and unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine And that according to that the Roman Priests are to do that and that Christ did that at his last Supper Christs Priesthood was the same at his Supper and upon the Cross if he acted therefore as a Priest of Melchisedec in one he did so in both Secondly The Scripture mentions no Act or Office of Melchisedec's Priesthood but in blessing Abraham Gen. 14.18 19. Melchisedec King of Salem brought forth bread and Wine and he was the Priest of the most high God and he blessed him and said blessed be Abraham of the most high God which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand And this the Authour to the Hebrews takes particular notice of †ch 7. v. 1. and this answers to what St. Peter says of Christ after his Resurrection God having raised up his son Jesus sent him to bless you †Acts 3.26 which general word of blessing may include in it whatever is done for us by Christs Priesthood after his Resurrection particularly his praying and interceding to God for us Had it been any part of Christs Melchisedecian Priesthood to offer up bread and wine much more had it wholly consisted in this 't is strange the Apostle in a set and large discourse of this should not speak one word nor take the least notice of it Thirdly Christ is to have none to succeed him in his Melchisedecian Priesthood but he was himself to remain a Priest for ever the Author to the Hebrews makes this difference between the Aaronical Priests and Christ that they were to succeed one another and they truly were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death †Heb. 7.23 but Christ was an immortal and so a perpetual Priest but this man because he continueth ever hath an unchangeable priesthood †Verse 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priesthood that passes not to others but is ever fixt and appropriate to his own person and he is made a Priest after the power of an endless Life †Verse 16. That which belongs then to Christ as he is an immortal Priest and continueth ever and hath none to succeed him that it is which constitutes his Melchisedecian Priesthood and what that is the Apostle plainly informs us in the very next verse to those I have quoted seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us †Verse 24. Christs interceding with God by vertue of his sacrifice upon the cross and appearing in heaven in the presence of God for us and there presenting his sacrifice to his Father and powerfully mediating on our behalf this is his proper unchangeable eternal intransitive Melchisedecian Priesthood and 't is great arrogance for any to pretend to share with him or to succeed him therefore in his proper Priesthood and to call themselves as the Romanists do Priests after the order of Melchisedec when none but Christ is so This his priesthood is not committed to any upon Earth but is to be for ever executed and discharged by himself in heaven and he has left none to be proper priests in this sense but only to be Ministers to this great High
excluded all those who were Non-communicants the Jews did not shut the people out of the Temple when the sacrifice was offering If the Eucharist as a sacrifice had been a part of Worship only to God an oblation to him and not a Sacrament to be received by themselves why might not they have been present at it as well as at the Prayers which were offered to God and at all the other parts of their Religious Worship The most ancient accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist and the most ancient Liturgies or Eucharistic forms have not the least shadow of any private Communion by the Priest alone but always speak of the communion of others with him in the Apostolick Constitutions there is a Relation in what Order all the Faithful received First the Bishop then the Priests and Deacons then the Deaconesses and Virgins and Widows then all the whole people in order and after all have received then the Deacons take away the remainder St. Cyril speaks plainly of numbers receiving the Eucharist and not of a single person for he mentions the Deacons speaking to them at first to embrace each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give the kiss of Charity those very ancient Forms and Responses Lift up your hearts and the answer we lift them up unto the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us give thanks unto our Lord God It is just and meet so to do and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these all show that the Priest did not communicate alone but had always the company of others at the Sacrament to join with him St. Denys called the Areopagite speaks of the Priests exhorting others at the Cûmmunion and praying that they who partake of these Mysteries may partake of them worthily The same is in all the Lyturgies which go under the name of St. James St. Mark and St. Peter in which there are the distinct parts of the people as well as of the Priest as when the Priest is to say peace be with you all the people are to answer and with thy spirit and the service is so framed as to suppose and require company in Communicating or else it would be nonsensical and ridiculous for the Priest alone to pray to God to breathe upon us his servants that are present to grant that the Sacraments may be to all us that partake of them the Communion of the blessedness of eternal Life and after the Communion is over after all have received for the priest to give the blessing to all and pray God to bless and protect us all who were partakers of the Mysteries The same form of speaking in the plural is in the more Authentick Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom where it is very odd for the Priest to exhort others to pray to give thanks and the like and to pray God that they may be worthy partakers of the Sacrament if none were to partake of it but himself The Roman Missal which is much older then these private Masses or then the Doctrine of the Mass as I shall presently show speaks after the same manner and makes the Priest pray for all that are present and that all who have communicated may be filled with all heavenly benediction and Grace These must be all very improper for the Priest to say when he communicates by himself and he may with as good reason make a Congregation by himself alone as make a Communion Private Masses then which sprang up from the sacrifice of the Mass and are wholly suited and agreeable to that Doctrine these being so contrary to the best Antiquity show that that Doctrine also on which they are founded and from whence they arose is so too And I have the more largely considered these because they are another great corruption of the Eucharist of the Roman Church tho they are originally derived from the sacrifice of the Mass Fourthly The very Canon of the Mass as 't is at present in the Roman Church has very little in it agreeable to this new Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass but though it is somewhat difficult to give a certain account of the time of its composition it being made at first by an unknown Author whom St. Gregory calls Scholasticus who is supposed by some to be Pope Gelasius though had St. Gregory known this he would hardly have given him that name and it having a great many additions given to it by several Popes as is owned by their own Writers upon the Ordo Romanus * Walafrid Strabo de rebus Eccles c. 22. Micrologus de Ecclesiast Observat c. 12. Berno Augiensis c. 1. alii in Collectione Hittorpii yet it is no doubt much ancienter then their present Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass which is very near as late as the Council of Trent The first manner of celebrating the Communion was very plain and simple so that St. Gregory tells us The Apostles consecrated the host of oblation only with the Lords Prayer †Mos Apostolâ—rum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam conscerarent Gregorii Regist Epistol 64. l. 7. if they did so and used no other form in that sacred Office 't is certain they could not make a sacrifice of the Eucharist nor offer it as such to God because there are no words or expressions in that prayer whereby any such thing should be meant or signified so that this is a most authentick testimony against any such Apostolick practice but the present Canon Missae or Communion Office of the Roman Church does not fully come up to nor perfectly expresse or contain the present Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass there is no offering of Christs body and blood under the species of Bread and Wine in any formal words as might be expected in conformity to their Trent Doctrine nor is there any mention of Christs being there in his natural body or offered to God by the Priest as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead for sins for punishments and for other necessities Neither this nor their great Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained in their present office so that 't is to me a plain evidence of the novelty of both of them and that they are a great deal later then the Canon of the Mass there are several prayers indeed that make mention of a sacrifice and of an oblation but most of them and the most expresse of them are before consecration so that they plainly belong to those Gifts and Oblations which according to the Primitive custom were brought by the Communicants and which as I have shown were one great reason of the Eucharist's being called a sacrifice God is desired to accept and bless these gifts these presents these holy and pure sacrifices which we offer to thee for thy holy Catholick Church together with thy servant our Pope N. and our Bishop N. and for all the Orthodox and
destroyed by eating If it be they are true Cannibals or Capernaitical feeders that eat it I had thought that Christs body was not thus grosly to be broke by the Teeth or chewed by the jaws of the priest or Communicants so as to be destroyed by them The Gloss upon Berengarius his Recantation says this is a greater Heresie then his unless it be understood of the species and not of the body it self and they generally disown that Christs body is thus carnally eaten but only the Sacramental species but the species are not the sacrifice and therefore 't is not sufficient that they be destroyed but the sacrifice that is the body of Christ must be so Christs body as it is food is not a sacrifice but a Sacrament they make two distinct things of it as it is a sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament as it lies in the Pix or is carried to the sick it is food and a Sacrament but they will not allow it to be then a sacrifice and on Maunday Thursday it is eaten but not accounted a sacrifice †Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non censetur sacrificium Missae propriè celebrari licet vera hostia adsit frangatur consumatur Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 27. B. The Consumption then by eating belongs to it not as a sacrifice but a Sacrament and the body of Christ is not then consumed but only the species nay the body of Christ is not then consumed under the species for the real consumption belongs only to the species and not to the body of Christ which is no more truly consumed with them or under them then it is as sitting in heaven no more then a mans flesh is consumed when only his clothes or his mantle is tore tho he were in them What though it ceases to be really on the Altar and ceases to be a sensible food as he farther explains or rather intangles it Is Christs body ever a sensible food And is its ceasing to be upon the Altar a consumption of it Then Isaac was consumed when he was took off from the Altar on which Abraham had laid him and if his Father had been as subtle as our Roman Sophisters and Sacrificers he might only have covered him with the skin of the Ram and have consumed that as an external species by fire and so Isaac had been both sacrificed and consumed and destroyed too and yet have been as live as ever for all this Such absurdities do they run into when they will make their notion suit of a true sacrifice and that which is not one and a man of sense must yet destroy his sense one would think before he can talk at this rate They are most sadly nonplust and most extremely divided among themselves about the Essence of this their sacrifice of the Mass and wherein they should place the true sacrificial act whether in the Oblation of the Elements or in consecration of them whereby they suppose them turned into Christs Body and blood and so in the express Oblation of those to God or in the fraction and commistion of the consecrated Elements or in the manducation and consumption of them Suarez and Vasquez and others are for the last of all the Council of Trent seems to be for Oblation Bellarmine is for consecration whereby instead of Bread and Wine Christs Body and Blood are placed upon the Altar and ordered for consumption Melchior Canus is for all the four last and he tells us it is the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas †docuisse Thomam sacrificium ante fractionem hostiae esse peractum sumptionemque spectare propriè ad sacramentum oblationem verò ad sacrificium Can. Loc. Theol. l. 12. p. 833. that the sacrifice is performed before the fraction of the Elements and that the sumption of them belongs properly to the Sacrament the Oblation to the sacrifice so that they know not what to pitch upon to constitute it a sacrifice and if we examine them all we shall find no true proper sacrificial act in any of them the Oblation of the Elements before consecration can by no means make such a sacrifice as they design for that is but an offering of earthly things not of Christs body neither are they thereby changed or consumed and tho they are an offering they are not a proper sacrifice though in some sense they are a sacrifice and were accounted so by the Fathers as I have shown The Fraction of the Elements after they are consecrated which is done by the Priest not for distribution for they give them whole to the people but for another mystical reason this is not the formal Essence of the sacrifice for Christ they own did not break them in this manner at his last Supper when yet they will have him sacrifice and this is sometimes omitted by themselves neither is manducation for this is performed by the people as well as the priest when they communicate and sacrificing does not then belong to them nor is it ever their work but only the Priests and yet they then eat and consume the sacrament as well as the priest so that sacrificing cannot properly lye in this neither can it be proved that Christ did himself eat when he is supposed to sacrifice and besides both this fraction and manducation belongs only to the species they are the only proper subject of those actions but it is the Body and Blood of Christ that is sacrificed and not the species For this reason therefore consecration it self cannot well pass for the formal act of sacrificing for 't is the Bread is consecrated not Christs body 't is the bread only is changed by consecration that is supposed indeed to be destroyed when it is consecrated and if this be sacrificing it is sacrificing of nothing or at most 't is but sacrificing of bread which is a meaner sacrifice then many of the Jewish neither is this change of it visible and external but they will needs have the sacrificing action to be sensible and external or else the sacrifice will not be so and if it be only a spiritual and internal and mental offering up of Christs body and blood to God this is not proper sacrificing of it again but only by inward Faith and Devotion which we are very willing to allow But consecration must set Christs body upon the Altar and put it into the hands of the priest and then it must be visibly offered to God and visibly consumed and this is the true way of sacrificing it for Bellarmine takes in consumption as necessary together with consecration the oblation he owns is not verbal neither did Christ thus offer his Body and Blood at his last Supper but after he had blessed and brake the bread he gave it to his Disciples but placing this upon the Altar by the words of consecration is a real Oblation of it and then eating and consuming it there formally constitutes the sacrifice The
Bishop of Meaux in his Exposition seems to make the whole Essence of the sacrifice consist in Consecration alone without any manducation or destruction which Bellarmine makes absolutely necessary Christ he says is placed upon the holy Table clothed with those signs that represent his death in vertue of the words of consecration which are the spiritual sword that make a mystical separation betwixt the Body and the Blood. Now if Christ be thus only sacrificed mystically and by representation he is not sacrificed truly and properly nor is there any true and proper propitiation made hereby which is the true state of the Controversie between us Christ may be sacrificed representatively as Caesar may be slain in a Tragedy without being really present and if he were present and placed upon the Altar as they will needs have him yet he is no more sacrificed by the mystical representation then if Caesars Picture were stab'd and he were behind it unhurt I see no reason why Christs presence should be necessary to make such a mystical representative or commemorative sacrifice and if Christ were present I see not how he is more sacrificed then if he were absent So that they only confound their thoughts to make a proper sacrifice where there is none and when they have boasted of a true proper visible external sacrifice they know not where to find any such thing and it comes to no more at last then a meer commemorative and representative one or in plain words to a sacramental and Mystical representation and remembrance of a past sacrifice which there is neither any need nor any possibility of renewing Their differences about the proper sacrificial act whereby they do with good success destroy one anothers notions of it and so taken together destroy the thing it self these are the more considerable because 't is not the res sacrificii which makes the sacrifice though that were never so truly present but the sacrificing Act or the Actual sacrificing it for as Bellarmine says * Nam non res illa sed rei illius oblatio proprie est sacrificium sacrificium enim est a 〈◊〉 no◠res permanens Bellarm de Miss l. 2. c. 4. D. A sacrifice is an action not a permanent thing and 't is not the thing it self but the offering it is properly the sacrifice So that though Christs natural Body and Blood were never so much present in the Eucharist even according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self yet so long as there is no proper action there to sacrifice it or no sacrificing act it would signifie nothing to the making it a sacrifice 3. This Doctrine of the Mass makes a living body a sacrifice which requires it should be dead and yet at the same represents it dead when it supposes it present in a state of life which is as odd a jumble as making a man to be by at his own funeral and at the same time bringing in the person alive yet dressing up his picture to remember him dead and in the habit of death it self The Eucharist is to remember and represent Christ in a state of death his body and blood as separated from one another and the one broken and the other poured out and the words of consecration are the spiritual sword as the Bishop of Meaux calls them that are to do this and so to constitute the sacrifice but whilst this is a doing nay by the very doing this thing the same spiritual sword becomes a spiritual word and raises the same body living and sets it in that state upon the Altar so that by this means it destroys the sacrifice a great deal more then it made it before for it makes it be then truly living whereas it only represented it before as dead So that 't is at the same time a dead representative sacrifice and a living proper sacrifice which is in truth no sacrifice at all for a living sacrifice is just as much sense as a dead Animal that is 't is a contradiction and one of the Terms destroys the other If a Jewish Priest had knockt down the Oxe with one hand and raised him up with the other or restored him to life after he had slew him this would have made but a very odde sacrifice and to make Christ dead by the sacramental signs and to sacrifice him thus in Effigie and to make him alive again under the sacramental signs and so to sacrifice him truly this is a strange and unaccountable riddle I would ask whether the consecrated species of Bread and Wine by which Christs blood is shed mystically and death intervenes only by representation as the Bishop of Meaux phrases it whether these would make a real sacrifice without Christs living body under them if not 't is not this mystical representation of death makes the sacrifice Or whether Christs living body without those species and signs of his death would be a sacrifice If not then 't is not the placing that upon the Altar and so a real Oblation of it there makes the sacrifice and then what is it that does so Is it not very odd that the same person must be there seemingly dead and yet really alive at the same time to make up this sacrifice 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a very great Error and inconsistent with it self All our Religious Duties and all our vertuous actions may in a large and improper sense be said to be propitiatory as they are said also in Scripture to be sacrifices for no doubt but they make God kind and propitious to us and incline him to have Mercy upon us and the blessed Eucharist as it exhibits to us all the graces and benefits which Christ hath by his death purchased for us whereof Pardon and Remission of fin which is hereby sealed to us is a very great one so far may be called propitiatory and it may be instituted for the Remission of sin so far as it is to apply to us the vertue of Christs body and blood and make us partakers of his sacrifice upon the Cross but this it may do as it is a Sacrament without being any sacrifice much less without being a propitiatory one as the Council of Trent hath determined it to be truly propitiatory (b,) Vere propitiatorium esse hujus quippe oblatione placatus Dominus Concil Trident. Sest 6. c. 2. by the oblation of which God is appeased and this in opposition to a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving (c.) Si quis dixerit Missaesacrificium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis non autem propitiatorium Ib. Can. 3. Now as it is a sacrifice of Praise and spiritual Devotion it is no doubt in the Bishop of Meaux's words acceptable to God and makes him look upon us with a more propitious eye (d,) Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church p. 35. Is this then all the meaning of its being propitiatory Did ever any Protestant deny it