Blood. § 6 Isidore Hispalensis saith in Allusion to the Words of Wisdom That Christ the Wisdom of God hath built him an House the Church in which he hath slain the Sacrifices of his Body in which he hath mingled the Wine of his Blood in the Cup of the divine Sacrament and prepared his Table that is the Altar of the Lord when sending forth his Servants the Apostles and Teachers to the Foolish that is to all Nations that knew not the true God he saith unto them (g) Dixit eis venite comedite panem meum bibite vinum quod miscui vobis id est Sancti corporis escam sumite poculum sanguinis sacri percipite De Gent. vocat cap. 26. Come eat my Bread and drink my Wine which I have mingled that is take ye the Meat of my sacred Body and receive the Cup of my sacred Blood. His Command therefore according to Isidore was by his Apostles sent to all Nations and to the Foolish among them to drink the Cup of his sacred Blood. The Council held at Braga in the same Century speaking of those who delivered to the People a piece of Bread dipp'd in the Wine for the whole Communion confutes this Practice by recurring not only to the Custom of the Church but also to the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Command of Christ for say they (h) Quidam in Sacrificiis Domini Eucharistam vino madidam pro complemento communionis credunt populis porrigendam Quod quam sit Evangelicae Apostolicae Doctrinae contrarium non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probabitur a quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commemoratio memoratur Concil To. 6. p. 563. how Repugnant this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Custom of the Church may easily be proved from the Fountain of Truth who gave the Cup by it self saying Drink ye all of this as he took the Bread by it self saying Take eat c. Hence then we learn That the Fountain of Truth commanded and the Doctrine of the Gospel requireth That all the People should receive the Cup and that they should receive it ordinarily apart from the Bread. Regino quotes from venerable Bede these Words (i) Postquam infirmus sacra Unctione fuerit delibutus statim corpore sanguine Domini recreandus est ut de cujus vita temporali desperatur vivificari in anima vita aeterna mereatur ait enim Dominus qui manducat c. Proinde Sancti Canones praecipiunt ut nulli fideli in extremis posito Communio denegetur De Eccles Disc l. 1. c. 119. p. 77. § 7 When the infirm Person hath been anointed he presently is to be refreshed with the Body and Blood of our Lord that he may deserve to be quickned with Life Eternal in his Soul when his corporal Life is despaired of for our Lord saith He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life and unless you eat you shall have no Life in you And hence the sacred Canons command that the Communion should be denyed to none of the Faithful in the Close of this Life Where we learn 1. What was then understood by the Word Communion viz. the receiving of both Species the Body and the Blood and how these Species were to be received viz. The Flesh was to be eaten and the Blood to be drunk 2. Why they were to be both received viz. Because of our Lords Sayings John vi And 3ly We also learn for Confutation of Mr. Condom's first pretended Practice of the Church That the Sick were to receive the Body and the Blood and that the Canons of the Church required that they should not be withheld from them Zacharias Chrysopolitanus cites from the same Bede these Words (k) Hinc est quod ait Bibite ex hoc omnes ore corde ut sitis participes passionis meae Monotess p. 306. Hence it is that he saith Drink ye all of this both with the Heart and with the Mouth that ye may be Partakers of my Passion § 8 Paschasius Rathertus saith It is Christ alone who breaketh this Bread and distributeth it to Believers by the Hands of his Ministers (l) Similiter calicem porrigit eis dicens accipite hibite ex hoc omnes tam ministri quam reliqui credentes cap. 15. saying Take ye and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the Faithful This is the Blood of the new and everlasting Testament Cassander informs us That the Gloss called expositio quadruplicis Missae expounds the Words thus (m) Ex hoc scilicet Calice sanguinis omnes scilicet sine personarum acceptione De Com. sub utraque specie p. 1043. Drink ye of this Cup of Blood All without exception of Persons Hincmarus Remensis having cited the same Words adds (n) Tom. 2. p. 90. Haec dixit dicit This he said then and this he saith now All plainly contradicting the R. Gloss and Mr. Condom's Exposition That these Words Drink ye all of this were only spoken to and concern'd only the Apostles Lanfranck § 9. Arch-bishop of Canterbury speaks thus to Berengarius If thou couldest with Christian Caution understand these things which ought to be understood literally and spiritually (o) Proculdubio crederes quod universalis Ecclesia credit praedicares quod Apostolica Doctrina in tota mandi latitudine praedicandum instituit carnem scilicet sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi ore corpore ore cordis hoc est corporaliter spiritualiter manducari bibi De Sacr. Euch. f. 131 132. thou wouldest without doubt believe that which the universal Church believes thou would-est publish what the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published through the World viz. That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be eaten and drunken both by the Mouth and Body and by the Mouth of the Heart that is both bodily and spiritually And Anselm his Successor in the same See saith We ought to eat and drink this Sacrament two ways (p) Ore cordis ore Corporis Com. in 1 Cor. 11. with the Mouth of the Heart and of the Body The doing both these things the drinking of the Blood of Jesus with our Mouths is that which ought to be done that which the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published Pope Paschal writes to Pontius Abbot of Clun §. 10. thus (q) Scribens ad Caecilium B. Cyprianus ait quando aliquid Deo inspirante mandante praecipitur necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet excusatus apud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat ne aliud fiat a nobis quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecit igitur in sumendo corpore sanguine Domini juxta eundem Cyprianum Dominicatraditio servetur necab
Inftit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Maurus saith It is not lawfull to offer any other thing in the Sacraments than that which our Lord himself appointed and by his Example taught us to do § 2 2dly Some in the Church did frequently attempt the alteration of Christ's Institution by giving to the People the Bread dipp'd in the sacred Blood for a Compleat Communion but against these Innovators in the Fourth Century Pope Julius opposed himself laying down this for his Rule That it was by no means lawful for any to recede from our Lord's Institution Practice and Example His Words are these (g) Audivimus enim quosdam Schismatica ambitione detentos contra divinos ordines Apostolicas institutiones intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento Communionis porrigere Quod quam fit Evangelicae Apostolicae doctrinae contrarium consuetudini Ecclesiasticae adversum non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur a quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt Ubi Apostolis corpus suum commendavit sanguinem seorsum enim panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur Concil Tom. 2. p. 525 526. We have heard that some persons being guilty of Schismatical Ambition do against the divine Orders and Apostolical Institution deliver to the People the Eucharist dipp'd in the Blood for an intire Communion How contrary these things are to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine and opposite to the Ecclesiastical Custom it is not hard to prove from the Fountain of Truth from whom the Institution of these Sacramental Mysteries proceeded for they have no Testimony from the Gospel for this where Christ commended his Body and Blood to his Disciples for there is recorded the commendation of his Body and Blood apart The Council of (h) Eadem habet Concil Bracarense Tom. 6. p. 562 563. Braga in the Seventh Centary in the very same words condemns this Practice blaming them who for the whole Communion delivered to the People a piece of Bread dipp'd in the Consecrated Wine Which Custom how contrary say they it is to the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Practice of the Church we may learn from the Fountain of Truth who gave the Cup by it self saying Drink ye all of this as he took the Bread by it self saying Take eat c. (i) Ut populus plene possit communicare cap. 19. Micrologus saith It is not Authentick that some dip the Body of Christ and distribute it so dipp'd for a full Communion for the Roman Order contradicts it for in the day of Preparation it commands that the Wine not consecrated should be consecrated by the Lord's Prayer and the mixture of the Lord's Body with the Blood that the People may fully Communicate which would be a superfluous Command if the Lord's Body dipp'd in the Cup the day before and preserved would suffice to Communicate the People with And therefore Pope Julius * Julius quoque Papa seorsim panem seorsim calicem juxta dominicam Institutionem sumenda docet Idem ibid. writing to the Bishops of Aegypt doth wholly forbid this Intinction and teacheth that the Bread and the Cup should be both taken apart according to our Lord's Institution Humbertus in his Disputation against the Greeks saith thus That you are wont to take the Holy Bread of life eternal in a Spoon dipped in the Cup what can you offer for it (k) Neque enim ipse Dominus panem in Caiice vini intrivit sic Apostolis dedit sed sicut Sancta Romana Ecclesia usque nunc observat panem integrum benedixit fractum fingulis particulatim distribuit dicens Accipite comedite hoc est corpus meum quibus postquam coenatus est calicem porrexit dicens Bibite ex eo omnes Quam Reverendam Angelis hominibus institutionem prima scilicet Ecclefia usque ad haec moderna tempora sicut ab Apostolis recepit fideliter retinuit Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 971. for our Lord did not thus dip Bread in the Cup of Wine and so give it to his Apostles saying Take and eat this in a Spoon This is my Body but as the Roman Church even to this day observes he blessed the whole Bread and distributed it being broken to every one apart saying Take and eat This is my Body to whom he also after Supper reached forth the Cup saying Drink ye all of this which Institution to be revered by Men and Angels Holy Zion the first Church even to this Day as it received from the Apostles so doth it faithfully retain it And then having cited a long passage from the Church of Jerusalem he adds Hence is it clearer than the light that the holy Church of Jerusalem did of old observe the same Rite of the divine Sacrifice which the holy Roman Church ceaseth not hitherto to observe for we lay upon the Holy Altars thin Cakes of Flour prepared whole and sound and Communicate with the People of them being after consecration broken and then we are made to drink of the Cup of Wine and liquid Blood for we find Bread sopp'd was delivered by Christ to none but the Traytor Judas to signifie that he was to betray him Again he having said That Christ delivered the Bread and Wine apart and that the Church of Christ religiously observed his Institution adds That (l) Nec potest fieri ut quilibet convenientius aut verius commendare praevaluisset Sacrosanctum Mysterium fidei quam ipse qui tradidit seipsum pro nobis oblationem Ibid. p. 974. it could not be that any one should prevail to commend this Holy Mystery of Faith more conveniently or truly than he who delivered himself an Oblation and a Sacrifice of a Sweet Odor to God for us the immaculate Lamb of God who taketh away the Sins of the World to whom the most perfect knowledge of any Man being compared is the highest Ignorance In the Year of our Lord 1118. Pope Paschal the Second writes an Epistle to Pontius Abbot of Clun after this wise (m) Ep. 32. de non porrigenda Communione intincta Concil Tom. 10. p. 656. Blessed Cyprian writing to Caecilian saith That when any thing is required by God's Inspiration and Command it is necessary that the faithful Servant should obey his Lord and he will be excused of all Men that he assumeth nothing arrogantly to himself nor may any other thing be done by us than what our Lord first did for us Therefore in taking the Body and the Blood of Christ according to the same St. Cyprian Let the tradition of our Lord be kept nor let us recede by any humane and novel Institution from that which our Lord both commanded and did for we know that the Bread was delivered by our Lord apart and the Wine apart which Custom we teach and require to be observed perpetually in the Church excepting only in the Case of Infants and Infirm Persons who cannot receive
dwelleth in me c. (e) Necesse habemus sumere corpus sanguinem ejus ut in ipso maneamus ejus corporis membra simus De inst cler l. 1. cap. 31. wherefore 't is necessary that we should take the Body and Blood of Christ that we may dwell in him and be his Members Whosoever worthily eateth the Body and the Blood of Christ shews that he is in God and God in him And we saith (f) Lib. 2. f. 55. b. Guitmund who take the Communion of this Holy Bread and Cup are made one Body with Christ. Theophylact upon the Tenth to the Corinthians adds That which he saith is this That which is in the Cup is that which flowed from his side and (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad v. 16. by participation of it we communicate with that is we are united to Christ That Men might not only learn by words saith (h) Ed. Erasm p. 217. Petrus Cluniacensis that they cannot live unless they be joined and united to Christ after the manner of carnal Food and Life they receive the Body of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ. We saith (i) Et nos Jesa Christo Jesus Christus nobis unitate foederatur inenarrabili c. De coena Domini f. 320. b. St. Bernard by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ are joined in an ineffable Vnity to Christ and Christ to us as he said He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood abidethin me and I in him § 2 2. This will be further evident from those Expressions in which they say That the receiving of the Cup is necessary for the Remission of Sins for without this Remission there is no Salvation When thou receivest saith St. Ambrose What saith the Apostle to thee As often as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lord's Death if we shew forth his Death we shew forth the Remission of Sins and (k) Si quotiescunque effunditur sanguis in remissionem peccatorum funditur debeo illum semper accipere ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur qui semper pecco semper debeo habere medicinam De Sacr. l. 4. c. 6. l. 5. cap. 3. if as often as this Blood is poured forth it is done for the Remission of Sins I ought always to receive it that my Sins may always be forgiven for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins Now this Passage being cited and approved by many others in the following Ages and extant in the (l) Dist 2. c. 14. Can. de consecrat Canon Law it will be needless to cite more Authors to this purpose only let it be noted that to receive the Blood shed for the Remission of our Sins is to drink of it saith St. Ambrose and well he might no other way of receiving the Blood shed for the Remission of Sins being then known than that of drinking the Sacramental Cup. § 3 3. They do expresly teach That the Sacramental eating and drinking is ordinarily necessary to eternal Life (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 42. Without any doubting or shamefaced fear eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood saith Nazianzen if thou desirest Life Gregory Nyssen condemns Eunomius for asserting That the Mystical Symbols did not confirm our Piety But we saith he who have learned from the Holy Scriptures That unless a Man be born again of Water c. and that he who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood shall live for ever (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. contr Eunom p. 704. We believe that our Salvation is corroborated by the Mystical Rites and Symbols (o) In Levit. qu. 47. This Blood all Men are exhorted to drink who would have Life saith St. Austin Charles the Great confuting the vain Imaginations of the Second Nicene Council and comparing the sacred Blood with Images speaks thus (p) L. de Imag. 2. c. 27. Seeing without the participation of this Blood no Man can be saved whereas all Orthodox Persons may be saved without the observation of Images It is manifest that they are by no Man of a sound Mind to be compared or equalled to so great a Mystery Alcuin the Master of Charles the Great saith We must know that it is not lawful to offer the Cup of the Lord's Blood unmixed with Water for Wine was in the Mystery of our Redemption when Christ said I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine and the Water with Blood flowing from his side shewed the Wine pressed out of the true Vine of his Flesh with Water (q) Haec enim sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam non intratur De Celeb. Miss p. 88. for these are the Sacraments of the Church without which we cannot enter into Life (r) De Officiis Eccles l. 3. c. 26. Amalarius saith the same And our Lord saith (s) De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Maurus having pronounced concerning his Body and Blood that his Flesh is Meat indeed and his Blood Drink indeed and that he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life he therefore hath not that Life who eateth not that Bread and drinketh not that Blood for although Men who are not in his Body by Faith may have that Life in this World which is Temporal they can never have that Eternal Life which is promised to the Saints Christ saith (t) Fol. 216. b. Petrus Cluniacensis gives his Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunken that as it is discerned that without carnal Meat and drink none can pass through this temporal Life so it may be believed that without this spiritual Meat and Drink none can obtain eternal Life for how could he better commend himself to the World to be the Life of Men than by Example of those things in which Man's Life consists and therefore the Wisdom of God decreed to give his Flesh to Men to eat and his Blood to drink in the species of those things when he saith I am the Way the Truth and the Life c. we learn by hearing that he is Eternal Life but when he saith except you eat my Flesh c. we learn by eating that he is the Eternal Life of Men. That Men therefore might not only learn by Words but more familiarly by Deeds that they cannot Live except they be united to him they take the Body they drink the Blood in the likeness of Food not given by or taken from any other but Christ to shew this he signified that he would give to all Men his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink And truly if any Doctrine can deserve to be suspected as new strange and incongruous to the Analogy of Faith it must be this That the Cup of Life the Cup of Blessing which we bless the Cup of Salvation which we take according to our Lord 's own Institution and
to remember That Christ shed his Blood for them and by that Blood shed confirmed the New Covenant to them and since Christ hath appointed the drinking of this Cup and this alone to be the memorial of his Blood shed all Christians capable of doing so must be obliged when they do Sacramentally Commemorate these Mercies to drink of this Cup. And this demonstratively follows from the ensuing words Vers 26 Do this as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's death till he come for they do manifest that as well by drinking of the Cup as eating of the Bread the Lord's Death is shewed and that until his second coming both these things are to be done in order to that end And since these words are not the words of Christ but of St. Paul who speaks here of the whole Church of Corinth the words preceeding Do this as oft as you shall drink it in remembrance of me must belong also to all the Members of that Church because of the connective Particle which joins the 25th and 26th Verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be spoken to in the words This do c. and in the following words For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. And if this was the Duty of the whole Church of Corinth it must be equally the Duty of the whole Church of Christ there being no peculiar reason why the Church of Corinth should be obliged to drink this Cup in order to these ends more than all other Christian Churches And when our Lord hath taken so great Care to tell us That the Bread is his broken Body and therefore is to be eaten in remembrance of him i. e. of his Body broken that the Cup is the New-Tastament in his Blood and therefore is to be drank in remembrance of his Blood shed for us When his Apostle doth as distinctly say 1 Cor. x. 16. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup which we bless is the Communion of the Blood and neither of them have hinted in the least that the Cup is the Communion of his Body or the Bread of his Blood but by a particular and separate institution distribution and signification ascribed to them have strogly insinuated the contrary for men after all this to say one of these Species will suffice for the Bread is as well the blood shed as the broken Body and the participation of it is the Communion of the Blood of Christ and that by the partaking of it we do as well remember and shew forth the shedding of his Blood upon the Cross as by the partaking of the Cup is to my apprehension an affront offered to our dear Lord and to the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost In Answer to these Arguments some of the Roman Doctors are pleased to say that this Discourse of the Apostle imports only a conditional Order to do this in Remembrance of Jesus Christ as often as one shall do it and not an order absolutely to do it To this I Answer 1st He who not only doth command us at the celebration of the Sacrament to remember his Blood shed but also Institutes a sign for the memorial of it and doth command us to use this sign because it is appointed to be the memorial of it commands us when we receive the Sacrament to receive that sign for he who wills the end must will the means which he hath instituted for the accomplishing that end but this doth Christ for he institutes a Cup of Wine to represent his Blood shed he saith Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood shed this I command you to do in remembrance of me He therefore doth command us when we receive the Sacrament to receive this sign which in his Institution of this Sacrament he appointed as the means of this remembrance 2dly He who commands us to drink this Cup as oft as we drink it in remembrance of him because we do by drinking of it shew forth the Lords Death till he come commands us to do it as oft as we receive the Sacrament seeing as oft as we receive the Sacrament we shew forth the Lord's Death but Christ saith the Apostle did lay upon us this command for this very Reason saying Do this as oft as you shall drink it in nomembrance of me for as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come 3dly Where there is parity of Reason there the command may very well be deemed of equal latitude and extent for ratio legis est lex where there is equal reason to command there may we reasonably suppose the will of the Law-giver to be equal in commanding but ther is equal reason why our Lord should absolutely command the drinking of the Cup in remembrance of his Blood shed as why he absolutely should say touching the eating of the Bread Do this in remembrance of me the one being as much the Symbol of his Blood shed as is the other of his broken Body and the one shewing forth his Death as much as doth the other we therefore have no cause to doubt but that he equally intended the doing both in order to this end § 3 Second That it doth not appear either from the words of our Saviour Joh. vi or from the practice of himself or his Disciples that he left this practice indifferent will be made evident from an impartial consideration both of our Saviour's words and of his practice and first to clear up the true meaning of our Lord's Discourse in the Sixth Chapter of St. John Let it be observed First That our Lord 's mystical Expressions of labouring for the Meat that doth not perish of eating the true Bread from Heaven are by himself plainly expounded to import only the believing on him or the embracing of him as their Prophet and their Saviour for when he had exhorted them to labour for the meat that did not perish he tells them v. 29. That this was to believe on him that God had sent when he had told them v. 35. That he was the Bread from Heaven he immediately adds He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Having said that he was he Bread which cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. He confirms this Expression v. 40. by these words This is the Will of my Father that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him should have eternal Life And again v. 47. Verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath everlasting Life I am that Bread of Life Secondly Observe that nothing was more common among the Eastern Nations than to express the Actions of believing embracing and obeying the words of Wisdom Vide Leight Hor. Hebr.
purging themselves from the neglect of both Why doth he make them with as much care to plead We did not leave the meat as we left not the Cup of the Lord Having thus shewed the custom of this Age I shall consider what is from St. Cyprian suggested to the contrary viz. that he relates That the solemnities being ended the Deacon who presented the Holy Cup to the Faithful being to give it to a Child Pag. 67. she turned away her face as not able to support so great Majesty she shut her Mouth and refused the Chalice and when the Deacon had forced some of it into her Mouth she could not retain it in those defiled Entrails so great was the power and Majesty of our Lord. Whence it is argued that she received the Cup only Now to give a clear and satisfactory Answer to this Objection it will be necessary to reflect a little upon the Customs of these times as V. Gr. 1. The business of the Deacon which was not to administer the Bread but when the Priest or Bishop had administred that to follow with the Cup. So the Apostolical Constitutions order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 8. c. 13. Let the Bishop give the Oblation saying The Body of Christ And the Deacon let him hold the Cup and giving it let him say The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and accordingly here this happened faith St. Cyprian Ubi Calicem Diaconus offere praesentibus coepit P. 132. When the Deacon began to distribute the Cup to them that were present and is it then to be admired that here is no mention made of the Body if hence it follows That no Body was distributed to this Child it also follows that no Body was given to the rest of the Faithful then present for there is no more mention made of the Body given to them than of the Body given to the Child Nor could S. Cyprian regularly speak of it when discoursing of the Deacon who then ministred the Cup only 2. Note Secondly That the Children received in the Rank of the Women so the same Constitutions speaking of that order in which the Encharist was to be received saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Amongst the Women let the Diaconesses the Virgins and the Widows Receive and then the Children and this was doubtless ordered so that the Women might take care of their Children and assist them in Receiving Ibid. accordingly this Child comes in the Arms of its Mother and when she had Received Locus ejus advenit Came the time for the Child to Receive too 3. Note thirdly That the Bread was not then put into the Mouth as it is now in the R. Church but it was given into the Hand of the Receiver to eat at leasure of it whilst the Bishop or Priest went on distributing as is acknowledged by the learned Vid Dallaeum de cult lat l. 5. c. 2. Doctors of the Church of Rome and proved by innumerable Testimonies of the Ancients Now it is not to be conceived that they who had a reverence for the Holy Sacrament would put it into the Hands of little Children who might let it fall or throw it away or that the Priest should stay till he could make the Child eat or swallow it down but rather that he should give it to the Mother from whose Hands the Child more likely would receive it and who could better chew it for and put it down his Throat This being so the Bread might be given to the Mother for the Child to eat at leasure and the Priest take no notice of her refusal to receive it but then because the Cup was by the Deacon to be received again into his hands to be distributed to otehrs he must stay till the Child had participated and so he must endeavour to make it drink of it And this I verily believe is the whole Truth touching this instance which therefore is no proof at all that both the Symbols were not offer'd or distributed to this Child but only that she had not eaten of the Bread given to her Mother for her use before the Deacon followed with the Cup. Nor can this reasonably be questioned if we consider how constantly the Tradition of the Church informs us in all the following Centuries that Children received in both kinds For To omit the passage in the Apostolick Constitutions where they are reckoned amongst those who received the Eucharist when without any distinction or exception the Bishop separately gave the Bread and the Deacon the Cup to all Dionysius in the Fourth Century informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. c. 177. Eccles Hier. c. 7. p. 360 361. little Children did partake of the most holy Symbols of the divine Communion And Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia expresly notes That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they gave to Infants the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 400. Photius adds That he invented many absurd things that he might solve the question of those that asked Why do Children partake of the Holy Mysteries in the plural and that he might have found out better Solutions of that question and given better accounts of that Custom then he did he therefore Synecdochically spake of the Receiving both these Mysteries The passages of St. Austin in the fifth Century are very numerous in which he both asserts it as an universal Practice that little Children did partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ and also saith that without eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood they could not have eternal Life But having produced these already I only add his Testimony that Innocentius P. sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione corporis sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit Contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Pope Innocent the First declared That Infants could not have Life without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ. To proceed now in farther confirmation of our Assertion There is no better proof nor better interpreter of a Custom than the Custom it self nothing which more demonsrates that a Custom comes from the first Ages than when it is seen to continue successively to the last This of communicating little Children not under the Species of Wine only but of Bread also or of both is evidently such for in the 6th Century De glor Martyr l. c. 10. Gregory of Tours makes mention of a Jewish Child coming with other Children to the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood. In the 7th Century the Concil Tom. 6. p. 552. 11th Council of Toledo excuses those from censure qui Eucharistiam receptam in tempore infantiae rejecerunt who in their Infancy have cast out the Bread received into their Mouths In the 8th Century we are informed by Charles the Great that this was then the general Custom of the Church of God for against the Doctrine of the Second
46. c. 2. p. 518. in the Church of God in the Mystical distribution of the spiritual Nourishment the Body and the Blood of Christ is taken But adds That Ser. Sancto de jejun Sept. mensis Ser. 89. the Lord saying Vnless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you we ought so to communicate of this Holy Table as not to doubt of the Truth of the Body and Blood of Christ Gelasius also saith Disp de duabus naturis Christi Bib. patrum Tom. 4. p. 432. That the Sacraments we take of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine Thing whence by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature and yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be or to remain and in this Decree that the taking of both Species is the taking of one and the self-same Mystery which therefore is not celebrated by taking of one Species only and that the not receiving of the Cup when the Bread hath been taken is the dividing of one and the self-same Mystery or the destroying of its Unity so that he argues against this practice from a Reason essential to the Mystery and which respects the Unity thereof which by the practice of receiving in one kind only is destroyed Having thus demonstrated that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church till the 12th Century taught Cap. 1. That the Laity by divine Precept were obliged to receive both kinds when they were capable of doing so Cap. 2.6 That they condemned all variation from the matter of the Institution and the Doctrine of Concomitance Cap. 3.5 That they conceived the Receiving of the Cup by the Laity was requisite to their shewing forth the Lord's Death their Vnion to Christ the increase of Grace the Remission of their Sins the Sanctification and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies and lastly Cap. 4. for their receiving an entire Communion That they constantly exhorted the People having received the Bread to take the Cup also Cap. 6.5 declaring that it was Vnlawful Erroneous and even Sacrilegious to receive the one without the other if they were capable of receiving both and having fully answered and confuted all that J.L. hath offered to the contrary Cap. 8. I shall conclude in these words of Mr. Condom on this subject a little varied viz. Thus many constant practices of the Primitive Church P. 160. thus many different Circumstances whereby it appears in particular and in publick and always with an universal approbation and according to the established Law that she gave the Communion under both Species so many Ages before the Council of Constance and from the origin of Christianity till the time of this Council do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did thwart the Tradition of all Ages P. 161. when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both and that in which manner soever they took it they neither contradicted the Institution of Jesus Christ nor deprived themselves of the Fruit of this Sacrament In his Second Part P. 194. Sect. 4th he lays down this as a principle which alone carries along with it the decision of this Question P. 195. viz. That in all practical Matters we must always regard what has been understood and practised by the Church P. 196. That the true means to understand God's Holy Law is to consider in what manner it has been always understood and observed in the Church Since there appears in this Interpretation and perpetual Practice a Tradition which cannot come but from God himself P. 200. and that Sence thereof which hath always appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it self Now by this as he well saith P. 203. our Question is decided for in the sacred Ceremony of the Lord's Supper we have seen that the Church hath always believed and taught for a Thousand years and upwards that the Laity by divine Precept and for the ends forementioned were obliged to receive both Species that the Fathers exhorted them to do so and did both by express Declarations and by many Customs and determinations sufficiently condemn the contrary Practice when any Hereticks or Superstitious Persons did decline the Cup. That they did generally so Interpret our Saviour's Institution that it as well concerned the Laity as Clergy and with one voice asserted it was not lawful to vary from it or celebrate the Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and practised in the Primitive Church Behold what has been always practised behold what ought to stand for a Law in opposition to all the Definitions of the Councils of Constance Basil Trent and all their Non obstante 's to our Lord's Institution and to the Practice of the Primitive Church FINIS
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98. the Blessed Apostles in their Gospels had delivered that Christ commanded them to do so for be having taken Bread and given thanks is by them declared to have said Do this in remembrance of me this is my Body and also when he had taken the Cup and given thanks to have said This is my Blood and to have given it to them alone Where note first that Justin Martyr speaks here of a command of Christ which cannot possibly relate unto the consecration but to the participation of the Elements the command being Do this Take eat Drink ye all of this Secondly he had said before that only (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98. Believers did communicate this he now proves because Christ delivered the Elements to them alone commanding them to partake of them He therefore clearly speaks of delivering the Bread and Wine to the Communicants Moreover speaking of the service performed by Christians on the Lord's Day he saith Prayers being finished we offer Bread P. 98. Wine and Water and the President gives thanks and Praise and the People say Amen and there is made a Distribution of those things which have been consecrated and every one partakes of them and then he thus concludes that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 99. B. Christ rising upon this day appeared and taught those things which we have now laid before your Eyes He therefore must have taught according to Justin Martyr the distribution of the Bread and Wine to every Communicant Here then observe to the confusion of the Trent Council First That it was the Tradition of the Apostles that Christ commanded that the Eucharist under both kinds should be given to every one present at the Sacrament and that the distribution of those things which were consecrated so that every one should partake of them is that which Christ taught Secondly That they declared that Christ gave this commandment in his Gospels whence it is evident that the Apostles and all the Christians of their times and of the times of Justin Martyr did interpret the Institution of the Sacrament by Christ as a command that every faithful Person present should partake both of the consecrated Bread and Cup and that both should be distributed to them St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Cacilian complains of some § 2. who out of Ignorance or Simplicity in sanctifying of the Cup of the Lord and (f) In calice Domini sanctificando plebi ministrando Ep. 63. ed. Oxon. p. 148. in the Ministration of it to the People did not that which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of that Sacrifice did and taught because they used only Water and mixed not Wine with it in the Cup they consecrated and distributed among the People Where note that this they did not out of any prophane Opinion of the Wickedness of drinking Wine as the Aquarii and Encratitae and the Tatiani did but only out of Ignorance and Simplicity and therefore he informs us That they did this only in their morning Sacrifice that the Heathens might not conclude that they were Christians and so hale them away to Martyrdom because they smell'd of Wine And that (g) Cum ad coenandum venimus mixtum calicem offerimus p. 155 156. in their evening Sacrifice they offered a Cup mixt according to Custom Now against this humane and novel Custom he argues First From the Custom of (h) Quanquam sciam Episcopos plurimos Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto mundo divina dignatione praepositos vangelicae ritatis ac minicae traditionis tenere rationem nec ab eo quod Christus magifter praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere Ibid. p. 148. most Bishops in the Church of Christ Who says he keep to the evangelical Truth and the Tradition of our Lord and do not by any new and humane Institution recede from that which Christ our Master hath commanded and performed Whence it is evident that in the Judgment of St. Cyprian Christ both commanded That the Cup mixed with Water should be administred to the People and did so administer it Secondly From the Necessity of obeying Christ's Institution and Command for saith he (i) Religiosum pariter necessarium duxi has ad vos literas facere ut siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur veritatis luce perspecta ad radicem atque originem traditionis dominicae revertatur Quando aliquid Deo inspirante mandante praecipitur necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet excusatus a pud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat qui offensam domini timere compellitur nisi faciat quod jubetur ib. I thought it both Religious and Necessary to write these Letters to you That if any be yet held under this Error seeing the Light of the Truth they may return to the Root and Original of the Tradition of our Lord. For when any thing is injoined by the Inspiration and Command of God it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord and he will be excused of all Men That he arrogantly assumeth nothing to himself who is compelled to fear the Anger of the Lord if he do not what he hath commanded St. Cyprian therefore did believe that Christ required That the Cup offered in Remembrance of him should be mixed with Wine and Water and being thus offered should be distributed to the People and that he who did not so Administer did arrogantly assume unto himself and had just Cause to fear the Indignation of his Lord. Thirdly This he proves also from the Exhortation and Command of Wisdom * Prov. ix 5. Come eat of my Bread and drink of the Wine that I have mingled Where by mixed Wine the Cup of the Lord mixed with Wine and Water is saith he prophetically spoken of adding That we could not drink the Blood of Christ had not He first been pressed and trampled upon and (k) Nisi Christus calicem prior biberet in quo credentibus propinaret p. 150. had not be first drunk the Cup in which he drunk to Believers Moreover as Christ saith he commanded the Water of eternal Life to be given to Believers in Baptism so also by the Example of his Mastership he taught the Cup was to be mingled with Wine and Water For about the Day of his Passion taking the Cup He blessed it and gave to his Disciples 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 And the Apostle Paul saith the Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and giving Thanks he brake it and said This is my Body which shall be delivered for you do this in Remembrance of me likewise after Supper he took the Cup saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood this do as oft as
in the plural not by one of them only and (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 580. how this should be done Christ saith he hath taught us saying unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. And at the close of the Gospels it is written that Jesus taking Bread and giving thanks brake and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body broken for you this do in remembrance of me and taking the Cup and giving thanks he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this c. The Apostle also doth attest these things saying I received from the Lord that which I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus in the Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and giving thanks brake it and said This is my Body broken for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise after Supper he took the Cup saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood do this in remembrance of me for as of as you shall not this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 581. What therefore do these words profit us That eating and drinking we might be always mindful of him who died for us and rose again Which words are as full a confutation of the Roman Doctrine as can be desired by any Protestant For they expresly teach that every Baptized person (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moral Reg. 21. Tom. 2. p. 431. is bound to partake of both the Mysteries of the Bread and of the Cup that our Lord hath taught him how he should be nourished by these mysteries even by eating Sacramentally of his Flesh and drinking Sacramentally his Blood. That the words of the Institution of this Supper mentioned in the Gospels and in particular those words Drink ye all of this belong to all Believers even as much as the forementioned words He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. they being here introduced to prove that all Believers ought to be nourished by the holy Mysteries that therefore 3. Do this in both these Places is not a Command directed to the Apostles to Sacrifice Christs Body and his Blood but to Believers to eat and drink them And 4. That we are to remember and shew forth Christs Death not only by eating but by drinking also St. Ambrose speaking of these Sacraments as he and many of the Ancients call the consecrated Bread and Wine informs us that Christ speaks of them in the Song of Songs saying (y) Edite inquit fratres mei inebrianimi De Sacram l. 5. c. 3. quoties enim bibis remissionem accipis peccatorum inebriaris in Spiritu ibid. Eat my Brethren and be inebriated for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins and art inebriated with the Spirit And the same Ambrose elsewhere saith If as oft as this Blood is poured out it is poured out for the Remission of Sins (z) Debeo illum semper accipere ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur l. 4. c. 6. I ought alwaies to receive it that my Sins may always be remitted In which Words he not only asserts That Christ's Blood poured out ought to be received which cannot be done by receiving it only by Concomitance with the Body but also that our Lord commands his Brethren not to eat only of these Mysteries but to be inebriated and saith That we are thus inebriated by drinking St. Chrysostom is copious on this Subject for saith he § 4. many things conduce to christian Love (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matt. Hom. 32. p 223. one Table is offered to all the same Drink is given to all and not only so but it is given out of one Cup For the Father being willing to induce us to love one another ordered this making us to drink out of one Cup which is an Instance of intense Love So that the Sacrament of the Cup according to St. Chrysostom was of the Institution of the Father and he thus ordered Matters for the Advancement of his great Commandment of Christian Love. In his Twenty seventh Homily upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians he saith That as Christ said over the Bread and over the Cup do this in Remembrance of me (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 421. revealing to us the Cause of giving us this Mystery So doth St. Paul here say As often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's Death Christ therefore did command the drinking of this Cup and did it for a Cause which will remain to the Worlds End and equally concern all Christians viz. The Remembrance and Annunciation of his Death And in his Fifteenth Homily upon the First of Timothy he brings in Christ thus speaking to the Laity as well as Clergy I have united I have joined you to my slf (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 316. I have said eat me drink me And whether Christ or the Trent Council should be obeyed in this Matter it is not hard to judge especially if we consider That in the Judgment of St. Chrysostom Christ did not only institute but command these things to be done His Words are these As chiefly we remember those Words which we last hear from our departing Friends and are wont to say by way of Admonition to their Heirs if they dare to transgress their Commands consider this is the last Voice which your Father uttered and till his last Breath he required these things Even so Paul being willing hence to render his Discourse formidable Remember saith he that he gave this his last Mystery and in that very Night in which he was to be slain for us (d) In Cor. 1. Hom. 27. pag. 421. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he commanded these things St. Austin doth sufficiently inform us of the same thing by asking of this Question When our Lord saith Exceept ye ear my Flesh and drink my Blood you shall have no Life in you how is it that the People are so much reslrained from the Blood of the Sacrifices which were offered for Sins If by those Sacrifices this one Sacrifice was signified (e) Ab hujus Sacrificii sanguine sumendo in alimentum non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam qu. 57. in Levit. from taking of the Blood of which Sacrifice not only no Man is restrained but All Men are exhorted to drink it who will have Life for surely such an Exhortation must be equivalent to a Command § 5 It is worth the Enquiry saith (f) In Levit. p. 327. Procopius Gazaeus how it comes to pass That when in the Law the eating of Blood is forbidden Now Christ commandeth us to eat his
eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione discedatur novimus enim per se panem per se vinum ab ipso Domino traditum quem morem sic semper in Sancta Ecclesia conservandum docemus atque praecipimus praeterquam in parvulis omnino infirmis qui panem absorbere non possunt Ep. 32. De non porrigenda Communione intincta Concil Tom. 10. p. 656. Cyprian writing to Caecilius saith When any thing is required by the Inspiration and command of God it is necessary that the faithful Servant should obey his Lord. Therefore in taking the Body and Blood of our Lord according to the same Cyprian let the Tradition of the Lord be observed nor let that be departed from by any humane and novel Institution which Christ our Master commanded and did He therefore owned the taking of the Cup apart from the Bread to be a Command of Christ which no new Institution of Men could alter Our Lord Jesus saith (r) Lib. 2 de Sacram. Part. 8. Fol. 395. Hugo de Sancto Victore instituted the Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ and commanded that they should afterwards do the same thing in remembrance of himself (s) In Johan Cap. 6. Rupertus Tuitiensis informs us That our Lord prescribing the whole manner of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood saith * Vid Theoph. 〈◊〉 Matth. c. 26. p. 162. Do this in remembrance of me Arnoldus Carnotensis delivers the same Doctrine most expresly For faith he (t) Scholae Evangelicae hoc primum magisterium protulerunt Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur the Doctrine of the Sacrament is new and the evangelical Schools first brought forth this Command This Discipline was first made known unto the World by Christ our Teacher That Christians should drink Blood the Vse of which the old Law did forbid for the old Law forbids the eating Blood the Gospel commands it should be drunk In which Commands the Christian Religion ought chiefly to discern this That the Blood of Beasts in all things differing from the Blood of Christ hath only the Effect of temporal Vivification and cannot profit to eternal Life * Bibimus autem de sanguine Christo ipso jubente Inter opera Cypr. adscript p. 41. but we drink of the Blood by his Command being made Partakers of eternal Life with him and by him Christ himself is the Butler who hath reach'd forth this Cup and taught that we should not only outwardly be dashed with this Blood but inwardly by the powerful Aspersion of it should be fortified in our Souls Petrus Cluniacensis in the same Age speaks thus (u) Cum Christus imperet N. B. dicens Hoc facite hoc plane non aliud hoc idem quod accipitis ad comedendum quod sumitis ad bibendum corpus scilicet meum fanguinem hoc inquam facite in meam commemorationem quid ultra certe quaeritis Quia quod fecit eos facere praecepit quod eis distribuit hoc eos aliis distribuere voluit Ed. Erasm f. 209. Christ commands do this not another thing this which you have received to eat which you take to drink viz. My Body and Blood this say I do in memory of me That which he did he commanded them to do That which he distributed to them he would have them distribute to others Christ saith St. Bernard the Day before his Passion prescribed to his Disciples the Form of this Sacrament He gave Efficacy to it i. e. (x) Hujus Sacramenti formam praescripsit efficaciam exhibuit i. e. fieri praecepit De Caena Dom. c. qui incipit Panem Angel. f. 320. b. He commanded it to be done The Prescription of the Form was under Bread and Wine note the Order First he washes his Disciples Feet then going back to the Table He ordains the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood giving the Bread apart and the Wine apart saying thus of the Bread Take and eat this is my Body and of the Wine thus Drink ye all of this And again * De Sacramento quidem Corporis fanguinis sui nemo est qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam tam singularem alimoniam ea primum die exhibitam ea die commendatam mandatam deinceps frequentari Serm. 3. in ramis Palm fol. 30. b. Concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ there is no Man who knoweth not that upon that Day That great and singular Nourishment was first exhibited on that Day commended and commanded henceforth to be frequented (y) Hoc dicimus Quod postquam Christus exhibuit corpus suum sub specie panis tunc etiam postea exhibuit sanguinem suum sub specie vini utrumque Sacramentaliter esse celebrandum praecepit in Ecclesia per statuta Apostolica ideo Ecclesia instructa actione Christi utrumque celebrat divisim conficiendo corpus sub specie panis divisim conficiendo sanguinem sub specie vini quod autem duo haec exhibuerit celebranda instituerit Christus patet Matth. 27. Ex omnibus iftis accipitur quod Christ us sub una specie panis corpus suum tradidit sub altera specie vini tradidit sanguinem fic servandum instituit cum Christi actio sit nostra instructio pro certo haec duo nobis servanda esse praecepit ideo sub una specie corpus sub alia tradimus sanguinem Sum. de Sacr. Euch. Dist 3. tr 2. c. 5. Albertus Magnus teacheth §. 11. That after Christ had exhibited his Body under the Species of Bread he afterwards exhibited his Blood under the Species of Wine and by the Apostolical Statutes commanded both to be sacramentally celebrated in the Church and having proved from the Evangelists St. Matthew Mark and Luke That Christ celebrated both apart From all these things saith he 't is known or understood that Christ under one Species of Bread delivered his Body and under the other Species of Wine his Blood and so appointed it to be observed and since Christ's Action is our Instruction Pro certo haec duo nobis servanda esse praecepit He commanded these Two things most certainly to be observed and therefore under One Species we deliver the Body and under the other the Blood. Where we see the Practice of the Church was then to deliver both Species and that the Command of Christ was then conceived to be their Motive so to do according to that saying of Durantus (z) In primitiva Ecclesia omnes qui celebrationi Missarum intererant singulis diebus communicare solebant eo quod Apostoli omnes de calice bibebant Domino dicente Bibite ex hoc omnes Rat. l. 4. c. 53. In the primitive Church all that heard Mass used to communicate because the Apostles all drank of the Cup the Lord saying Drink ye
Christ's discipline must also think themselves obliged to observe the same Tradition and Example in ministring the Cup and Censure in like manner those who do it not They who teach that not the Custom of Man but the Truth of God was to be followed could never have approved of the plea from Custom used by the Church of Rome for defalcation of the Cup. And lastly they who looked upon the Institution as a Command and all these sayings of St. Cyprian as Rules to be fulfilled and followed in the whole institution of our Lord must also think it a Command to minister the Cup unto the People and that those Rules of Cyprian did bind them so to do I therefore shall conclude this Chapter with that saying of Algerus * Quis audet excipere quod ipse non excepit aut quis audit prohibere quod ipse in Sacramento suo non prohibuit sed ipse faciens nos hoc ipsum facere praecepit cum dicit Hoc facite convenienter subaudiatur quod Ego quis aeque competenter subaudire audeat sed non de hoc unde ego item si mutandum est fermentato azymum mutetur etiam quolibet alio liquore vinum si enim vinum recipitur cur azymum refutetur cum sicut ex azymo sic ex vino Christus vetus pascha finierit novum inchoaverit utrumque nobis in Sacramento suo aeque celebrandum tradiderit Algerus de Sacram. Euch. lib. 2. c. 10. fol. 84. b. 85. a. In the case of unleavened Bread. Who dares except what Christ excepted not or forbid what he in his Sacraments did not forbid but doing it himself commanded us to do the same thing when he saith do this we are conveniently to understand this which I do but who dares also to understand this but do it not of that which I do it Moreover if Vnleavened Bread be to be changed for Leavened let the Wine also be changed for any other liquor for as our Lord Christ finished the Old Passover and began the New with Vnleavened Bread so did he also do it with Wine and delivered both to us to be equally celebrated in this Sacrament CHAP. III. The Contents In opposition to the Decree of the Trent Council asserting that they who receive in one kind only are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation The Fathers declare 1. That it is necessary to partake of the Cup in order to our Vnion to Christ §. 1. For the Remission of Sins §. 2. For the obtainment of Eternal Life §. 3. An inference from this last Particular to shew the falshood of one Anathema pronounced by the Trent Council §. 4. IT is sure some prejudice against this Novel Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome some ground to scruple and suspect the lawfulness of the substraction of the Cup that it bears such a manifest repugnance to our Lord's institution and to that Repetition of it which St. Paul delivered as a thing carefully to be observed a Tradition to be retained by the Church of Corinth and by attendance to which all their miscarriages in reference to the Celebration of that Mystery were to be corrected That all the Fathers of the Church above a Thousand Years conceived themselves obliged by virtue of this Institution to Minister both species to the People That they on all occasions rose up with such an holy Zeal against those persons who in lesser matters presumed to vary from this Institution condemned all humane Institutions which receded from it and punish'd all Offenders in this kind But such hath been the Providence of God in reference to this Affair such the discourses of the Antients with respect unto this subject that there is scarcely any other Position advanced by these Councils in favour of this Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome which they do not directly overthrow or in plain words condemn almost as fully as any Protestant can do For Thirdly Sess 21. cap. 3. Sess 13. Can. 3. Whereas it is defined by the Trent Council that they are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation who receive one kind only and that it cannot be doubted without prejudice to the Christian Faith but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation The Fathers do in opposition to these Assertions plainly and frequently declare That it is necessary to Salvation for Christians in the general to drink Christi's Blood in the Sacrament This will be evident 1. From these Expressions in which the Fathers do declare it necessary not only to partake of the Bread but also of the Cup in order to that Vnion with Christ which sure is necessary to Salvation and this they generally gather from those words of Christ Joh. vi 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The Doctrine of blessed Paul saith Cyril of Jerusalem is sufficient to aford us full satisfaction touching the Holy Mysteries of which being made partakers we become of the same body and blood with Christ for so he saith that our Lord Jesus taking Bread and giving Thanks he brake and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and giving Thanks he said Take and drink for this is my Blood for in the type of Bread the Body and in the type of Wine the Blood is given to thee (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. That partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ thou maist be of one Body and Blood with him for so we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bearers of Christ his Body and Blood being received into our members (b) Haecaccepta hausta id efficiunt ut nos in Christo Christus in nobis sit De Trin. l. 8. p. 166. Those things being taken and drank saith Hilary produce this effect that Christ is in us and we in Christ and how natural this Vnity is he himself tēacheth saying He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Cyril of Alexandria on these words saith That (c) In Joh 6.56 our Lord here shews the great profitableness of this work for as if one join Wax to Wax he will see one part within the other so he that receives the Flesh of our Saviour Christ and drinks his Blood is as he saith found one with him So mixed with and in him that he is found in Christ and Christ again in him Oecumenius upon these words The Cup of Blessing is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ saith thus You know what I say (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ed. Gr. p. 444. for his Blood knits us to Christ as Members to the Head by the participation of it This Meat and Drink saith Rabanus Maurus signifies the eternal society of the Head and Members He that drinketh saith he my Blood and eateth my Flesh
of our Redemption which therefore we make known to your Holiness that such Men may be known to you by these Tokens and that by the Sacerdotal Authority they may be expelled from the Communion of Saints whose Sacrilegious Simulation is thus found out for blessed Paul hath well admonished the Church of God of such Men saying We beseech you Brethren that you mark them who cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which you have received and avoid them Where evident it is that the Practice of the Manichees in Receiving of the Body of the Lord in the Christian Mysteries that so they might dissemble their Infidelity is called Simulation and their declining to drink the Blood of our Redemption is that which made this Simulation to be Sacrilegious 2dly Here it is also evident that in St. Leo's days to eat the Body of our Lord or to receive it and to drink his Blood were look'd upon as two distinct things one of which might be done without the other the Body being taken when the Blood of our Redemption was not which wholly overthrows the Doctrine of Concomitance on which this Sacrilege is founded 3ly Observe that Leo would have such persons expelled from the Communion of Saints for this Sacrilegious Simulation That 4ly He makes the declining of the Cup at any time a mark sufficient to discern these Sacrilegious Persons and a cause sufficient for their Exclusion from the Communion of Saints whereas had others at any time been permitted in the Church-Assemblies to Communicate in Bread alone for any other Reason this mark had been no certain indication of a Manichee to Priest or People since being caught they might pretend that they had formerly received the Cup but now abstained for some special cause approved by the Church The Faithful therefore must have then generally Communicated at all times or else the Manichee could not be certainly discovered by one Dry Communion Moreover Pope Gelasius did by a Law condemn this half Communion as a great Sacrilege (b) Non esse sumendum Corpus Domini sine Calice Gelasius Majorico Johanni Episcopis apud Ivon decret part 2. cap. 8 9. Comperimus quod quidam in eadem Regione sumpta tantum Corporis Sacri portione a Calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem Mysteril sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire We have found saith he that some in the same Country having taken only a portion of the Holy Body abstain from the Cup of the Holy Blood who because I know not by what Superstition they are said to be bound ought without doubt to receive the entire Mysteries or to be driven from both for the division of one and the self same Mystery cannot happen without great Sacrilege Where note 1. That this Law respecteth not Priests only for as (c) Ad A. D. 496. Sect. 20. Baronius observes This is no mention in the Law of the Priest Sacrificing or of any other of that Order whence saith he it is evident that what is generally spoken here ought not to be restrained to them Moreover Cassander doth assure us That in his Old Manuscript this was the Title of this Decree That (d) Quod nulli liceat absque sanguinis participatione solius carnis Communionem percipere P. 19. p. 1106. it was not lawful for any one N. B. to Receive the Communion of the Flesh without partaking of the Blood. In Ivo the Title of it runs thus That the Body of our Lords is not to be taken without the Cup. (e) Excommunicari illos praecipit quicunque sumpto corpore dominico a calicis participatione se abstinerent Nam ut ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi Sacrilegio provenire non poterit Microl. Cap. 19. Micrologus saith That P. Gelasius commanded that they should be Excommunicated quicunque whosoever they were that having taken the Body of our Lord abstained from the Cup. (f) Prop. 23. p. 579. Radulphus de Rivo transcribes the very words of Micrologus and both of them give the same reason of this precept viz. For as he in the same Decree asserts such a division of the Sacraments cannot come to pass without great Sacrilege Now from these Testimonies it is evident 1. That from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century it was esteemed an unlawful and Sacrilegious thing for any that were capable of both to receive the Bread without partaking of the Cup. Yea Sacrilege is by them declared to be inseparable from such a divisio of this Mystery It therefore must according to the judgment of Pope Gelasius and of the following Ages who approved of his Decree be inseparable from the constant practice of the Church of Rome since te times of the Council of Constance 2. Whereas the R. Doctors say this Decree was made against the Manichees who held Wine in abomination and therefore did refuse the Cup and so concerns them only who refuse upon a like account to drink of it It is observable that neither Gelasius himself nor any who have since that time took notice of this Law have told us that it was peculiarly made against the Manichees who abstained from drinking of the Cup for the formantioned reason but they without Exception declare that by this Law it was not lawful for any one to receive the Flesh without the Cup and that whosoever did so was by virtue of it to be Excommunicated And hence (g) L. 2. c. 8. Algerus in the Twelfth Century cites this Decree to prove that the Bread is separately to be consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood of Christ and that both are to be received by the Faithful And they had reason to speak thus generally of it for that this Law of P. Gelasius was not directed against the Manichean Heresie may be made evident from numerous considerations For 1. had this Pope made this Law against the Manichees there can be no reason imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them 2ly That Expression in the body of this Law that he knew not by what Superstition they were bound up cannot filty be applied to the Manichees for it was doubtless a matter well known to Gelasius why the Manichees refused the Cup and not unto Gelasius only but to all the People For Leo who preceded him had taken care that not only (h) Omnia quae tam in Scripturis quam in occultis traditionibus suis habent profana vel turpia ut nosset populus quid refugeret aut vitaret oculis Christianae plebis certa manifestatione probavimus Decret Leonis P. c. 6. Collect. à Dionysio exiguo apud Justel p. 224. All the profane and filthy things which were in their Writings but also that the things contained in their
Paschasius what do we else but declare the Lord's Death This do saith (t) In 1 Cor. xi Anselm that is drink this Cup in remembrance of me as oft as you drink it that you may never drink it without the Memory of my Passion but may have in mind that I suffered Death for you Therefore saith the Apostle our Lord said This should be done in commemoration of him for as oft as you shall eat this Bread of Life and shall-drink this Cup of eternal Salvation you shall shew forth that is shall represent the Death Christ suffered for us till he comes to Judgment (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In 1 Cor. xi v. 25. By the Cup thou dost celebrate the commemoration of our Lord's Death saith Theophylact. (x) L. 2. cap. 8. Algerus in answer to this Question Why the Bread is consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood apart saith This was done because the Custom prevailed in the Church from Christ himself who consecrated and gave his Blood not for division of the Substance but for distinction of the Figure that whilst the Bread is grinded by the Teeth it might signifie Christ's Body broken in his Passion and whilst the Wine is poured into the Mouth of the Faithful it might signifie Christ's Blood shed from his Side nor is the Body and Blood said to be apart as if the Body were without the Blood or the blood divided from the Body but it is so said in memory of his Passion because in the Sacrament we ought to shew forth the Death of Christ When the Bread of the Lord that is the Body of the Lord is eaten saith (y) De Sacra edit Erasm fol. 212. Petrus Cluniacensis when the Cup of the Lord that is the Blood of the Lord is drunk the Death of the Lord is shewed forth that is it is then represented What he did saith (z) Comment in vi Joh. Rupertus that we well know we do in Commemoration of his Death viz. Eat his Flesh and to drink his Blood. And surely when two things are equally designed and set apart by Christ for the commemoration of his Passion when they are equally apt and proper to shew forth and bring to our remembrance the thing they were designed to signifie when Christ and his Apostles do command both should be done in prosecution of that end when the Fathers do with one voice declare without the least disparity distinction or limitation that both concurr unto that end And lastly when one naturally doth import and shew the breaking of Christ's Body on the Cross the other doth as naturally signifie shew forth and bring to our remembrance his Blood shed and separated from his Body and in both these consists the Passion of our Lord to say our Saviour's Passion is wholly and entirely represented by the Reception of one of the two Species only is to reflect unworthily upon the Wisdom of our Lord's Institution of them both and his command to do both in order to the shewing forth his Death and evidently to contradict the plain Assertions and the concurring Judgment of the Church of Christ that by drinking and receiving into our Mouths this Cup this Blood we do and ought to declare signifie represent commemorate and shew forth Christ's Death Secondly Christians saith (a) L. 2. q. 99. Art. 1. thomas Aquinas are sanctified by the Sacraments of Christ and therefore what is done to the injury of Christian People pertinet ad irreverentiam rei sacrae unde rationabiliter Sacrilegium dicitur is Sacrilege because it appertaineth to the irreverence of a sacred thing To Sacrilege saith (b) Q. 99. p. 1146. Becamus is referred omnis injuria omnisque abusio Sacramentorum all injury and abuse of the Sacraments and this is evident even from the drift of the Commandment Thou shalt not steal for that for bids in reference to temporal concerns omne nocumentum quod homini injustè infertur in rebus exterioribus All hurt done to them in external Things In reference to spirituals it therefore must for bid all spiritual hurt or injury Men suffer by the detaining of things spiritual from them Now surely if Christians can be hurt orinjured they must be so when they by others are deprived of the means of Grace and of Sanctification and spiritual Blessings Now of these say the fathers Christians are deprived as oft as they are thus deprived of the Cup of Blessing For they constantly affirm That the eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup did tend to the Sanctification both of Soul and Body (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 151. The Temperature of both the drink and the word saith Clemens of Alexandria is called the Eucharist of which they who by Faith are made partakers are sanctified in Body and Soul. In the New Covenant saith Cyril of Jerusalem there is the Heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifying the Soul and Body (d) Catech. Mystag 5. p. 245. Come to the Cup and receiving of the Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thou sanctified Who can express saith (e) Et Sacrosanctum vivifici corporis sanguinis sui Mysterium Membris suis tribuere quibus corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur In Psal vi poenit Gregory the greatness of that Mercy by which Mankind was redeemed with the Effusion of Christ's precious Blood and The sacred Mystery of his Life-giving Body and Blood was given to his Members by which the Church his Body is fed and made to drink is washed and sanctified The super substantial Bread and the Cup consecrated by solemn Benediction (f) Ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit Apud Cypr. p. 39 40. doth profit to the Life and the Salvation of the whole Man saith Arnoldus Carnotensis the Bread is Meat the Blood is Life the Bread for fitness of Nourishment the Blood for efficacy of giving Life Moreover this is written with a Sun-Beam in the Church's Liturgies in which they call the Cup received after the Body (g) Const Clem. l. 8. c. 13. Lit. S Petri p. 26. Lit. Greg. p. 22. Marc. p. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of everlasting Salvation In which they declare that Christ Blessing the Cup (h) Lit. Chrysost p. 1001. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and filling it with the Holy Ghost said Drink ye all of this and said it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fulness of the Holy Spirit that it was the Blood of the New Testament shed for many (i) Lit. St. Marc. p. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and distributed for the Remission of Sins in which they order the Deacon when he hath received it to say This hath touched my Lips and will take away mine iniquities and purge away my Sin and in which they lastly pray That (k) Lit.
561. It is a manifest Error to deliver to the people the Consecrated Bread dipped in the Chalice for a Complement of the Communion as being not agreeable to the Institution and surely for the same reason it must be a more manifest Error to give them the Consecrated Bread alone for a compleat Communion it being more dissonant from the Institution to give only one part than to give both only in another manner than was appointed by the Institution The Blood is well joined to the Flesh saith Paschasius because (f) Nec caro sine sanguine uti nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur c. Cap. 19. Bis neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated for the whole Man which consists of Two Substances is redeemed and therefore fed together both with Flesh and Blood. Algerus in answer to the Question Why Bread by it self is Consecrated into the Flesh of Christ and the Wine into his Blood saith That therefore the Blood and Flesh are seen apart in the Sacrament that because Christ dyed for redeeming our Body by his Body and our Soul by his Soul when we had perished both in Body and Soul it might be signified that his Body and Soul were in Death divided (g) Unde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 8. And therefore Austin saith That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly Communicated In a word this Constitution thus established for a Law makes it a Sin to obey and comply with the Institution of our Lord by reason of the Laws of Men and whether this be not Erroneous let any reasonable person judge from this Consideration Had our Lord instituted this Sacrament to be Received under the Species of Bread alone and had he so distributed the same to his Disciples none coming after Christ could have thought it lawful to have added Consecrated Wine and to have distributed it after the Bread Therefore by parity of Reason Christ having instituted the Eucharist in both the Species of Bread and Wine and so distributed it no man can rightly think it fawful to Give the Sacrament in Bread alone to persons capable of both Species For confirmation of this Argument let it be considered that the Trent Council declares this power was always in the Church That in the dispensation of the Sacraments (h) Sess 21. c. 2. Salva illorum substantia ea statueret vel mutaret That retaining their substance she may appoint or change those things which she doth judge expedient for the profit of the Receivers If therefore when the Cup was instituted by Christ to be Received she may change so far the Institution as to make a Law it shall not be received by the Laity if it had not been Instituted why might she not appoint it should have been received by them § 3 3. Whereas the Church of Rome by the Authority of her Councils (i) Concil Const Sess 13. commands That they be Excommunicated Who contrary to her Decree Exhort the People to Communicate under both Species of Bread and Wine and who do take upon them so to administer the Sacrament unto the People and doth require that they be treated as Hereticks if they persist without Repentance in so doing The Fathers did not only thus administer the Sacrament in publick for a thousand Years together but also did exhort all Christians so to do (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cat. Myst 5. p. 245. After the Communion of the Body of Christ come to the Cup saith Cyril of Jerusalem The Priest saith (l) Eccles Hier. c. 3. Dionysius the Areopagite shewing the Consecrated Gifts comes himself to partake of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and exhorts others so to do The Gifts he shewed them were the Bread and Cup apart of these he therefore did exhort them to Communicate after the usual manner that is apart From taking of the Blood of this Sacrifice saith (m) Q. 57. in Levit. Austin not only no Man is restrained but All Men are exhorted to drink it who will have life And again They who have no eaten and have no drunk let them being invited make haste to these Banquets (n) Accedite ad carnem domini accedite ad sanguinem domini Serm. 46. de verbo dom cap. 4. Come to the Flesh of the Lord come to the Blood of the Lord. The Deacon saith the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom bowing takes the Cup with reverence and lifting it up he shews it to the People saying (o) Tom. 6. p. 1003. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come to it with the Fear and Love of God. In the Antient Synodal form of Admonition used in the West we find one Admonition to the (p) Omnes fideles ad Communionem corporis fanguinis domini accedere admonete Apud Baluz p. 605. Ad Communionem corporis domini nostri Jesu Christi invitate 16. Not. in Reg. p. 609 p. 613. Priest to call upon all the Faithful to come to the participation of the body and the Blood of Christ Whereas in the Two New Admonitions transcribed by Baluzius from the R. Pontifical the injunction is only to invite them to the Communion of the Body of Christ which alteration seems to be occasioned by the change of the Custom of the Romish Church in this particular The Jews drank of the Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ (q) Et tu hibe ut te Christus sequatur De Sacr. l. 5. cap. 1. Drink thou also saith the spurious Ambrose that Christ may follow thee The Jews came to Crucify him saith Hincmarus of Remes (r) Tom. 2. p. 94. Let us come to him ut corpus sanguinem ejus accipiamus That we may receive his Body and Blood. (s) Sume vinum de torculari crucis expressum De tribus capitib Take the Wine pressed out of the Fat of the Cross saith Fulbertus of Chartres St. Paul doth in the like manner say Let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. And a greater than St. Paul saith Drink ye all of this for whom this Blood was shed for this is my Blood of the New Testament shed for many for the Remission of Sins § 4 Lastly Whereas the Councils of Constance and Basil to give the better colour to their absurd Decrees say That this Custom of Communicating under one kind only was ab Ecclesia diutissimè observata observed for a long time in the Church before they had assembled to make this Custom binding by their Laws and Sanctions it is matter of Surprize that two such great and numerous Assemblies should with such confidence assert these things since as Lindanus saith (t) Quod per occidentem fuerit populo utraque administrata
30. Trid. Sess 43. cap. 3. these Councils jointly have determined That by force of that natural Connexion and Concomitance which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body Christ's Body is entire under the Species of Wine and his Blood under the Species of Bread it being firmly to be believed and in no wise doubted that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the Species of Bread as under that of Wine and not the Flesh only under the Species of Bread nor the Blood only under the Species of Wine This whosoever shall deny let him be Anathema saith the Trent Council whosoever being learned will not declare upon Oath that he believeth and asserts this Doctrine of Concomitance he must suffer as an (a) Sess 13. can 1. Partinaciter dicentes oppositum tanquam haeresin sunt arcendi puniendi Sess 45. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1124. Heretick saith the Council of Constance And yet this Doctrine which cannot be denied without incurring an Anathema nor disbelieved without the Crime of Heresie is in it self absurd and plainly contrary to Scripture and to Reason and that it was unquestionably unknown to all the Ancient Fathers and the whole Church of Christ is very easie to demonstrate That this Doctrine is absurd that it doth not expound but rather doth expose our Saviour's Institution to the derision of Men of Reason and Consideration will be evident from these following Arguments For § 1 1. This Novelty apparently destroys the energy of the words used in the Institution of this Sacred Ordinance in which our Lord when he had given his Body broken to his own Disciples and they had actually received it saith of the following Cup Drink ye all of this Matth. xxvi 27 28. for this is the blood of the New-Testament shed for you Whereas if he knew any thing of this Concomitance he must know also they had received this blood of the New-Testament already and therefore might have spared his Cup and Reason both This do as oft as you drink it came too late for they had done what he commanded in effect before he bid them do it Sess 13. c. 3. Tantundem sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque continetur as much is contained under either Species as under both saith the Trent Council i. e. whole and entire Christ his Body Blood his Soul and his Divinity and so as much as is delivered in and as much Grace conveighed by the Reception of one Species as both For I suppose that by participation of Christ in this entire manner we have entirely the Grace of the Sacrament Why therefore did our Lord institute the other Species so perfectly unnecessary to conveigh any thing of Christ or of his Grace unto us Why did he bless the Cup and blessing said with like Solemnity and with express injunction Drink ye all of this Or why did he permit his Church for a whole Thousand Years to give his Members a thing which might be oft of a pernicious influence to them who did receive it unworthily but could be of no spiritual advantage to them who did receive it worthily since after we have taken worthily the consecrated Body we have taken as much as when we have received the Blood also Mr. Condom sets down this as their Principle Treat of Communion in both Kinds p. 327. That he who hath received the Bread of Life has no need of receiving the sacred Blood seeing he has received together with the Bread of Life the whole Substance of the Sacrament and together with that Substance the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist Now from this Principle it follows with the clearest evidence that it was needless for our Saviour to have said to his Disciples after they had received the Bread of Life Drink ye all of this Cup. That his Institution of the Cup to be received after the Bread of Life was a needless Institution that the Church was imployed in a needless Action for a Thousand Years when she distributed the Cup to all Believers That when our Saviour said Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins he gave a needless reason of a needless Action exhorting them to do what they had wholly done already to the end here assigned by him of the drinking of it And can that Principle be true which casts such horrid Imputations on the Commands the Institution and the Reason of that Institution assigned by our Blessed Lord and on the constant Practice of the whole Church of Christ And indeed this new Capricio of Concomitance cannot well be thought of by a Roman Doctor but presently this Question stares him in the Face To what purpose then was the Institution of both Species they being conscious to themselves that the very natural and obvious Conclusion from it would be this That our Lord's Institution of both Species was to no purpose they therefore have invented a new Reason of the necessity of Consecrating both the Species apart Mr. Condom ibid. p. 179 180. viz. That the Separation once made upon the Cross of our Lord's Body and Blood might never cease to appear on the Holy Table Now is it not wonderful that Christ should stablish a continual representation of the separation of his Blood from his Body by Species which he commands us to believe contain his Body and his Blood united What a pretty Mystery do these Men make of the sacred Institution of our Lord. Bread and Wine never cease to appear unto our Senses and yet we must not believe this Appearance but by Faith believe there is no such thing the same Faith teacheth me that our Lord's Body and Blood are united there and yet I must believe our Lord designed the continual representation of them there as separate where Faith informs me there is no such thing Secondly This Doctrine of Concomitance seems even to ridicule our Saviour's words and make them run to this effect I say unto you This is my Body broken not by way of representation only but substantially so and yet I know my Body neither is substantially broken in this Sacrament nor can it ever be so I bid you take this Cup and to encourage you to do so I say This is my Blood shed or separated from my Body and yet I know that there is always in this Sacrament such a Concomitance as renders it impossible my Blood should be thus separated as I say it is But notwithstanding I institute a Mystery which by some broken Accidents of Bread annihilated or some few colours or bare Species of Wine without a subject shall give some faint resemblance of my Body broken and my Blood shed for you This is my broken Body that is under these broken Accidents of Bread lyeth my Body whole and united to my Blood and therefore not my Body broken for you This is my Blood shed
for you that is under this empty shew of Wine lieth my Blood united to my Body and so my Blood not shed and whether hoc est corpus thus interpreted doth not make Nonsence of the words let the considerate Reader judge § 2 Thirdly If there be such a necessary Concomitance in the Sacrament then must each part of the Sacrament exhibit whole and entire Christ with all his Benefits and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part or Species of the Sacrament must be the depriving them of whole Christ and all his benefits Now then in doing this either they are deprived of some spiritual Benefit or not if the first then must the Romanists be Sacrilegious because they do deprive the people of some spiritual Benefit from those sacred Mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably unto the Institution of our Lord and the common practice of the Church for a Thousand Years If the receiving of the Chalice worthily be of any advantage to Souls then he who does not receive it is a looser and he by whom they are deprived of this spiritual Good must be a Sacrilegious person If it be said that no spiritual Benefit can accrue to them by drinking of the Cup then must it be asserted that albeit a Man receive entire Christ worthily yet may he never be the better for it and what is this but to esteem the Blood of the Covenant thus received an unholy thing § 3 Fourthly had our Lord taught Concomitance his Institution of this Sacrament had been the Institution of a thing directly contrary to the Law of Moses viz. The eating of Flesh with the Blood and then it must have ministred offence to the Apostles and the first Jewish Converts who were all strict observers of that Law. Since then we do not find that the Apostles the Jewish Converts or even the Sects of Nazeranes and Ebionites did ever scruple the receiving of the Sacrament on this account we may presume our Saviour taught no such Concomitance § 4 To conclude should we admit of this imagination it would not free the Romanists from the Imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from delivering of half Christ For feeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently an half Sacrament He that receives only the Bread receives only the Sacrament of the Body and not the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ and so receives not an entire Sacrament § 5 That the Fathers of the Church till the Tenth Century knew and believed nothing of this Doctrine of Concomitance as it is evident from many of their Testimonies cited in this Discourse so may it fully be evinced from the received Customs of the Church of Christ And First this may be proved from that received Custom mentioned in all the Liturgies both of the Eastern and the Western Churches which was to bite or break a piece of the consecrated Bread and putting it into the Cup to say these words (b) Fiat commixtio consecratio corporis Sanguinis Domini nostri Ordo Rom. apud Cassandr p. 112 119. Let there be made a mixture and a consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ For though (c) Durant de rit Eccl. l. 2. c. 52. Durantus and (d) Bona rerum Liturg. l. 2. c. 16. p. 814. Bona do in conformity to the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation carefully remark that the Priest doth not thus speak as if those things were then united which before were separated and that they made no mixture of our Lord's Body and his Blood according to their real essences but only according to their Sacramental Species yet do the Liturgies refuse this Subterfuge and their Expositors sufficiently confute this uncouth Gloss for they do never speak of a Commixtion of the Sacramental Species but always of the Body and Blood of Christ They pray that this Commixtion and Consecration may avail to their (e) In vitam aeternam Ord. Rom. eternal Salvation which cannot be expected from the Sacramental Species but only from the real Body and the Blood. Albinus Flaccus doth inform us That this Commixtion is made (f) Ut calix Domini totam plenltudinem contineat Sacramenti Cap. de celebr Miss p. 93. that the Cup of the Lord may contain the whole fulness of the Sacrament as it were by the Copulation of the same Mystery This is not done in vain saith (g) De Eccles Offic. l. 3. c. 3. Amalarius for corporal Life consists of Flesh and Blood whilst these two continue in Man his Spirit or Life continues In that Office is shewn that the blood shed for our Souls and the flesh dead for our Body return to their proper Substance and that the New Man Christ is made lively by the quickening Spirit that he who died for us and rose again can die no more (h) Per particulam oblata immissae in calicem ostendit Christi corpus quod jam resurrexit a mortuis De inst Cleric c. ult Rabanus Maurus in like manner saith That the particle consecrated thus put into the Chalice shews that the Body of Christ is now risen from the Dead (i) Ad designandam corporis animae conjunctionem in resurrectione Christi cap. 17. Micrologus saith That this mixture is made to signifie the Conjunction of the Soul and Body of Christ in the Resurrection and that the particle put into the Chalice signifies the Body of our Lord risen from the dead Now they who say this mixture was made that the Cup might contain the fulness of the Sacrament did not believe that the Cup before contained the Sacrament compleatly as it must do if it contained the Body before And they who say That this is done to shew that the Body of Christ is now alive and risen from the dead and that this mixture therefore sheweth this because it joineth or uniteth Flesh and Blood did not believe they were before united by Concomitance And as our Lord by consecrating the Wine after he had distributed the Bread and bidding them all drink thereof because it was the Blood of the New Testament declared sufficiently that he did not conceive that his Disciples had received already that same Blood he Consecrated that they might receive it Even so these Christians who mixed the Consecrated particle of our Lord's Body with his Blood that so the Union of both in which our Saviour's Life consisted might be represented sufficiently declare they did not think his Flesh and Blood were by Concomitance before united Secondly This will be farther evident from that known Custom of the Church which was to mix the Bread and Wine that so when they Communicated Infants or infirm persons who could not swallow down the Bread alone they might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ profit thee to
Life Eternal for that this Decree of the Council of Tours That the Sacred Oblation given to such persons should be dipped in the Blood of Christ that so the Priest who gave it to them might truly say to the infirm Person The Body and Blood of Christ profit thee c. was observed in the Church from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century we learn from (k) Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi ut veraciter possit Presbyter dicere infirmo corpus sanguis domini proficiat tibi c. Regino de Eccles Discipl l. 1. cap. 70. Proficiat tibi in remissionem peccatorum vitam aeternam Jvo Decret part 2. cap. 19. Burch l. 5. c. 9. Regino Ivo and Burchardus who all make mention of this Canon as a Law which was observed in their times That this practice was used though not with Approbation in the Fourth Century even in the Administration of this Sacrament in publick is evident from the Condemnation of it by (l) Concil Tom. 2. p. 528. P. Julius A. D. 336. in these words We have heard that some possessed with a Schismatical Ambition do deliver to the people the Eucharist dip'd for a compleat Communion which thing how contrary it is to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine and how repugnant to the Custom of the Church it is not hard to prove from the Fountain of Truth from whom proceeded the appointment of the Mysteries of the Sacrament For this they have not received from the Gospel where Christ commended his Body and his blood to his Disciples for there the commendation of the Bread apart and of the Cup apart is rehearsed nor do we read that Christ gave Bread dipp'd to any but to that Disciple whom he would shew to be the betrayer of his Master by the sop dip'd This saith (m) Cap. 19. Micrologus is the prohibition of Julius the Thirty fourth Pope writing to the Bishops of Egypt Thirdly This will be farther evident from this Consideration That the Fathers do certainly speak of the Consecrated Bread and Wine as of Two Sacraments and that as really distinct as are the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrism This we may learn from all those numerous passages in which they are still stiled by the Fathers of the Western Church Sacramenta Mysteria Sacramenta Coelestia divina Mysteria The Sacraments and Mysteries in the Plural the heavenly Sacraments and divine Mysteries and by the Eastern Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Gifts the divine Mysteries the Holy Sacraments c. Thus do the Greeks speak of them to this very day thus did the celebrated Writers of the West speak and write of them till the Eleventh Century when Transubstantiation began to be established and with it the Doctrine of Concomitance The Sacraments saith (n) Sunt autem Sacramenta Baptismum chrisma corpus sanguis Orig. l. 6. c. 19. Raban M. de Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 24. Pasch cap. 9. Isidore Hispalensis are Baptism and Chrism the Body and the Blood of Christ which are therefore called Sacraments because under the veil of Corporeal things the divine Virtue doth more secretly work the Salvation of those Sacraments Which words are borrowed from Pope Gregory and are repeated by Paschasius only with this addition These are the Sacraments of the Church of Christ Rabanus Maurus hath the same words and having discoursed of Baptism and Chrism he proceeds thus Because we above discoursed as much as God enabled us of Two Sacraments Baptism and Chrism (o) De Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 31. superest ut de reliquis duobus id est Corpore Sanguine Domini diligentius investigemus It remains that we discoi se of the Two other Sacraments viz. The Body and the Blood of Christ Whence first we learn that then the Sacraments were not accounted Seven as they are now at Rome but only Four or rather Two Chrism being held as one with Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ being as to the Species in which it was to be celebrated double which Species were therefore called Sacraments by Gregory saith (p) In 4. Sent. dist 12. Art. 2. q. 2. Bonaventure yet are they but one Sacrament by virtue of the Institution and end for which both are design'd viz. The Vnion of the body Mystical Now they who do so often speak of both these Species as Sacraments the Sacraments of the Church and as Two Sacraments because they have their distinct operations towards the health or the Salvation of those who worthily Receive them and both conduced to the Union of the Mystical Body of the Lord could not imagine that by virtue of that Concomitance of which they never speak one word of syllable the virtue of both Species was contained in and was intirely conveighed by one alone For they must be supposed to hold the Cup a Sacrament of our Lord's Institution and therefore not superfluous that it was Sacrae rei Signum a Sign of a thing Sacred which did conveigh the Grace it signified and operated to the Salvation of those who worthily Received it after they had received the Body and which conduced unto the Union of the Body Mystical to their head Christ Jesus They lastly must conceive that to deprive Christ's Members of the Cup was to deprive them of one Sacrament And Fourthly this appears from those sayings of the Fathers which attribute a distinct effect unto the several species (q) Caro salvatoris pro salute corporis sanguis vero pro anima nostra effusus est In 1 Cor. xi p. 270. The Flesh of Christ was delivered saith St. Ambrose for the Salvation of the Body and the Blood was poured out for our Souls c. (r) Haym in 1 Cor. xi p. 129. Anselm ibid. Haymo and Anselm use the same words with a little variation saying That we receive the Sacraments for safety of the Body and Soul for the Flesh was offered for the Salvation of the Body and the Blood shed for our Souls that both our substances might receive the inheritance of Eternal Life (s) L. 4. dist 11. Quare sub duplici specie Peter Lombard (t) Decret p. 2. c. 7. Ivo Carnotensis (u) Tom. 5. c. 6. Hugo de Sancto Victore and (x) Sum. Theol. part 3. num 29. Art. 9. Alexander of Hales cite the very words of Ambrose to prove the same thing And Fifthly This will be farther evident from those Fathers who assert That the Body is given under the one the Blood under the other Species This Cyril of Jerusalem informs those whom he Catechised That (y) Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. in the Species of Bread is given the Body of Christ and in the Species of Wine his Blood. The (z) Lit. Chrysost Tom. 6. p. 998. Liturgies do in like manner pray That God would make this Bread the precious body of Christ and that which is in the Cup
the precious blood of Christ. (a) F. 11 12. Lanfrank informs us That sumitur quidem caro per se sanguis per se The Flesh is taken by it self and the Blood by it self the Flesh under the form of Bread and the Blood under the form of Wine They therefore seem not even in his days to have been acquainted with the new Doctrine of Concomitance Sixthly This is apparent from the Decrees of Leo and Gelasius concerning those who in their time abstained from the Cup. For of the Manichees (b) Serm. 4. in quadrages cap. 5. P. Leo saith That they indeed received the Body of Christ but they declined haurire sanguinem Redemptionis nostrae to drink the Blood of our Redemption he therefore thought that they could not drink the Blood according to our Saviour's Institution who received not the Cup. (c) Apud Ivon decr part 2. cap. 89. Gelasius saith That the declining of the Cup was the dividing of one and the same Mystery which could not truly be affirmed if by taking of the Bread alone an entire Sacrament and whole Christ Body and Blood were taken and received He also adds Let them either take the whole Sacrament or be driven from the whole clearly intimating that by receiving the Bread only they received not the whole But it is needless to proceed in confutation of this vain imagination for had it ever entered into the Heads of the Renowned Fathers of the Church they would not so unanimously have said the Cup was necessary to be received for the remembrance of our Lord's Death and Passion for the procuring of our union to Christ for the Remission of Sins for the increase of Grace for the Sanctification and Salvation both of Soul and Body they would not have concluded the Sacrament was imperfect when it was not received nor would they with such Passion have exhorted those who had received the Body to come and be partakers of the Cup or stiled it as in their Liturgies they always do the Cup of Life Redemption and Salvation as we have seen they did § 6 Mr. Condom nevertheless thus Triumphs over us Gentlemen open your own Books open Aubertine P. 356. the most learned Defender of your Doctrine you will find there in almost every Page passages taken from St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom the two Cyrils and from many others where you may read That in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his Person it self seeing they received say they the King in their Hands they receive Jesus Christ and the Word of God they received his Flesh as living not as the Flesh of a meer Man but as the Flesh of God is not this to receive the Divinity together with the Humanity of the Son of God and in a word his entire Person after this what would you call Concomitancy Answ What is all this to the purpose Is this the manner of speaking used by the Romanists since the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented and since the Sacrilegious Defalcation of the Cup Do they express Concomitance by saying You receive Jesus Christ the King the Word of God the living Flesh of God Is it not this they carefully and frequently inculcate that under that one Species alone which is distributed to them they receive Jesus Christ whole and entire Doth not the Council of Constance thus express it That (d) Sess 13. vide Basil Sess 30. Concil Tom. 12. p. 601. it is firmly to be believed and no way to be doubted that the whole Body and Blood is truly contained both under the Species of Bread and likewise under the Species of Wine Doth not the (e) Sess 13. cap. 3. can 1 Trent Council say That by virtue of this Concomitance the Body is under the Species of Wine and the Blood under the Species of Bread Anathematizing them who teach the contrary and that under one Species is contained a true Sacrament Are not the Romanists still endeavouring to possess the People with these Sentiments That in receiving one Species alone they loose nothing since by Concomitancy they receive both the Body and the Blood Is it not this which the (f) Sess 13. cap. 3. Trent Council is so concerned to teach that as much is contained under either Species as under both Let therefore Mr. Condom if he believes the Fathers held Concomitancy shew out of all their Writings any thing of this Nature which may convince us that they did assert it or let him rest assured that what the Romanists since the Twelfth Century (g) Attendant insuper Sacerdotes quod cum Communionem sacram porrigant simplicibus sollicite eos instruant sub panis specie simul eis dari corpus sanguinem Domini Concil Lambeth A.D. 1281. Concil Tom. 11. part 1. p. 1159. have been continually inculcating and obtruding upon others what filleth all their Books and their Discourses on this Subject but never was once mentioned by any Christian Writer for a Thousand Years though they were equally concerned and had all the same reason if they believed Concomitancy yea and the same occasion if they had generally practised the half Communion so to do is but a Novelty invented by the Romish Doctors only to serve a cause and justifie the Defalcation of the Cup. When the Doctors of that Church would in their suppositious Treatises make the Ancients speak in this new Dialect they do not mince the matter thus but make them speak exactly in their Roman Language Thus in that Epistle falsly said to be writ by Isidore Hispalensis to Redemptus they introduce him speaking thus (h) Cum praedictorum fuerit consecratio non ut quidam putant indocti sub panis specie sola caro Christi in Calice tantummodo sumitur sanguis sed in utroque Deus homo in corpore glorificato totus integer Christus integer Christus in calice panis vivus qui de coelo descendit totus est in utroque Epist Isidori ad Redemptum p. 696. When the consecration of the Elements is made there is under the Species of Bread not the Flesh of Christ only and in the Chalice not his Blood only as some unskilful persons think but in both there is God and Man whole and entire Christ in his Glorified Body whole Christ in the Cup the living Bread who came down from Heaven is entire and whole in both Here is plain dealing only the Language and other unquestionable circumstances as (i) De Eucharist p. 902. Aubertine well notes demonstrate that the Author could not write before the middle of the Eleventh Century because the Controversie betwixt the Greeks and Latins touching unleavened Bread which gave occasion to that Discourse began not till the year 1053. APPENDIX CHAP. VIII The Contents The Assertions of J. L. touching Communion in one kind § 1. Against whom it is proved 1. That Christ's Institution of the Sacrament is virtually a Command obliging
of the Body and the Blood of Christ faith Cyprian What was it that they desired and some of them invaded St. Cyprian informs us that it was Ep. 31. Sanctum Domini The Holy of the Lord it was the Eucha rist that is the Body and the Blood of Christ which St. Cyprian shews plainly by saying it ought not to be given to them till they had done penance confessed and received imposition of hands because it is written Ep. 16. He that eats the Bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. What was it that they endeavoured to extort St. Cyprian saith It was Vis infertur corpori ejus sanguini De Lapsis p. 128. the Body and the Blood of Christ being angry with and even threatning the Priests that they did not Quod non statim Domini corpus inquinatis manibus accipiat aut ore polluto Domini sanguinem bibat presently receive the Body of Christ into their defiled Hands or drink the Blood of the Lord with their polluted Mouth What was it that Trophimus a lapsed Priest was admitted to St. Cyprian saith It was Ut Laicus communicet Ep. 55. Lay-Communion Now what that was Haec erat tunc temporis cummunio Laica cujus adeo participes Euchariftica Sacramenta Speciem inquam utramque panis vini sumebant Rigaltius upon the place informs us saying That it was the participation of both Species but as a Lay-man not in the Order of Priests to which having once lapsed he was not by the Discipline of those Times to be again admitted and this was the Law established by the Councils of those Times in Rome Africa and many other places touching the receiving of Penitents This saith Hoc est apud Cyprianum lapsis pacem dari Hoc est ad communionem corporis sanguinis Domini admitti Not in Can. 11. Concil Tolet. undecimi Garsias Loaisa is that which Cyprian stiles affording them the peace of the Church even the giving them admission to the Body and the Blood of Christ. According to this Law which generally obtained Dionysius of Alexandria lest it in command to his Preshyter that if any of the Penitents who were about to depart this Life should ask is and chiefly if they had before been Supplicatns for it Hist Eccl. l. 6. cap. 44. Vide Not. in locum they should participate of the Divine Gifes and so be sent out of the World. This is that O 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. old Canonical Law confirmed by the first Nicene Council that if any one who had not finished his time of Penance was about to die he shouldnot be deprived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his last and most necessary Viaticum that is say Zonaras and Balfanon he should not be deprived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the participation of the consecrated Gifts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the participation of the Divine Mysteries saith Con. Oxon. Tom 2. p. 180. Matthew Blastares This is that Law of the Fathers of which Epist Canon p. 121. Gregorius Nyssen speaks when he saith That the Philanthropy of the Fathers took care that if any departed this Life having not finished his Penance he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 participate of the consecrated Gifts that he might not be sent out of the World without his Viaticum The same we learn from the 6th Canon of the Council of Ancyra which commands If these Penitents be in danger of Death they shall then be permitted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Come to full Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Communion of the Holy Gift saith Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the participation of the Divine Sacraments saith Balsamon From the 73 Canon of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Basil which Decrees That he who denies Christ in times of Peace shall be a Penitent all his Life and only be admitted to the participation of the Sacraments at his Death and from the Second Canon of Gregorius Nyssen which Decrees in like manner That such a one shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deprived of the Mystical Sacraments till he comes to die and only then partake of them Now albeit those Canons speak chiefly of such persons as were in a state of Penitence yet since as Not. in Can. 11. Con. Tolet undec Garfia Loaisa notes it was looked upon by the Ancients as an Argument of eternal Life and an heavenly Gift granted to those who were going to their eternal Rest to be worthily refreshed pabulo Corporis Sanguinis Domini with the Food of the Body and the Blood of our Lord which therefore was fitly called their Viaticum And since it cannot be imagined that the Faithful should at the close of their Life be excluded from what was granted to the Penitents these Canons must convince us that it was a standing and universal Custom of the whole Church of Christ confirmed as such by the first Nicene Council to give the Sacrament in both kinds to dying Persons And though we cannot doubt that a Custom established by so many Canons continued to be observed in the Church had we no other Evidence of its continuance to future Ages yet in this case we find great evidence of the continuance of this Custom for a Thousand Years For the 11th Council of Toledo saith That Solet humaze naturze infirmitas in ipso mortis exitu praegravata tanto siccitatis pondere deprimi ut nullis ciborum illationibus refici sed vix tandem illati delectetur poculi gratia suftentari quod etiam in multorum exitu vidimus qui optatum suis votis S. Communionis expetentes Viaticum collatam sibi a Sacerdote Eucharistiam rejecerunt non quod infidelitate hoc agerent sed quod praeter Dominici Calicis haustum traditam sibi non possunt Eucharistiam deglutire Quicunque ergo fidelis inevitabili qualibet infirmitate coactus Eucharistiam perceptam rejecerit in nullo Ecclesiae damnationi subjaceat Concil Tom. 6. pag. 552. the infirmity of humane nature was often at the time of Death depressed with such a weight of drought that they could scarce receive the Cup that they had seen this in the exit of many who desired the wished for Viaticum of the Holy Communion have cast out of their Mouths the Eucharist given to them by the Priest not out of infidelity but because they could swallow nothing besides a draught of the sacred Cup. Whence they Decree That whosoever of the Faithful by an inevitable infirmity being compelled to do it casts out of his Mouth the sacred Eucharist shall be subject to no penalty for so doing Whence we learn 1st That dying Persons then desired this Viaticum inboth kinds sdly That the Priests accordingly did attempt to give it them in both kinds 3dly That it was culpable then not to receive both except in cases of necessity unavoidable 3. This will be farther evident from the very
materia ut effectualiter puniant eos contra hoc decretum excedentes qui communicando populum sub utraque specie panis vini exhortati fuerint sic faciendum esse docuerint si ad poenitentiam redire non curaverint animo indurato per censuras Ecclesiasticas per eos ut Haeretici sunt coercendi Ibid. if any Priest communicates the People under both kinds he is to be excommunicated and process is to be directed by the Authority of the General Council of Constance to all Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops Bishops and their Vicars in Spirituals commanding them under the penalty of Excommunication that they effectually punish those who contrary to this Decree exhort the People to Communicate in both kinds of Bread and Wine and take upon them so to minister the Sacrament unto them and to deal with them as Hereticks if they continue obstinately without Repentance in so doing Yea the Trent Council hath pronounced an Anathema upon all those (k) Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis rationibus adductam fuisse ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret aut in eo errasse Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 21. Can. 2. who shall say she was not moved by just Causes and Reasons to make this Law that non-conficient Priests and Laicks should communicate in Bread alone or in that species only or that she erred in making of that Law. 5. That (l) Insuper declarat Quamvis Redemptor noster in suprema illa coena hoc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instituerit A postolis tradiderit tamen fatendum effe etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi ac propterea quod ad fructum attinet nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem eos defraudari qui unam speciem solam accipiunt Concil Trid. Sess 21. Cap. 3. Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus separatione facta totum Christum contineri Anathema sit Sess 13. Can. 3. though Christ instituted this Sacrament in both kinds and so delivered it to his Apostles yet must it be confessed that whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under one kind only and that therefore as to the benefit of the Sacrament they are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation who receive one kind only yea that it is most true that as much is contained under either species as under both for whole Christ is under the species of Bread and under every part of it under the species of Wine and every particle of it 6. That (m) Nullatenus ambigendum est quod non sub specie panis caro tantum nec sub specie vini sanguis tantum sed sub qualibet specie est integer totus Christus Concil Bas Sess 30. Concil Constant Sess 13. Vinaturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae qua partes Christi Domini inter se copulantur Concil Trid. Sess 13. Cap. 3. by force of the natural Connexion and Concomitance which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body Christ's Body is under the species of Wine and his Blood under the species of Bread and so whole Christ under each species and every particle of them it being firmly to be believed and in no wise doubted that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the species of Bread as under that of Wine and not the Flesh only under the species of Bread nor the Blood only under the species of Wine and (n) Si quis negaverit in Sanctiffimae Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem una cum anima divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum Anathema sit Ibid. Can. 1. this whosoever shall deny saith the Trent Council let him be Anathema 7. That no man must dare hereafter (o) Cunctis Christi fidelibus interdicit ne posthac de iis aliter vel credere vel docere vel praedicare audeant quam ex his decretis explicatum atque definitum Conc. Trid. Sess 21. Cap. 1. Sess 13. praefat to preach teach or believe otherwise than is by these Decrees explained and defined These are the Doctrines Decrees and Definitions of these Councils and how extreamly opposite they are unto the formerly received Doctrines of the Church of Christ and to the plain Assertions of the Ancient Fathers shall be my business in the ensuing Sections to demonstrate CHAP. I. The Contents Shewing in opposition to the decrees of the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church till the 12th Century tanght that the Laity by divine precept were obliged to receive both species which is proved from the Testimonies of Justin Martyr Cent. 2. § 1. Of Cyprian Gent. 3. § 2. Of Basil Ambrose and the Apostolical Constitutions Cent. 4. § 3. Of Chrysostome and St. Austin Cent. 5. § 4. Of Caesarius Arelatensis and Procopius Gazaeus Cent. 6. § 5. Of Isidore Hispalensis and the Council of Braga Cent. 7. § 6. Of venerable Bede Cent. 8. § 7. Of Hincmarus Remensis and Paschasius Cent. 9. § 8. Of Lanfrank and Anselme Cent. 11. § 9. Of Paschal Hugo de Sancto Victore Arnoldus Carnotensis St. Bernard and Rupertus Taitiensis Cent. 12. § 10. Of Albertus Magnus Cent. 13. § 11. Five Corollaries from the Doctrine of the Fathers in this Point § 12. FIRST then whereas the Councils of Constance § 1. Basil and (a) Sancta Synodus declarat docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Sess 21. Cap. 1. Concil Const Sess 13. Trent have declared defined and determined That the Faithful Laity and the Clergy that do not consecrate are not obliged by divine precept to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both the species of Bread and Wine The Fathers do in opposition to this Doctrine either expresly or by plain consequence assert that the Laity as well as Priests by divine precept are obliged to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in both kinds and that the precept drink ye all of this was by our Lord directed as well to Lay-men us to Priests Justin Martyr in his Second Apology relates the practice of the Christians thus After the President hath given thanks and all the People said Amen (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 97. the Deacons give to every person present to participate of the Bread Wine and Water which are blessed and this food me call the Eucharist which none but he that believeth our Doctrine and is Baptized can receive And to shew us that he did not look upon this practice as an arbitrary thing he adds That
you drink it in Remembrance of me for as oft as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew th Lords Death till he come Now saith he (l) Quod si a Domino praecipitur N. B. ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur ut quotiescunque biberimus in Commemorationem Domini haec saciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum est nisi eadem quae dominus secit nos quoque saciamus p. 152. if it be commanded by our Lord and the same thing be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle That as oft as we drink in Commemoration of our Lord we should do that which our Lord did we find that is not observed by us which is commanded unless we do the same things which our Lord did and mingling the Cup of the Lord after the same manner we recede not from the divine Institution Lastly If any of our Predecessors saith he out of Ignorance or Simplicity did not hold and observe that (m) Quod nos dominus facere exemplo Magisterio suo docuit c. p. 156 157. which the Lord taught us to do by his Example and command Gods Mercy may shew Pardon to him whereas no Pardon will be shewed to us being instructed and admonished to offer as our Lord did his Cup mixed with Wine if we do not so Wherefore we have directed Letters to all our Colleagues That the evangelical Command and the Tradition of our Lord should be every where observed and that there should be no receding from that which Christ both taught and did Here then is all that Protestants assert against the Definitions of the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent viz. 1. That our Lord taught both by Example and command the Ministration of the Cup or that this was enjoined by Inspiration and Command of God. 2. That Christ in ministring the Cup drank to Believers and That he commanded them to drink it by saying Drink ye all of this and that the same thing is confirmed by the Apostle saying This do as oft as you drink it in Remembrance of me 3. That this evangelical Command and Tradition of Christ is to be every where observed and that none should recede from what he did both teach and do none should recede from the divine Instruction that it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord and that he may justly fear his Anger if he do not what he hath commanded Now that St. Cyprian in this Epistle speaks not only of the Consecrution or Oblation of the Cup but also of the Distribution of it and the Participation of it by the People is evident beyond all Contradiction For 1. He expresly speaks of sanctifying the Lords Cup and vtinistring it to the People N. B. and of the Blood of the Lord (n) Epoto Sanguine Domint p. 153. drank off by them and of the Cup which in the Psalmist Phrase inebriates the Drinkers of it 2. He adds that some perhaps might plead in favour of that Practice he condemns That they used only Water least their Persecutors perceiving that they smelled of Wine in the Morning might hence conclude they had received the Sacrament and gather thence that they were Christians which could by no means be objected if he argued only for the Consecration of Wine and not for the Participation of it by Believers also seeing they could not smell of that which they did not partake of 3. P. 155. He saith That if the fear of smelling of Wine should keep Men from doing what Christ did and commanded to be done in commemoration of himself the Brother hood would be withdrawn from the Passion of Christ in the times of Persecution whilst they thus learned to be ashamed of his Blood in the Oblations Whereas if it belonged not to them to drink of the Blood of the Oblation jure communications by right of participation as St. Cyorian says it did if they were not obliged to drink of it in remembrance of him this consequence must be infirm 4. Whereas they who did celebrate this Sacrifice with Bread and Water consecrated in the Morning Sacrifice thought this a good excuse that in the Evening Sacrifice they used Wine mixed with Water St. Cyprian saith P. 136. That this excuse is not sufficient partly because the People could not be all invited to the Evening Sacrifice partly because in every Sacrifice me make mention of Christ's Passion and so must do no other thing in any Sacrifice than what Christ did which Reasons can carry no weight in them but upon supposition of an obligation on the People to communicate of the consecrated Wine and Water Lastly He adds That if the blush to drink the Blood of Christ Ibid. we cannot be prepared to pour out our Blood for Christ which not the Priest alone but all the People must be prepared to do it therefore is extreamly evident that here St. Cyprian discourseth not only of the Priest's obligation to consecrate Wine mixed with Water but also of the Peoples obligation to partake of the Cup so consecrated In the Apostolical Constitutions the Apostles are introduced § 3. giving this order (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 2. c. 57. When the Sacrifice is offered let every order of Believers receive by themselves of the Lord's Body and of his precious Blood. The Title of which Constitution is What every one of the Clergy and Laity ought to do in the Assembly In the Sacramental Thanksgiving they speak thus We give thee thanks O Father for Christ's precious Blood shed for our sakes and for his precious Body (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25. the Antitypes of which me now celebrate be having commanded us to shew forth his Death This Prayer all the Faithful make and all that are Baptized are the persons who are thus to shew forth his Death In the Prayer after the divine Oblation they say thus (q) Lib. 2. cap. 13. Let the Bishop Communicate then the Priests Deacons c. Amongst the Women the Deaconnesses Virgins and Windows then the Children then all the People in their Order and the Priest let him tender the Oblation saying The Body of Christ and let the Receiver say Amen the Deason let him hold the Cup and giving it say The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and he that drinketh it let him say Amen And in the close of these Prescriptions are these words (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. c. 15. These things we the Apostles have commanded you Bishops Priests and Deacons to observe touching the Mystical Service St. Basil is an express assertor of the same Doctrine for he spends a whole Chapter to prove that he who is regenerated by Baptism (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. ought afterwards to be nourished by the participation of the divine Mysteries
all of this Here then §. 12. besides what hath already been observed from these Passages we farther learn 1. That every Order of Believers ought to receive of the Lords Body and of his precious Blood apart That they ought to drink this Cup with the Mouth of the Body 2. That the Tradition of our Lord is to be observed and not departed from by reason of any humane and novel Institution 3. That the Apostles commanded these things to be observed that the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Custom of the Church require the Cup should be received apart Interim autem dum ab eo in hoc mundo peregrinamur Corpore sanguine ejus in via pascimur sicut Apostolis suis hoc Mysterium in coena ultima ante mortem suam tradidit nobis sequentibus frequentandum per eos mandavit Guitm de Sacram. lib. 3. fol. 91. b. that this the universal Church believes and the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed this to be published throughout the world that the Blood of our Lord Jesus is to be drunk by the mouth of the Body that the Gospel commands it should be drunk that the Apostolical Statutes commanded both to be celebrated in the Church that God himself ordered that we should all drink out of one Cup and that this is required by the inspiration and command of God that Christ said Eat me Drink me that he exhorted all Men to drink of his Blood that he sent forth his Apostles and Teachers to invite them to drink of the Wine that he had mingled and to receive the Cup of his sacred Blood that he commanded these things that he so appointed it to be observed and that we drink of the blood of Christ by his command 4. That the command Drink ye all of this was by Christ directed as well unto the People as the Ministers to all without exception that what Christ did he commanded his followers to do what he distributed to them he would have them distribute to others and that in the Primitive Church all communicated because Christ said to his Apostles Drink ye all of this 5. That by receiving of both kinds they shewed forth Christ's Death and this is as much as any Protestant hath said or needs to say CHAP. II. The Contents Whereas these Councils take upon them to Decree this Sacrament shall be celebrated otherwise than by their own confession it was instituted by Christ The Fathers in the general assert That this Mystery ought not to be celebrated otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles §. 1. When some delivered the Bread dipp'd in the consecrated Cup as a compleat Communion they condemned this practice as varying from the Institution and from the practice of the Church §. 2. They condemned the offering on the Altar other things besides Bread Wine and Water for the same Reasons §. 3. They condemned the using Wine not mixed with Water on the same account §. 4. They condemned the celebration of this Mystery in consecrated Bread and Water only from the same grounds §. 5. Inferences against Communion in one kind from the premises §. 6. SEcondly Sess 13. Sess 21. c. 3. whereas the Councils of Constance and of Trent confess That Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament under both species and so delivered it to his Apostles and that the Primitive Church did practise suitably unto this Institution and yet deny that there lies any Obligation on Christians from this Institution or this practice to administer it or to receive it in both kinds Sess 21. cap. 2. asserting they have power as dispensatores Mysteriorum Dei Dispensers of the Mysteries of God to make this change in the Administration of this Sacrament whereas I say these are the bold Assertions of the forementioned Councils in opposition to them the Sayings of the Fathers are very clear and pregnant in which they plainly shew they thought themselves and all that bare the Name of Christians obliged to observe the Institution of the Sacrament which by the Confessions of the Councils of Trent and Constance was in both kinds and in the distribution of it to do as Christ the Author of it did viz. to give both species apart to the Communicants which came to be partakers of this Holy Sacrament And § 1 1. The Author which passeth under the Name of Ambrose in his Comment on these words He that eateth this Bread or drinks this Cup unworthily c. saith thus (a) Indignum dicit esse domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore In locum He pronounces him unworthy of the Lord who otherwise doth celebrate this Mystery than it was delivered by him for he cannot be devout who presumes to do it otherwise then it was given by the Author And this good Rule in after-Ages was approved of and even transcribed by the Ritualists and by the Commentators on the same place (b) Indigne dicit i. e ordine non observato viz. qui aliter Mysterium illud celebrat vel sumit quam traditum est a sanctis patribus Haym in locum p. 130. He eats unworthily saith Haymo that is not observing order who either celebrates or takes that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by the Holy Fathers St. Anselm in his Comment on the same Chapter saith That St. Paul reproved the Corinthians because they did not well observe what he had delivered touching this matter he having delivered to them what the Lord delivered to him and therefore that which they ought to retain reverently and inviolably adding That (c) Qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam a Christo traditum est Ibid. he eats and drinks unworthily who either celebrates or receives that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by our Lord. The Gloss cites the same words from Ambrose Aquinas from the Gloss He is unworthy saith Hugo who celebrates the Mystery otherwise than by Christ it was delivered And he saith Lyra is unworthy (d) Qui non observat ritum a Christo institutum Ibid. who observes not the Custom instituted by Christ Gregory the Third condemns the placing Two or Three Cups upon the Altar at once as being not agreeable to the practice of our Lord. For saith he (e) In missarum solenniis observandum est quod dominus noster Jesus Christus Sanctis suis distribuit discipulis accepit enim calicem dedit eis dicens Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in meo sanguine hoc facite quotiescunque sumitis Ep. ad Bonifacium In the Solemnities of the Mass that is to be observed which our Lord Jesus gave to his Disciples for he took the Cup and gave it to them saying This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood this do as often as you take it And (f) De
intire Sacrament is taken under either Species The Fathers and the School-Men do expresly say the contrary viz. Epiphanius §. 1. The Council held in Trullo P. Julius P. Gelasius the Council of Braga §. 2. Paschasius Corbeiensis Algerus and St. Bernard §. 3. Alexander Halensis Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure Albertus Magnus Durantus Petrus de Palude Gulielmus de monte Laudano Lyra Carthusianns Andreas Frisius §. 4. The Inferences from these Sayings § 5. WHereas the Trent Council asserts Sess 21. cap. 3. l. 4. de Sacr. Ench. c. 22. s. utraque That a true Sacrament is taken under either Species that is as Bellarmine Interprets it An intire Sacrament nothing is more repugnant to the plain Judgment of Antiquity than these Assertions And though the silence of all Antiquity in this matter is a full demonstration that they held no such Doctrine seeing no reason can be given why they had they embraced this Doctrine which is frequently inculcated by all the Roman Doctors who write upon this Subject should never say with the like plainness as they so often do That an entire Sacrament is given under one Species only or any thing to that effect or give themselves the trouble to Answer that Enquiry which so disturbs the Roman Doctors and which they see themselves so much concerned to Answer viz. Why then did our dear Lord himself distribute and institute this Sacrament to be received under both kinds I say though this be a sufficient prejudice against that Assertion of the Council of Trent and though it will more fully be confuted by an impartial Reflection on what we have Discoursed of the constant Declaration of the Church that to give the consecrated Bread dipp'd in the Cup was not to give a compleat Sacrament with many things of the like nature yet shall I wave all these Advantages at present and shew from the plain Sayings both of the Ancients the Writers of the middle and chiefly of the latter Ages or the Doctrine of the Schools that they conceived the Reception of both Species by persons capable was requisite to the integrity of this Sacrament § 1 Epiphanius speaking of the Encratites saith That in this Mystery they use only Water and wholly do abstain from Wine the censure which he passeth on them for so doing is this That having the Form they deny the Power of Godliness (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Haer. 47. §. 3. Pag. 401. for whosoever saith he doth omit one part of a work by the omission of that one part doth really omit the whole The Inference he maketh from that Rule is this That the Mysteries they celebrate by Water only are really no Mysteries but only false Mysteries in imitation of the true in which they are convinced by the Right words of our Saviour saying I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine § 2 The General Council held in Truillo being informed that the Armenians did celebrate the Mysteries in pure Wine not mixed with Water declares that the did (b) Can. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperfectly shew forth the Mystery Now let it be observed from St. Paul that it is not by offering only but by partaking of this Bread and drinking of this Cup that we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew forth the Lord's Death and then it clearly follows that if he who distributes Wine without Water imperfectly shews forth the Mystery he that gives neither Wine nor Water must do it more imperfectly When some in the Diocess of Squillaci out of some unknown Superstition would have taken the Bread without the Cup (c) Apud Ivon decret part 2. c. 89. Gelasius decrees that they should either take the entire Sacrament or be entirely driven from it he therefore evidently determined that taking of one Species only was not taking an entire Sacrament In the Fourth Century (d) See cap. 2. § 2 Pope Julius in the Seventh Council of Braga in the Eleventh Micrologus in the Twelfth Peter Lombard do with one voice deny that the Bread dipp'd in the consecrated Wine can be administred pro complemento Communionis for an entire or compleat Communion and therefore much less could they think that the Communion was entire when ministred only in dry Bread. The great Sticklers for Transubstantiation averr the same thing Sect 3. Paschasius Corbeiensis saith That (e) De Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 11. therefore we are fed with and made to drink of these two only in the way that our whole Man which consists of two Substances integrè reparetur may be entirely repaired both therefore were in his judgment needful to an entire reparation of the whole Man. Algerus in Answer to this Question Why the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated rather in Bread Wine and Water than in any other kinds of Bodies saith That because we so live by Bread and drink that we can want neither of them (f) Utrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 5. our Lord would have both be in his Sacrament least if either of them should be wanting as by this imperfect sign of Life he should seem to be represented not as full but as imperfect Life And a little after he saith This is done proptr commodiorem aptitudinem Sacrametalis perfectionis for the more commodious representation of the Sacramental perfection The Species of Bread and Wine is propounded saith (g) De coena Domini f. 321. b. St. Bernard that it might be taught that there is a full and perfect refection in taking the Body and the Blood of Christ a full refection of Meat and Drink the principal Substances of Meat and Drink being Bread and Wine § 4 But above all the School-Men do declare against this Doctrine of the Trent Council (h) In iv sent q. 40. membr 3. Art 2. q. 53. membr 1. Alexander of Hales saith That whole Christ is not under either Species Sacramentally but the Flesh only under the Species of Bread the Blood under the Species of Wine only for to the perfection of the Sacrament is required a representation according to the Institution but in one kind the matter of the Sacrament is not entirely and perfectly I say there is not a perfect Sacrament as to the Sacramental Perfection of it (i) Sum. part 3. q. 76. Art. 2. Adv. Gent. l. 4. c. 61. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Aquinas saith That though Christ is contained under both Species yet is it convenient to the use of this Sacrament that the Body of Christ should be delivered apart for Food to the Faithful and his Blood for Drink both saith he is of the perfection of this Sacrament for the perfection of refection for the representation of Christs Passion and for the effecting of the Salvation both of Soul and Body 1. For its perfection for it being a Spiritual Refection it ought to have spiritual Meat and
spiritual Drinke for corporal Refection is not perfected without both these And as he elsewhere saith because spiritual effects are done under the likeness of visible it was fit that this spiritual nourishment should be delivered to us under the Species of those things which Men do ordinarily use for corporal nourishment and therefore this Sacrament is delivered to us under the Species of Bread and Wine 2. For the signification of it for it is a memorial of the Lord's Passion whereby his Blood was separated from his Body and therefore in this Sacrament the Blood is offered by it self And elsewhere Because the Completion of our Salvation was made by the Passion and Death of Christ by which is Blood was separated from his Flesh separatim nobis traditur Sacramentum corporis ejus sub specie panis sanguis sub specie vini the Sacrament of his Body is delivered N. B. to us apart under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine that so in this Sacrament might be the memory and representation of our Lord's Passion 3. For the healthful Effect of it for the Body is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Body and the Blood is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Soul for the Soul is in the Blood. (k) In 4. Sent. dist 8. q. 2. dist 11. q. 2. Bonaventure saith That as to the signification both Species are of the integrity of this Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither of them by it self but in both together which appears thus Here Christ is signified as Meat perfectly refreshing them that eat him Sacramentally and Spiritually but a perfect Refection is not in Bread alone or Wine alone but in both he therefore is signified as perfectly refreshing not in one Species only but in both And again This Sacrament though it contains two Signs and two Words yet because a perfect Sign ordained for one thing sc the Vnion of the Body Mystical results from them therefore the Sacrament is one and the reason of this Integrity and Ordination comes from Nature for neither is Bread nor Wine apart fully Refectory but both and one full Refection in nature comes from both and so they are disposed to signifie one Refection but this is compleated by the Divine Institution which by one Institution hath appointed these two Signs to signifie one perfect Refection and so it is one Sacrament on the account of nature and of Divine Institution (l) In 4. Sent. dist 8. Art. 13. Albertus Magnus lays down this general Rule The Sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in Grace which it doth not signifie in Similitude and that the Sacraments of the New Law are the cause of nothing of which they bear not a sensible Image and thence infers That the Vnion of the Mystical Body is not perfectly caused and signified but by a double Sign and therefore by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both And in his Comment upon the Sixth of John he saith That as in the Flesh is received what is vivifying and restorative of the spiritual and divine Life lost in us so by the Blood is received the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward parts And making the enquiry why to that manducation Spiritual Drink was necessary to be added he answers it is so because Meat cannot be without Drink In his Comment on (m) c. 22. f. 321. St. Luke Some saith he more curious than devout enquire to what end was the Sacrament of the Blood instituted after the Sacrament of the Body since the Body of Christ is not without the Blood nor the Blood without the Body But to this we say that though these are as to their nature undivided yet have they different Effects for one by Christ is ordained to incorporate the Blood for the washing away of Sins whence it is said That without shedding of Blood there is no Remission And that which they say that the Body is not without the Blood is true but yet by virtue of the Sacrament the Sacramental Body is not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body That therefore we might have a Supper Sacramentally perfect it was necessary that it should be instituted that the Body and Blood should be Sacramentally had this therefore is the cause and manner of the Institution so our King and Priest saves us out of the Flour and out of the Wine-Press (n) Rat. l. 4. c. 54. f. 126. Durantus saith That the Church instituted the Sacrament to be taken after the consecration of both Species to shew that he who receives the Hoast only receives not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally For although the Blood be in the consecrated Hoast yet is it not Sacramentally there because the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine signifies the Blood not the Body wherefore because the Sacrament under one kind is not compleat according to the Sign the Sacrament ought to be compleat before the Priest use it And again (o) Ibid. c. 4â— f. 106. Although under the Form of Bread the Blood may be taken with the Body and under the Form of Wine the Body may be taken with the Blood yet according to Innocent the Third neither the Blood under the Form of Bread nor the Body under te Form of Wine is drunk and eaten because as neither Blood is eaten nor the Body drunk so neither under the Form of Bread is drunk or eaten under the Form of Wine Cassunder informs us of (p) De com sub utraque specie p. 1034. Petrus de Palude that he asserted That the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double viz. the matter of Bread and Drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be perfectly represented by the matter in a way agreeable to natural things because the Sacraments effect what they do figure but the effect of the Sacrament is full Refection of the Soul and therefore the matter representing this ought to do it by perfect Refection of the Body which only is by Meat and Drink (q) Lyturg. p. 77. Guilielmus de monte Landano as he there cites him adds That he who receives the Body receives the whole Truth but not the whole Sacrament and therefore in many places they Communicate with Bread and Wine that is with a whole Sacrament The (r) De commu sub utraque specie ibid. Dean of Lovain as he cites him saith That with respect to the Sacrament and the perfection of it it is more convenient that the Communion should be made under both kinds for this is more consonant to the Institution and integrity of it to corporal Refection to the Example of Christ and the Primitive Church And again He freely confesseth that the Laity communicating under one kind only receive not a full Sacrament which consists of two Parts This Sacrament saith (s) In 1 ad Cor.
c. xi Lyra is given under the double Species of Bread and Wine that thereby spiritual Refection may perfectly be shewed forth and because it is a memorial of Christ's Passion in which the Blood was separated from the Body And again Utrumque est de perfectione huju Sacramenti both is expressed perfectly the Passion of Christ semblably of which this Sacrament is the memorial 2dly Because both signifie nourishment perfectly Though the Body and Blood of Christ saith (t) In 1 ad Cor. c. xi Carthusian are called Sacraments in the plural yet speaking formally of their perfect and integral Vnity they are but one Sacrament for they are ordained to one end and compleat act viz. to the spiritual Refection of the Soul in which spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink is required The eating saith (u) L. 4. de emend Christianae Reipub. cap. 19. Andreas Frisius is named separately and the drinking separately by his Wisdom to which all humane Wisdom concerning the inseparability of living Blood from living Flesh ought to give place for here we are are not to dispute from humane reason but to have respect to the will of Christ which instituted convivium non mancum not a maimed Banquet but added drink to the meat If any of these Doctors do elsewhere contradict their own Assertions for that I am not much concerned it being natural and almost unavoidable for Men who maintain things contradictory to common reason to say one thing when they discourse according to the innate Notions of common reason and another thing when they serve the Hypothesis to which they are enslaved it sufficeth me to make these plain Inferences from what they have discoursed § 5 1. If both Species ae to be delivered to represent Christ not as imperfect but as perfect Life to teach us that there is a perfect and full Refection in this Sacrament to shew that Christ redeemed the whole Man and that there may be in this Sacrament a representation according to the Institution then we who do thus represent thus teach thus act according to the Institution must be blameless if the Institution hath appointed both these Species to signifie one perfect Refection they act not suitably to their appointment who use but one If the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine the Blood and not the Body and if the Sacrament under one kind be not compleat according to the Sign then seeing every Sacrament is Sacrae rei signum a sign of something sacred this Sacrament can never be compleat when it is administered only in one of the appointed signs because a sacred thing appointed to be signified must then be wanting If whole Christ be no under either Species Sacramentall if the Sacramental Body be not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body If he who receives the Body only receive not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally then they who administer the Body only do not administer the whole Sacrament Sacramentally nor as is requisite to the Sacramental Perfection of the Ordinance If both Species were given for an entire reparation of the whole Man to be Food to the Faithful and to avail to the Safety and Salvation both of Soul and Body then must they deprive the Laity of their Food and their entire reparation and hinder the Safety and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies who deprive them of one Species If the Species of Wine is to be received for the remembrance of that Redemption which was made by the Effusion of blood for the memory and representation of Christ's Passion that by it we may receive the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward Parts then must they hinder the shewing forth of our Lord's Death and the purification of the Laity who rob them of the Cup If by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both Species to have spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink if the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double and it is necessary to a Supper Sacramentally perfect that the Body and Blood should both Sacramentally be had then they who do not permit the People to have both do not what they ought And Lastly If this be more consonant to the institution to the integrity of the Sacrament to the Example of Christ and of the Primitive Church sure they must act more consonantly to the Institution and the Example of their Lord the Practice of the Primitive Church and the Integrity of the Sacrament who give both Species than they who do deprive the Laity of one though at the same time they do act less consonantly to the Decrees and Constitutions of the Church of Rome CHAP. V. The Contents In opposition to the Council of Constance condemning them as Hereticks who pertinaciously assert That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law of Communion in one kind this Practice is declared to be Sacrilegious by P. Leo §. 1. by P. Gelasius §. 2. The Evasions of the Roman Catholicks fully refuted Ibid. This is farther proved from the Sayings of the Fathers compared with the Descriptions which the School-Men give of Sacrilege §. 3. And from the School-Men §. 4. WHereas the Council of Constance Sess 13. approved by the Church of Rome declares it Erroneous to assert That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law or Custom of Communicating the Priests that do not consecrate and the Laity in one kind only and commands that they who pertinaciously so assert shall be driven away from the Communion of Christians as Hereticks and be grievously punished by the Diocesans of the place or their Officials or the Inquisitors of Heretical pravity this mutilation of the Sacrament hath by the Doctors of the Ancient Church been adjudged Sacrilege and they who only did receive the Bread but did not partake of the Cup have been pronounced Sacrilegious and as such are commanded to be expelled from the Society of Christians § 1 Thus Leo speaking of the Manichees saith (a) Comque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audent interesse Mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione fe temperant ut interdum quo tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurite omnino declinant quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines his manisestentur indiciis quorum deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi a sanctorum societate sacerdotali authoritate pelantur Serm. 4. in quadrag c. 5. Ed. Quesnel p. 271. They avoid the Sacrament of humane Salvation and believe not that our Lord Christ was truly born truly suffered was buried and raised again in true Flesh of our Nature and when to conceal their Infidelity they dare to be present at our Mysteries they so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacrament that sometimes least they should not possibly lie hid they take Christ's Body with their unworthy Mouths but they wholly decline drinking the Blood
secret Traditions should be manifested to the Eyes of Christians that the People might know what they are to avoid and fly from 3ly The very word Superstition shews that Gelasius did not intend the Manichees for superstition intimates a design of Reverence and Veneration of the Sacrament although misplaced and not well designed whereas the Manichees in their refusal of the Cup were acted by the grosest Heresie they refused Wine as being unclean and the Gall of the Devil and as P. Leo saith condemned the Creature in Creatoris injuriam to the reproach of the Creator 4ly Gelasius speaks only of those persons who were then within the Country of Squillaci and in the Diocess committed by him to Majoricus and John whereas it is uncertain whether one Manichee was ever there and is most certain they did abound elsewhere Nor 5ly can these words Let them receive the entire Sacraments or be excluded from them be reasonably applied to the Manichees for none who know the * Vide Concil Laod. can 6. 33. Discipline of Ancient times can think that the Abettors of so gross an Heresie as that of Manes which held (i) Aug. ad quod vult Deus c. 46. That there were two first Causes one Good the other Evil which denied the Worship of the God of the Old Testament denied the Resurrection and the Virgin birth of our dear Lord and worshipped the Sun as God could be admitted to the participation of the Holy Sacraments without a previous condemnation of those prodigious Errors and a publick Penance much less that they could be admitted with such freedom by that Gelasius who declares That (k) Cum nullo prorsus eorum participare debetis mensae dominicae puritatem quam majores nostri semper ab haeretica magnopere servarunt pollutione discretam Caus 24. qu. 2. c. nec quisquam Christians might not partake of the purity of the Lord's Table with an Heretick which Table our Ancestors have always abundantly kept severed from all Heretical Pollution and who succeeded that Leo who compelled the Manichees before they were admitted to the Communion of Christians to do publick Penance and by a publick Profession and Subscription in the Church to condemn the Manichean Heresy Now the Confutation of this pretence that Pope Gelasius made this Decree against the Manichees is a full confutation of all that Romanists do offer to elude the force of it against them for then it follows that this Decree cannot reasonably be restrained to them who regarded the species of Wine as an object of aversion or who abstained from the Cup out of an horrour of Wine or of the blood of our Lord For all these descants evidently do relate unto the Doctrine of the Manichees and therefore they are all confuted by the refutation of that vain pretence That P. Gelasius made this Law against the Manichees And whereas others tell us that these were laws then made to restrain the liberty the Church before had granted to receive in publick in one kind this as it is said without any shadow of proof so it is fully confuted by the very words of the Decrees of these Two Popes Leo objects against the Manichees that by avoiding of the Cup they declined the drinking of the Blood of their Redemption Now can it be supposed that he knew then of any liberty the Church had granted to the Faithful to decline the drinking the Blood of their Redemption that is of doing the very thing for which he so severely doth condemn the Manichees Gelasius decrees touching them of Squillaci That they shall either take the Sacraments entire or be entirely driven from them plainly insinuating that they who received not the Cup received not an entire Sacrament and could the Faithful in those times receive the Sacrament so that in the judgment of so great a Pope it was imperfectly received by them Moreover that this practice must in the judgment of the Holy Fathers be Sacrilegious will farther be made evident from the comparing of their Sentiments touching the distribution and receiving of the Cup by all the Faithful with those descriptions which the School-men given of Sacrilege For 1. Sacrilege saith (l) Medul Theol. l. 3. Tr. 1. de primo praecepto Dec. c. 2. Dub. 2. Busenbaum is the violation of a thing holy that is dedicated to divine Worship and to violate what is holy is saith (m) In 22. Disp 6. q. 15. punct 1. Gregorius de Valentiâ nothing else but to do something repugnant to that Worship to which a thing is designed Wherefore if the reception of the Cup by the Laity was designed for their shewing forth the Lord's Death and the remembrance of his Passion it must be Sacrilege to rob them of it because it is the violation of a thing dedicated to Divine Worship and the doing that which is repugnant to that Worship to which the Cup was designed Now the Fathers frequently tell us after St. Paul That we are to eat this Bread and drink this Cup to shew forth the Lord's Death (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moral c. 3. p. 432. We ought saith Basil to eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ in remembrance of our Lord's Obedience to the Death and this he proves from our Lord's institution Luke xxij and from St. Paul's rehearsal of it 1 Cor. xi (o) Quoniam morte domini liberati sumus hujus rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus In 1 Cor. xi p. 170. Because we are delivered by the death of the Lord being mindful of this thing saith St. Ambrose we signify it by eating and drinking of the things that are offered (p) Glaphyr l. 2. The Communicating of his holy Plesh and the Cup of his holy Blood hath in it a Confession of Christ's Death by the participating of these things in this world we commemorate Christ's Death saith Cyril of Alexandria When the Hoast is broken saith (q) Apud Grat. dist 2. c. de consecr Lanfranc de Sacr. Ench. p. 124. St. Austin whilst the Blood is poured out of the Cup into the Mouth of the Faithful what other thing is showed forth but the offering of our Lord's Body on the Cross and the Effusion of his Blood out of his Side Christ in this Mystery saith P. Gregory is offered again for us (r) Ibi Christi Corpus sumitur ejus caro in populi salutem partitur ejus sanguis non jam in manus infidelium sed in os fidelium funditur Dial. l. 4. cap. 58. for his Body is there taken hsi Flesh is parcell'd out for the Salvation of the People his Blood is not given into the hands of Infidels but poured into the Mouths of the Faithful (s) Quem cum bibimus quid aliud quam mortem domini annunciamus De Corp. sang Dom. cap. 21. When we drink out of this Cup saith
Species in proximum fere usque Constantiensis Synodi Saeculum haud Prolixa opus est demonstratione Panopl l. 4. sub finem There needs no long demonstration to prove that both kinds were administred in the West almost till the times of the Council of Constance Was it thus in the Eleventh Century in which Lanfranck saith That (u) Sanguis ejus de Calice fidelium ore potatur De Sacr. Euch. f. 126. a. the Blood poured out of the Chalice is taken by the Mouth and poured into Mouth of the Faithful In which Pope Paschal made a Decree That the Body and Blood of the Lord should be received apart and that (x) Sic semper in Sancta Ecclesia conservandum docemus this Custom should always be observed in the Church except in the case of Infants and infirm Persons not able to swallow down the Bread In which (y) Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 971. Humbertus declares That in the Roman Church the Sacrament was ministred in both kinds apart (z) Rer. Liturg. l. 2. c. 18. p. 862. Why then is Cardinal Bona so positive in his Assertion that always and every where from the beginning of the Church to the Twelfth Century the Faithful Communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine Was it so in the Twelfth Century when (a) L. 2. c. 8. Algerus saith That both the Body and the Blood were taken by the Faithful and that neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh are rightly Communicated (b) Apud Cyp. p. 41. Arnoldus Carnotensis That we Christians drink of the Blood by his Command (c) P. 217. Petrus Cluniacensis That they took the Body and drank the Blood in likeness of Food Why then doth (d) L. 4. dist 11. Lit. f. Peter Lombard put the Question Quare sub duplice specie sumitur why is the Sacrament taken in both kinds Was it thus in the Thirteenth Century when the (e) Apud Chesn f. 5. Franc. p. 840. Deam of Meaux with his Monks administred the body and the blood of Christ to the Souldiers of Charles King of Sicily when (f) Contra Gentiles l. 4. c. 61. Provide in quibusdam Eccelsiis observatur ut populo sumendus sanguis non detur In 3. part qu. 80. Ar. 12. Thomas Aquinas saith That the Sacrament of the Body is delivered to us apart under the Species of Bread and the blood under the Species of Wine and elsewhere confesseth That this custom of Communicating under both kinds was still observed in some Churches When a Council held at (g) Solis enim celebrantibus sanguinem sub specie vini consecrati sumere in hujusmodi minoribus Eeclesiis est concessum Concil Tom. 11. Part. 1. p. 1159. Lambeth A. D. 1281. saith That only the Celebrators in lesser Churches were permitted to drink the blood under the Species of consecrated Wine clearly insinuating That in some Churches all drank of it when lastly (h) Sum. de Sacram. Euch. dist 3. Tr. 2. c. 5. Albertus Magnus saith That under one Species we deliver the Body under the other the Blood. Was it thus in the Fourteenth Century when saith Nicolaus (i) In 1 Cor. 11. Lyra the Sacrament is given under the double Species of Bread and Wine when (k) Vid. Cassand de utraque specie p. 1036. Petrus de Palude expresly saith That in his Age it was the Custom in many Churches to communicate under both Species And (l) Id. Liturg. p. 77. Guilielmus de monte Laudano That in many places they communicated with Bread and Wine that is with an entire Sacrament Was it thus in the beginning of the Fifteenth Century that very Century in which the Council of Constance forbad both Species Why then doth (m) Calixt de Com. sub utraque specie p. 110. Fervendus Bishop of Lucca say That in many Churches or Monasteries either by Privilege or Custom not the Conficient only but others did communicate under both Species And why doth Francis King of France declare A. D. 1535. That (n) Patrum memoria dicebat distributum fuisse per Galliam quibuslibet integram coenam non quidem in medio Templo sed in Sacellis hocillum a nonnullis accepisse Grandi aetate qui ritum istum in Galliis fuisse confirment ante centum viginti annos Sleidar Comment l. p. p. 243. Cassand de utraquc Specie p. 1037. in the Memory of his Ancestors the entire Supper was throughout France distributed to whosoever would have it not indeed in the middle of the Temple but in the Chapels and that he received this from some Ancient Men who affirmed that it was not 120. Years since the Custom was so in France Now take 120 Years from 1535 and there remains 1415 which is the very Year in which the Council of Constance debarred the Laity of the Cup. And what is now become of those many Ages in which the People Communicated not but in that manner that is under one Species only And what just matter of admiration is it that Men of Learning should with such confidence assert what may so plainly be disproved And that even General Councils should be so little to be credited in what they do so considently say and lay as the Foundation of their Definitions and Decrees CHAP. VII The Contents The Doctrine of Concomitance is confuted 1. from the words of the Institution §. 1. 2dly From Reason viz. 1. Because according to this Doctrine the depriving of the Laity of the Cup must be depriving them of whole Christ and all his Benefits §. 2. 2dly Because Christ's Institution according to this Doctrine must be the Institution of a thing directly contrary to the Law of Moses §. 3. Concomitance frees not the Romanist from the Imputation of an half Sacrament though it doth from the Imputation of giving half Christ §. 4. It is contrary to the received Customs of the Church of Christ v.g. 1. to the Custom of putting a piece of the consecrated Bread into the Cup and saying Fiat commixtio Corporis sanguinis Domini 2dly To the Custom of mixing the Bread and Wine when they communicated Infants or persons extreamly sick and so not able to swallow the Bread dry that they might truly say The Body and the Blood of Christ profit thee c. 3dly To their constant Custom of speaking of the Body and the Blood of Christ as two Sacraments 4ly To that distinct effect they attribute unto the several Species 5ly To their saying that the Body is given under the one the Blood under the other Species 6ly To the Decrees of Leo and Gelasius §. 5. Mr. Condom's vain attempt to prove Concomitance considered and found to be a farther Evidence that the Church of Christ for a Thousand Years knew nothing of it §. 6. MOreover the better to conceal this Sacrilegious Defalcation of the Cup Concil Const Sess 13. Basil Sess
it to be received of all that were fitted for and capable to receive it and in it said unto them Drink ye all of this 2. This appears farther from the Reason annexed to the Receiving of the Sacrament by Christ's Apostles for since that Reason equally concerns all Believers capable and fitted to Receive it the Institution must concern them all Now the reason why Christ said to his Apostles Take and eat what I have broken is by himself declared to be this because it was his Body broken or his Body given for them take it saith Christ this is my Body given for you this therefore being the Reason why they were to take and eat and this Reason concerning all Believers capable and fitted to receive it as much as the Apostles and succeeding Priests the Institution or command to take and eat must equally concern them This Argument transferred unto the Cup runs thus The Reason of the Participating of the Cup viz. because it is the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for the Remission of Sins doth concern Laicks as well as Priests his Blood being equally shed for both therefore the Command Drink ye all of this to which the Reason is annexed concerns them also Again another Reason why Christ said to his Apostles Eat this Bread and drink this Cup was that by so doing they might remember his death his Body broken and his blood shed for them saith St. Luke and shew it forth till his second coming saith St. Paul. Now this as St. Paul clearly shews in his discourse to the Corinthians and all the World believes as well concerneth all Believers as it doth Priests and therefore the drinking of the Cup by which as well as eating of the Bread this Commemoration is by our Lord's Institution to be made must equally concern them A Second Argument to prove that Lay-men by virtue of Christ's Institution have a right to and are obliged to Receive this Cup of Blessing is taken from these words of the Evangelist St. Mark Chap. xiv 23. And taking the Cup giving thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it For here the Evangelist informs us That All the Apostles drank of this Cup and I presume they did it because our Saviour gave it to them for that end for to what other end it should be given them the Roman Doctors have not yet inform'd us Now hence it follows that Lay-men also have a right to be partakers of the Cup for the Apostles were then Lay-men they being afterwards made Priests by our Lord's saying Joh. xx 22. after his Resurrection As my Father hath sent me so send I you receive the Holy Ghost For as our Saviour saith Joh. vij 39. The Holy Ghost was not yet given because Jesus was not glorified or risen from the dead I know the Roman Doctors Syn. Trid. Sess 22. cap. 1. and J. L. from the Trent Council teach That the Apostles were made Priests when Christ said Do this and that then he gave them the Chalice as Representatives of the Clergy not of the People But 1. Let it be considered how unlikely it is that Christ should at one time institute Two Sacraments as they esteem them viz. that of Ordination and the Eucharist and yet speak nothing of the Use or the Reason or the Benefit or the Necessity of one of them nor tell them that he did so nor explicate the Mystery nor distinguish the Rite or the Words though the nature of these Sacraments being so extreamly different required these things but that he should leave all this to be supposed by the most improbable construction in the World. 2. If the Apostles were made Priests by Hoc facite Do this spoken before the Institution of the Chalice then must Judas also be made a Priest by Christ for that he also did receive the Sacrament is extreamly evident from these words of Luke Luk. xxij 20 21. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood but behold the Hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table And 3. If the Apostles were made Priests by our Lord's saying Do this then were they doubly Consecrated and the Character of Priests was twice imprinted on them which contradicts the common tenet of all Christians that the Sacrament of Orders is not to be reiterated and the peculiar Tenet of the Church of Rome Concil Trid. Sess 7. Can. 9. That Sacraments which impress a Character must not be reiterated The reason of the Consequence is plain because as the Apostle witnesses our Lord said 1 Cor. xi 24 25. Do this both after the giving of the Bread and after the giving of the Cup. 4. Had the Apostles been made Priests by our Lord 's speaking of these words to them yet being not Conficients they had no right to receive it as Priests more than the Laity for the fore-mentioned Councils have determined That Clerks being not Conficients are by no Divine Right obliged to Receive under both Species There being then no difference betwixt them and the Laity in reference to this matter since All the Apostles drank of this Cup why should not the Laity do so too A Third Argument to prove that Lay-men by virtue of Christ's Institution are obliged to receive the Cup of Blessing is taken from the Recapitulation of our Lord's Institution by St. Paul who doth expresly teach us That our Lord Jesus 1 Cor. xi 25. in the same Night in which he was betrayed took the Cup saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Now in the Three Evangelists no such words are expressly to be found nor any thing like them spoken at the distribution of the Cup unless these words Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament that is shed for many for the Remission of Sins be of like import with the words of St. Paul. Since therefore the Apostle doth expresly teach That our Lord used these words at his last Supper and that he received them from the Lord as words which he had spoken then what remains but they virtually are the same with those recorded by St. Matthew and then they must also be a Command obliging all to drink of this Cup as being the Memorial of the Blood of the New Testament shed for them and therefore to be drunk by all in the remembrance of the Blood shed for them as often as they did present themselves to Celebrate that Holy Mystery I say obliging all that are capable when they present themselves before God to Celebrate the memory of his precious Death and his Blood shed for their Redemption to drink of that Cup which is the Memorial and Symbol of his Blood shed for them For sure the means which Christ appointed for such an end ought to be used by all who are obliged to pursue that end Since therefore all Christians are obliged Sacramentally
in Joh. p. 112 113. or hearkening to her Councils and Instructions by eating and by drinking of them Thus Wisdom cryeth in the Streets saith Solomon Come eat of my Bread and drink of my Wine that I have mingled Prov. ix 5. that is Go in the way of understanding v. 6. Eat you that which is good and let your Soul delight it self in Fatness that is Isa lv 2. Incline your Ear hear and your Soul shall live And by the Son of Syrach Wisdom is introduced speaking thus They that eat me shall yet be hungry and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty Ecclus xxiv 21. i. e. He that obeys me v. 22. Hence Philo the Jew informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Joh. vi v. 51. to eat is a Symbol of Spiritual nourishment Add to this that of Mr. Leightfoot That the Talmudists make frequent mention of eating the Messiah and thereby understand only their being made partakers of his Benefits And that of Clemens of Alexandria upon that passage of St. Paul I have fed you with Milk Strom. l. 5. p. 579. and not with strong Meat viz. Milk is the rudiments of Faith or the Doctrines of the Catechism the first nourishment of the Soul strong meat a comtemplation which makes us to discern the divine power and essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Contemplations are the Flesh and Blood of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meat and drink of the divine Word is the knowledge of the divine Essence Thirdly Observe that from these Metaphors our Lord proceeds to that contained in these words objected by the Roman Doctors v. 51. The Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World that is It is my Body which I will give up unto death that by it the world may have life which is a greater Benefit exceedingly than that which you received from that Manna which Moses gave you in the Wilderness or from that meat with which I did so lately fill your Bodies The Jews taking these words in a gross sence as if our Lord had promised to give his real Flesh to be swallowed down their Throats and eaten by them as they had eaten Bread the day before and as their fore Fathers had eaten Manna in the Wilderness exclaimed against him as promising a thing absurd inhumane and imposible saying How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat to this our Saviour Answers v. 53. in words still more expressive of his violent and bloody Death for the salvation of Mankind viz. Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood c. Now these words are by some conceived to import thus much Vnless you with the Mouth of your Bodies do eat my real and corporeal Flesh and drink my proper Blood you cannot have eternal Life Having premised these Observations I shall now proceed to shew both from this Chapter and from other Reasons that our Lord spake not here of oral and corporeal eating of his natural Flesh and drinking of his proper Blood but only of doing of these things spiritually and that not only in the celebration of that Sacrament which by our Lord was Instituted for the remembrance of his Death and Passion but generally believing that by his Death and Passion he became the Saviour of the World and purchased Pardon and Salvation for all that heartily believed in him and would sincerely yield Obedience to his precepts And 1. Against the gross and for the spiritual Interpretation of these words I argue from the 51. v. thus The Flesh which Christ here promised to give for the Life of the World is the same with the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. for so we learn expresly from these words I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh that I will give for the Life of the World. And again having said He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life v. 54. and he that eateth me shall live by me v. 57. he adds immediately This is the Bread which came down from Heaven and he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Now our Lord hath expresly taught us that the eating of this Bread of Life imported only our believing on him v. 35. as hath already been made evident from our second Observation therefore the eating of his Flesh doth certainly import the same spiritual Action Moreover we are only to eat of Christ as Flesh in that importance of the Phrase in which we are to eat of Christ as Bread for as Christ saith he will give Flesh to eat so doth he say he will give Bread to eat as he saith He that eateth of my Flesh shall live for ever so he saith He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever but none can say that Christ was or could properly be Bread or eaten by the Mouth as such wherefore he being only figuratively and spiritually Bread could only figuratively and spiritually be eaten as Bread if therefore in the same importance only we are to eat his Flesh that also is to be eaten in a spiritual Sence 2. From these words v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat 't is evident the Jews conceived that our Lord promised to give them his proper Flesh to eat and swallow down their Throats as they had done the Bread with which he fed them And it on all hands is agreed that they mistook the sence of Christ's words and fansied such a meaning of them as he did not intend but had our Lord intended the corporeal eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood 't is certain that it must be swallowed down their Throats as properly as was the Bread which they had eaten and therefore no Man who maintaineth this corporeal eating of Christ's Flesh to be intended here can suitably to his Opinion say That they imposed a false sence upon our Saviour's words since from this sence it does inevitably follow that Christ intended that his humane Flesh should properly be eaten and their words signifie no more Add to this one Consideration which shews what apprehensions the Fathers of the first Three Centuries had of this eating of the Flesh of Christ viz. when 't was objected to them by the Heathens that they did eat Man's Flesh they constantly in their Apologies reject the accusation as the vilest calumny and as a most abominable thing sufficient to discover that the Author of such an institution must be some wicked Damon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Christians saith Apol. 2. p. 70. 1. 50. Justin Martyr do not own the eating of humane flesh it is an infamous thing and falsly is reported of us This is saith Ad Authol l. 3. p. 119 126. Theophilus the most wicked and inhumane of
Forms of Communicating the Sick used in the Ancient Liturgies of the Church and from the Canons which concern this Affair For after the Vnction of the infirm Person it was the Custom to give him the Communion and that he received in both kinds is evident from the words of the Priest who ministred the Sacrament viz. Corpus sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam zeternam Amen The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Life eternal And from the following Prayer viz. Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens aeterne Deus te fideliter deprecamur ut accipienti huic fratri nostro famulo tuo Sacro-sanctum Corpus sanguinem Jesu Christi filii tui Domini noftri tum Corporis animae sit salus Ex Theodori Poeniten p. 326. Father omnipotent eternal God we faithfully pray thee that the Holy Body and Blood of our Lord received by our Brother thy Servant may tend to the Salvation of his Body and Soul. Apud Larroq Hist Euch. p. 135 136. Hugh Menard tells us from a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims That when the sacrament was ministred to such as were not extream ill it was said unto them separately the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you to Life everlasting which words make a separate and distinct reception But as for those who were at the point of Death these two Expressions were joined together The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting Life because there was given to the Sick Person in a Spoon the Body of our Lord steeped in the Holy Blood. The reason of this steeping we learn from the Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi ut veraciter Presbyter possit dicere infirmo corpus sanguis Domini proficiat tibi in vitam aeternam De Discip Eccles l. 1. can 70. Canon of the Council of Tours cited by Regino That every Priest shall have his Pyx or Vessel worthy of so great a Sacrament where the Body of our Lord shall be carefully reserved for the Viaticum of the Sick and that this sacred Oblation ought to be steeped in the Blood of Christ that the Priest may truly say to the Infirm The Body and the Blood of our Lord profit thee to Life eternal and for the Remission of Sins Now this practice and the reason of the practice here assigned and approved of do expresly shew their Faith was this That the Priest could not name them both without a Lye unless he gave both and that they who enjoined that what Christ had instituted to be received separately should rather be received together than that either Species should not be received at all did think both Species necessary to a full and entire Communion as it hath been well noted by Cassander For to what purpose should hey so carefully require this intinction if they had then believed that there was nothing wanting to the Grace or the integrity of the Communion when they received under one Species alone And though this be abundantly sufficient to shew what was the practice of the Church till the 12th Century yet it is easie to produce farther evidence of this matter A Synod held in the Region of Ticinum and therefore stiled Synodus Regio Ticinensis thus Decrees That Si is qui infirmatur publicae poenitentiae mancipatus est non potest hujus myfterii consequi medicinam nisi prius reconciliatione percepta communionem corporis sanguinis Christi meruerit Concil Tom. 8. p. 64. if who is infirm is in a state of Penance he cannot have the benefit of this Mystery viz. of Sacred Unction unless being first reconciled he be worthy of the Communion of the Body and the Blood of Christ And mongst the things which visibly and wholesomly are done in the Church In perceptione corporis sanguinis ejus infirmis Viaticum dari L. 1. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 7. fol. 18. b. Algerus mentioneth the giving the Body and Blood of our Lord for the Viaticum of the Sick In the 13th Century L. 3. contr Albing cap. 7. Lucas Pishop of Tuy informs us of an Heretick who being Sick was admonished by his Host to send for a Priest and discourse with him as a Penitent that he might receive from him Sanctissimum Sacramentum corporis fanguinis Domini the most holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Now all these Instances do plainly shew that it was far from being a received and authorized Custom of the Church to Communicate the Sick under the Species of Bread alone or to give nothing to them but one Species only On the contrary it is extreamly evident from all the Canons of the Church produced touching the case of Penitents and others that it was a thing established by the highest Authority of the whole Church of Christ that both the holy Mysteries should be exhibited to the infirm and dying Person And seeing the Ancients looked upon it as so great a benefit to dying Persons to be refreshed with the food of the Body and the Blood of Christ since they took so much care to give the Bread steeped in the consecrated Wine to them who through infirmity of Body could not sallow it down dry and to minister each Species apart to them who were not extream ill since as De Discipl eccles l. 1. c. 195. Regino doth inform us they determined that great care was to be taken least the doing this being deferr'd too long it should prove to the destruction of the Soul our Lord having said unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you I say from all these things it is extreamly evident that it was a receied and in subjects capable was deemed a necessary thing to communicate the infirm and dying person under both Species of Bread and Wine Moreover § 6. that Children also if capable of doing so received in both kinds will be evident against the precarious Assertion of J.L. 1. From the clear Testimony of St. Cyprian in his Book De Lapsis for there he introduceth the Children who by their Parents were carried to eat things offered to Idols or to offer to them thus pleading of their Cause to God Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus perdidit nos aliena perfidia parentes senfimus parricidas p. 125. We have done nothing nor did we of our own accords leaving the Meat and Cup of the Lord hasten to these prophane contagious Solemnities our Parents were our Parricides Where he affords us a plain demonstration that they then ordinarily received both the Elements for had they not as many as were capable received the Bread as well as the Cup why doth he introduce them
which we drink of Worthily is not needful to conferr Life Salvation or spiritual Blessing on the worthy Receiver of it That in all the Liturgies of the Ancient Church they should pray constantly that they who worthily Received this Cup might be filled thereby with all spiritual Benediction and heavenly Grace that in their Discourses on this Subject they should exhort the People after they had received the Bread to drink this Cup for their Sanctification for the remission of Sins for the obtaining Life and tell them it was necessary to be drunk of for all the ends here mentioned and yet believe it was not needful to conferr Grace and spiritualy Blessings on them And 4ly This they do generally prove from the Fifth Century by that known passage of our Lord Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no Life in you (u) Tom. 1. p. 580. Tom. 2. p. 431. St. Basil is express unto this purpose saying That the Baptized person ought to be nourished with the food of Eternal Life and that the communication of the Body and Blood of Christ is necessary to Eternal Life And proving both from these words Verily I say unto you except you eat c. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life St. Chrysostom upon this Text speaks thus Because they had said before it was impossible to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. p. 748. He here shews not only that it is not impossible but that it is very necessary and therefore introduceth these words He that eateth my flesh c. He continually speaks of the Mysteries shewing the necessity of the thing and that it always ought to be done Against the Pelagians saith P. Gelasius (y) Dominus Jesus contra Pelagianos coelefti voce pronunciat Qui non manducaverit c. Ubi utique neminem videmus exemptum nec ausus est aliquis dicere parvulum sine hoc Sacramento salutari ad aeternam vitam posse produci Ep. vniv Episc per Nicaenum Concil Tom. 4. p. 1177 1178. our Lord pronounceth that he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him where we see none exempt nor dares any say that an Infant can obtain Eternal Life without this Sacrament It is not only said Except a Man be born again of Water c. but unelss He eat and drink c. and that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life St. Austin Asserts above Twenty times the absolute necessity that Infants should partake of Christ's Body and drink his Blood by reason of these words (z) Omnino parvulorum salvator est Christus omnino nisi ab illo redimantur peribunt quum sine carne ejus sanguine vitam habere non possunt hoc sensit hoc credidit hoc didicit hoc docuit Joannes Tom. 7. l. 1. contra Jul. Pelag. ed. Frob. p. 949. Christ saith he is altogether the Saviour of Infants and unless they be redeemed by him they will utterly perish seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life This St. John thought and believed learned and taught And again (a) An dicente Christo Si non manducaveritis c. dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine isto Sacramento finiisset hanc vitam Ibid. l. 3. c. 1. p 991. d. 992. a. when Christ saith Vnless you eat his Flesh and drink his Blood you have no life in you can I say the Child can have Life who ends his Life without that Sacrament And a third time He having said Vnless you eat c. and he that eats my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life (b) Quo igitur vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqua spiritu Sancto non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Where the Marginal Note is Eucharistia parvulis sub utraque specie Tom. 7. contr Pelag. Hypognost c. 5. p. 1405. b. c. How is it that you Pelagians promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit not fed with the Flesh of Christ nor having drunk of his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins Behold he that is not Baptized and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words he more expresly tells us saying (c) Dominum audiamus non quidem hoc de Sacramento sancti lavacri dicentem sed de Sacra mento sacrae mensae suae quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit Nisi manducaveritis c. Tom. 7. l. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 19. p. 666. Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism N. B. but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table to which none comes who is not rightly Baptized Except you eat and drink c. What do we farther seek for Dares any Body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children or that they can have Life in themselves without the Participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ But he that saith this doth not attend that if that Sentence comprehends not all so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ those of Riper Years are not obliged to regard it And to refer you to the (d) Vide Dallaeum de Cult Latin. l. 5. cap. 3. Margin for the rest his Conclusion is this (e) Siergo ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinant nec salus nec vita aeterna fine baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra fine his promittitur parvulis Lib. 1. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 24. p. 670. If then so many divine Testimonies accord in saying That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of our Lord they art in vain promised to Children without them Now here it is to be admired that Men of Sence and of Integrity should say St. Austin speaks all this of such a participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as may be had in Baptism when he not only speaks in divers of these places first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord but sometimes of this Sacrament by way of distinction from that of Baptism sometimes of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table and of that eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body And when this Text from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century was by the Fathers still interpreted of the Lord's Supper and Children were admitted to that Sacrament and to the drinking
of the Cup on that account Isidore Peleusiota in the same Age extolling the Sacerdotal Order saith That by their means we are regenerated (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. Ep. 52. and made partakers of the divine Mysteries without which no Man can attain the Heavenly rewards as is apparent from the Heavenly Oracles now saying That unless a Man be born again c. and anon Vnless we eat c. we have no life in us Which Argument he seems to have borrowed from St. Chrysostom who saith (g) Hom. 3. de Sacerd. tom 6. p. 16. l. 38. If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who is not born again of Water c. If he that doth not eat the Flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood is deprived of Eternal Life and all these things are not otherwise communicated but by the Hands of the Priest who can without these Men avoid the Fire of Hell or enjoy the Crowns laid up in Heaven Amphilochius saith (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Vit. Basil c. 17. p. 221. It is impossible that any one should be saved unless he be regenerated by Baptism and made partaker of the Life-giving Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ (i) De Ecclesiast Officiis l. 1. de Sacrificio c. 18. Isidore Hispalensis cites and approves that passage of (k) Timendum est ne dum qui abstentus seperatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso vel dicente Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem ejus non habebitis vitam in vobis Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Et Raban Maur. de institut Cler. l. 1. c. 31. St. Cyprian in his Treatise on the Lord's Prayer It is to be feared least any one being long separated from the Body of Christ should be far from Salvation Christ having said Vnless you eat c. Hincmarus Remensis saith That Christ spoke those words of his Body and Blood inviting his Servants to his Table that l Locutus est nobis de corpore sanguine suo commendans talem escam talem potum Nisi manducaveritis c. haec sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur Tom. 2. p. 92. this and Baptism are the Sacraments of the Church without which we cannot enter into true Life (m) Habet vitam aeternam hanc ergo non habet qui istum panem non manducat nec istum sanguinem bibit nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt aeternam vero omnino non possunt August Tract 26. in Joh. p. 229. Sinc isto cibo potu Raban M. de instit Cler. l. 1.31 Rabanus speaks thus The Truth saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed Men may have temporal Life without this Meat and Drink eternal they can never have Which Words he borrowed from St. Austin's Comment on the Sixth of John. Regino cites this passage from the Capitulars of Charles the Great That (n) De Eccl. discipl l. 1. can 195. great discretion is to be used as to the Receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ for care is to be taken least being deferred too long it tend to the Destruction of the Soul our Lord having said Vnless you eat c. (o) Quasi quodam jurejurando protestatur dicens Amen Amen c. Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 1007. Humbert in his Disputation against the Greeks saith That Christ restified with an Oath that without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had saying Verily I say unto you except c. The Flesh is taken by it self saith Lanfranck and the Blood by it self not without a certain Mystery though in another Sence whole Christ is said to be eaten viz. By spiritual desire of eternal Life and Meditation of his Passion (p) Utraque comestio necessaria utraque fructuosa altera indiget alterius ut boni aliquid operetur hinc in Evangelio legitur nisi manducaveritis c. De Sacr. Euch. p. 126 127. both these Comestions are necessary for hence it is read in the Gospel that unless we eat c. (q) Comment in 6. Joh. Rupertus Tuitiensis saith That least any Man should think he hath recovered by Faith alone the Life of his Body and Soul without the visible meat and drink of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently needs not the Sacrament Christ repeats the same thing again touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood by this undoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly believe whosoever despiseth to eat and to drink for although thou be a Faithful Man and profess thy self to be a Catholick if thou refusest to eat of this visible Meat and Drink even by this that thou presumest that this Meat and Drink is not necessary to thee thou cuttest thy self off from the Society of the Members of Christ which is the Church § 4 Now if that sence which the constant interpretation of the Fathers hath put upon these words from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century be owned by Romanists the consequence is unavoidable that it is necessary to Salvation to receive the Sacrament under both kinds for they who do receive the Body only may be said well to eat the Flesh of Christ because they take something by way of Meat but they cannot be said to drink his Blood as here our Lord requireth them to do since they take nothing by way of drink The privation of Life is here connected with the neglect of Drinking as much as with the neglect of Eating since therefore eating the drinking are distinct Actions he cannot properly be said to drink who only eats and therefore must neglect what by the Fathers descants on these Words is necessary to life eternal Moreover since on this sole account they constantly did minister the Cup to little Children as Roman Catholicks confess they ministred both the Bread and Cup to Children capable of receiving both as the Church History attests it follows that they held it necessary to Salvation in conformity to these Sayings of our Lord recorded by St. John that both should be received by all Christians capable of taking both Species And therefore in condemning this Doctrine Sess 21. can 4. and that with an Anathema the Fathers of the Trent Council must have virtually Anathematized the whole Church of Christ for Nine whole Centuries and by renouncing of this Interpretation so generally received the Doctors of the Roman Church must at least seem to us to violate that Oath Jaramentum professionis fidei a Pio 4. editum which they have taken never to interpret or own any sence of Scripture Nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers CHAP. IV. The Contents In opposition to that Determination of the Trent Council That a true or an