as Gregory de Valentia owns they must This Worship saies he belongs after a certain manner to the species as when the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is worshipt in the humanity which he assumed the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity Pertinet per accidens suo quodam modo ea veneratio ad Species quemadmodum suo modo etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus cultus ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario neque in hoc est aliqua Idololatria must be also united to Christ Valentia Disput 6. Quaest 11. de ritu oblat Eucharist the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity so as to become with that one entire object of Worship as the Species are according to them with Christ in the Eucharist that is they must become one suppositum or one Person with Christ This is so weighty a difficulty as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not only sweat but sink under it Valentia a De Idol l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjunction the Species have with Christ but denies their being hypostatically united to him but then how are they to be worshipt Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Creatures yet they are not to be worshipt notwithstanding that presence because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him or are not hypostatically united to him Bellarmine being pincht on this side removes the burden to t'other that is as sore and can as little bear it Christ says he b Longe aliter est Christus in Eucharistia in aliis rebus Deus Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum Suppositum est idque Divinum caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent cum illo unum quid faciunt licet non eodem modo Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist than God is in other things for in the Eucharist there is but one only suppositum and that Divine all other things there present belong to and make one thing with that If they do so then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ as T. G's learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place if they make but one suppositum with him and but one with him let it be in what manner it will they must be hypostatically united to him Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo tho not after the same manner is both unintelligible and will not at all help the matter 't is only a Confession from him that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ and make one suppositum with him and one object of Worship that he does not know how this can be and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so for this is no way imposed upon him as T. G. saies notwithstanding his non eodem modo If in the Incarnation of Christ one should say That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity but that both were not united after the same manner but the Soul in such a manner as being a Spirit and the Body in another yet so that both made but one Suppositum with it and that Divine and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that and made one with that tho not after the same manner would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Divinity and his Soul and Body and so must the other be between Christs Divinity and his Body and the Species if they make one Suppositum and are as they hold to be worshipt as such Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine and state the Case with some exactness tho I am sensible with too much length but that is the way to shorten the Controversie and by this means I have cut off their common retreats and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to and in which they are wont to Earth themselves As that they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear witness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with Christ as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of Christ for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whether it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito
separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and slain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with all the wounds he received in his body the total effusion of his blood ‖ Ib. Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded and his bloud as thus poured out in this mystical Table and why must Concomitancy joyn those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided Christ's body and bloud we say ought to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration Is Christ then divided P. 310. is his body then despoiled of bloud and blood actually separated from the body ought Christ to die often and often to shed his blood A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it Why do they then make this separation of his body and bloud when they consecrate it if that be onely mystical and representative so is it in our reception much better for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and bloud as they do to consecrate them but onely his mystical body and bloud which is always to conserve this figure of Death and the character of a Victim not onely when it is consecrated but when it is eaten and drunk which it cannot otherwise be 'T is this errour of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildred and entangled themselves in this matter and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament they have run themselves into endless difficulties and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given without being thus explained Surely so wise a Law-Giver as our blessed Saviour would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easie to be understood by them it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself and as they are necessary to be observed by us that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by This practice must begin some where and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it antecedent to their own practice There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law and not the Law the Rule of Practice and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away if they are left wholly to the mercy of men to explain them For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meaux's must not be admitted without some caution and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law it self and from the divine Institution of them as I have all along shewn in this Treatise It would have been a great reflection upon the Church if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ though so plain and express a Law ought neither to loose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ as Communion in one kind and I have therefore fully shewn that its Practice has always agreed with this Law in opposition to de Meaux who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to and founded upon the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ ought to take place and is antecedent both to the Churches Practice and the Churches Authority As to Tradition which was the main thing which de Meaux appealed to I have joyned issue with him in that point and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that but there is another more considerable plea which is prior to Tradition and which as de Meaux owns †P. 201. Is the necessary ground work of it and that is Scripture or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture which is so plain and manifest that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case onely I would set it in its right place and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition but Tradition upon the Law of Christ and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases with this reasonable Proviso That it does not interprete us out of a plain Law nor make void any Command of God that may be known
at Prayers upon their Knees or that the Papists worship the Priest himself before whom they Kneel in their Confessions or that on Ashwednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them and on Palm-sunday the holy Boughs which they do not pretend to do because they Kneel when they are given them as well as that we Worship the Eucharist or the Mystical Elements when we receive them Kneeling and disavow any such thing and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ Or to Worship the Body of Christ tho not for it self yet for the sake of the Divine Nature to which it is always hypostatically united No by no means I know no Hereticks tho they denied Christs Divinity but yet were for Worshipping him the old Arrians and the late Socinians but how justifiably when they believe him but a meer man or only a more excellent Creature they and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend and to clear it if they can of Idolatry As to the Worship of the Flesh tho Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles as St. Cyrill and the Council of Ephesus argue against him nor could the Ebionites nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old yet I know none but some of their School-men dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ which however it be in our minds is never in truth abstracted from his Divinity But we will not at all trouble our selves with those parts of the Science of controversie nor shall we stand upon any of those things Well then why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament if they are proper Objects of Adorations No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacrament in the Sacrament of Baptism too and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion wherein we pray to Christ and Kneel before him and exercise the devout acts of the mind toward him put our trust and hope in him and expect Salvation from him and devote our selves in all Subjection to him and bow both our Souls and our Bodies and give all both internal and external Worship to him this Adoration we give to Christ who is God blessed for ever and who sits at the right hand of God the Father And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament to the Host and the consecrated Elements the most Sovereign and Absolute and highest Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God whose creatures those Elements are or to Christ himself who commanded us to receive them in remembrance of him But it is only Christ say they whom we Worship in the Sacrament whom we adore as being present there with his Body in the Host and not the Host or the Sacrament it self so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter or at least colour and disguise it Bellarmine a Lib. 4. de Eucharist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae when he had entangled himself with the distinctions of Worshipping the Sacrament whether formally or materially would extricate himself by thus stating the matter and reducing it to this question Whether Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist And St. Clara b St. Clara Deus Natura Gratia p. 308. Nota bene non dicit Concilium Tridentinum Sacramentum sed Christum in Sacramento latria adorandum would reconcile the dispute with this Observation Nota benè Mark this the Council of Trent does not say that the Sacrament is to be adored but Christ in the Sacrament I wonder so great a man as Cassander c Adoratio non ad exterius signune quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interius creditur referenda Cassand Consult de Adorat Euchar. should say Unless with a design to condemn the thing That the Adoration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen but is to be referr'd to the thing it self and to that which is truly and inwardly believed But Reconcilers who will attempt the vain project of Accommodation must do with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as Apelles did with Antigonus his face they must draw but one part but half of it that so they may Artificially conceal its deformed and its blind side That all these do so I shall show by stating the Controversie carefully and truly which is the chiefest thing in this dispute for they love to hide their own Doctrines as much as they can and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door to slip out at privately and upon occasion The Council of Trent has in this as in other things used art and not spoke out in one place as it does in another that so we may mistake half its words for its full meaning as Bellarmine and others were willing to do or at least to have others do so In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only says a Concil Trident. Can. 6. De Euchar. si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum Vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be accursed Who will not say in those general words that Christ is to be adored with outward and inward Worship both not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but of Baptism too and in every Christian Office and in every Prayer and solemn Invocation of him either publick or private But they mean a great deal more than all this by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament and in as plain words they say b Ib. 13. Sess c. 5. That the Sacrament it self is to be adored that whatever it be which is something besides Christ even according to them which is placed in the Patin and upon the Altar which the Priest holds in his hands and lifts up to be seen this very thing is to be adored There is no doubt says the Council c Ib. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae custum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhibeant neque enim minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum but that all faithful Christians according to the custom always received in the Catholick Church ought to give Supreme and Sovereign Worship which is due to God himself to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it for it is never the less to be adored tho it was instituted of Christ to be received That which is to be received which is to
the Church of Rome generally demurs to that we shall not fear to allow them to bring all the Fathers they can for their Witnesses in this matter and we shall not in the least decline their Testimony Boileau Musters up a great many some of which are wholly impertinent and insignisicant to the matter in hand and none of them speak home to the business he brings them for He was to prove that they Taught that the Sacrament was to be adored as it is in the Church of Rome but they only Teach as we do That it is to be had in great reverence and respect as all other things relating to the Divine Worship that it is to be received with great Devotion both of Body and Soul and in such a Posture as is to express this A Posture of Adoration that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this Office especially as well as he is in all other Offices of our Religion that his Body and his Flesh which is united to his Divinity and which he offered up to his Father as a Sacrifice for all Mankind and by which we are Redeemed and which we do spiritually partake of in the Sacrament that this is to be adored by us but not as being corporally present there or that the Sacrament is to be worshipt with that or for the sake of that or that which the Priest holds up in his Hands or lyes upon the Altar is to be the Object of our Adoration but only Christ and his blessed Body which is in Heaven To these four Heads I shall reduce the Authoriâ—ies which Boileau produces for the Adoration of the Host and which seem to speak any thing to his purpose and no wonder that among so many Devout Persons that speak as great things as can be of the Sacrament and used and perswaded the greatest Devotion as is certainly our Duty in the receiving it there should be something that may seem to look that way to those who are very willing it should or that may by a little stretching be drawn further than their true and genuine meaning which was not to Worship the Sacrament it self or the consecrated Elements but either 1. To Worship Christ who is to be adored by us in all places and at all times but especially in the places set apart for his Worship and at those times we are performing them in the Church and upon the Altar in Mysteriis as St. Ambrose speaks w De Spir. St. l. 3. c. 12. in the Mysteries both of Baptism and the Lords Supper and in all the Offices of Christian Worship as Nazianzen x Orat. 11. de Gorgon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said of his Sister Gorgonia that She called upon him who is honoured upon the the Altar That Christ is to be honoured upon the Altar where we see the great and honourable work of mens Redemption as 't was performed by his Death represented to us is not at all strange if it had been another and more full word that he was to be worshipt there 't is no more than what is very allowable tho it had not been in a Rhetorical Oration 't is no more than to say That the God of Israel was worshipt upon the Jewish Altar or upon this Mountain For 't is plain She did not mean to worship the Sacrament as if that were Christ or God for She made an ointment of it and mixt it with her tears and anointed her Body with it as a Medicine to recover her Health which she did miraculously upon it Now sure 't is a very strange thing that she should use that as a Plaister which She thought to be a God but She still took it for Bread and Wine that had extraordinary Vertue in it and it is so called there by Nazianzen the Antitypes y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. of Christs Body and Blood which shews they were not thought to be the substance of it and she had all these about her and in her own keeping as many private Christians had in those times and there was no Host then upon the Altar when she worshipped Christ upon it for it was in the night z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. she went thus to the Church So St. Chrysostom a Vid. Boileau c. 7. l. 1. ex Chrysost in all the places quoted out of him only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Saviour and our coming to the Sacrament with all Humility and Reverence like humble Supplicants upon our Knees and with Tears in our Eyes and all Expressions of Sorrow for our Sins and Love and Honour to our Saviour whom we are to meet there and whom we do as it were b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c. see upon upon the Altar which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him That we do not truly see him upon the Altar the Papists must own tho they believe him there but not so as to be visible to our Senses and he is no more to be truly adored as corporally present than he is visibly present St. Ambrose c In Sermone 56 Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo says of St. Stephen that he being on Earth toucheth Christ in Heaven just as St. Chrysostom says Thou seest him on the Altar and as he and any one that will not resolve to strain an easie figurative Expression must mean not by a bodily touch or sight but by Faith d Non corporali tactu sed fide and by that we own that we see Christ there and that he is there present 2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ which tho considered without his Divinity it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria says e In actis Concil Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet as it is always united to his Divinity 't is a true object of Worship and ought to be so to us who are to expect Salvation by it f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 108. even from the Blood and the Body and Flesh of Christ and therefore as we inwardly trust in it so we ought to adore it as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion tho that be in Heaven yet we are to worship it upon Earth and especially when it is brought to our minds and thought by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it the blessed Sacrament there and in Baptism especially when we put on Christ and have his Death and Rising again represented to us and have such great benefits of his Death and Incarnation bestowed upon us in these Mysteries we are as St. Ambrose g Caro Christi quam hodie in Mysteriis adoramus Ambros l. 3. de Sp. San. c. 12. apud Boil p. 32. says to Adore the Body and the Flesh
substance of Christs Body is plain from what immediately goes before and utterly destroys what they would catch from half his words for he says That the Elements or the mystical Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own but remain in their former substance w 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Thus their best Witness that seems to speak the most for them yet speaks that against them which destroys their whole cause as he must own whoever reads the Dialogue and considers the design of it which was to answer the pretence of those who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension turned into a Divine substance and lost the true nature of Body x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are changed say those Hereticks into what they were not before Yes saies he Now ye are taken in your own net for they remain in their former nature and substance afterwards and so does Christs Body If then the change of these sacred Elements be only as to their use and vertue but not as to their substance according to Theodoret then he could not mean that they should be adored but only reverenced by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as the Holy Bible y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturg. Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Concil Ephes is said to be reverenced and the Priest themselves by the very same word z. 4. Some of the Fathers words imply that when we come to the Sacrament it should be with the greatest lowliness both of Body and Mind and as the Primitive Church used to do and as the Church of England does in a posture of Worship and Adoration in the form and manner of Worship as St. Cyril of Hieros speaks a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 5. or as St. Chrysostome In the form of Supplicants and Worshippers b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 7. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. de Phil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. in c. 10. Ep. 1. ad Cor. of Christ as the Magi were when they came to bring their presents to him do thou then present him with humility and a lowly and submissive heart and be not like Herod who pretended he would come to worship him but it was to murder him but rather imitate the Magi and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour than they did This is the whole design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom c Boil c. 7. l 1. And this is the plain meaning of Origen d Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur tu ergo humilians teipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum menm that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament we should do it with all Humility for consider says he That then the Lord enters under thy roof do thou therefore humble thy self and imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence looking upon and e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom in Serm. 31. in natal Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Johan Hieros apud Chrysost apud Boil p. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Ibid. adoring his Saviour who died for him upon the Cross prostrating his Soul and his Body before him and exercising the highest acts of Devotion to him and with Tears in his Eyes and Sorrow in his heart standing like a Penitent before him trembling and afraid as sensible of his own guilt with his Eyes cast down and with dejected Looks considering that he is but Dust and Ashes who is vouchsafed to this Honour and inwardly Groaning and Sighing and Panting in his Soul saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof and the like And thus they may find all devout Communicants in our Church behaving themselves during the whole Solemnity and Celebration of that blessed Sacrament in which Mystery they always adore Christ and that Flesh of Christ which was crucified for then as St. Ambrose and St. Austin speak when their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout Affections and they are performing all the inward and outward Acts of the highest Devotion to God and their Saviour then they are upon their Knees offering up most ardent Prayers and Thanksgivings but not to the sacred Symbols which are before them or the Sacrament it self as the object to which but as the Circumstance at and in which all this Devotion and Worship is performed And there is a great deal of difference from all this in the Church of Rome when they direct all this to the Sacrament it self and to the consecrated Elements when they terminate their Worship upon what is before them and direct their Intentions to that as an Object and therefore whenever they have this Object appear to them they immediately fall down and worship it not only in the time of the Communion when it finds them at their Devotion but at all other times when they are standing or walking in the Streets and are in no present Temper or Posture of Devotion yet all of a sudden as soon as they see the Host coming by they must put themselves into one and Adore that very Object that appears to them The Fathers always speak of Persons as coming to the Sacrament and partaking of it and worshipping Christ and the Body of Christ in the Celebration of those Divine Mysteries but it never enter'd into their minds or thoughts to perswade or encourage their hearers in their most devout Discourses to Adore the Host as the Church of Rome does either in or especially out of the time of that sacred Solemnity and tho it be very easie to make a Book out of the Fathers and to heap Authorities out of them to little purpose yet it is imposible to prove by all the places produced out of them by T. G. f Chap. 1. Of the Adoration of the blessed Sacrament or more largely by Boileau that they meant any more than what we are very willing to joyn with them in that Christ is to be worshipt in the Sacrament as in Baptism and the other Offices of our Religion and that his Body and Flesh which he offered for us and by which we expect Salvation is also to be adored as being always united to his Divine Nature and that the Sacrament it self as representing the great Mystery of our Redemption is to be highly reverenced by us and that we should come to receive it with all Humility and in the most decent Posture of Worship and Adoration as the Primitive Christians did But that the Sacrament it self is to be adored as
be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest for since they have made a God of the Sacrament they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it nor take it into their hands and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament this is now to serve for another use to be adored as a God and it would be as true heresie in the Church of Rome not to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored as not to say that Christ himself is to be adored But what according to them is this Sacrament It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine and the natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration which they call Sacramentum for Christs body without those Species and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine would not according to them be a Sacrament they being the outward and visible part are according to their Schoolmen properly and strictly called the Sacramentum and the other the res Sacramenti Lombard sentâ—li 4. dist 19. and to this external part of the Sacrament as well as to the internal they give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration to these remaining Species which be they what they will are but Creatures religious Worship is given together with Christs Body and they with that are the whole formal Object of their Adoration Non solum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adorari says Suarez a In Th. Quaest 79. disp quia est unum constans ex Christo Speciebus Not only Christ but the whole visible Sacrament which must be something besides Christs invisible Body is to be adored with one and the same Worship because it is one thing or one Object consisting of Christ and the Species So another of their learned men b Henriquez Moral l. 8. c. 32. Speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist because of Christ whom they contain Now Christ whom they contain must be something else than the Species that contain him Let him be present never so truly and substantially in the Sacrament or under the Species he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present and as subtil as they are and as thin and subtil as these Species are they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them and they can never be left out but must be part of the whole which is to be adored totum illud quod simul adoratur de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. as Bellarmine calls it must include these as well as Christs Body Adorationem saies Bellarmine a Bellarmine de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. ad Symbola etiam panis vini pertinere ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent Adoration belongs even to the Symbols of Bread and Wine as they are apprehended to be one with Christ whom they contain and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him and may be Worshipt together with Christ as T. G. c Cathol no Idolaters p. 268. owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary and are the very term of Adoration as Gregory de Valentia d De Idol l. 2. c. 5. says who further adds that they who think this Worship does not at all belong to the Species in that heretically oppose the perpetual customand fence of the Church Qui censeunt nullo modo ad Species ipsus eam Venerationem pertinere in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum sensum Ecclesiae de Venerati one Sacram. ad Artic. Thom. 5. Indeed they say That these Species or Accidents are not to be Worshipt for themselves or upon their own account but because Christ is present in them and under them and so they may be Worshipt as T. G. says d Ib. with Christ in like manner as his Garments were Worshipt together with him upon Earth which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine the Magazine not only of Arguments and Authorities but of Similitudes too it seems which are to Defend that Church Quemadmodum saies he e de Euch. Venerat qui Christum in terris vestitum adorabant non ipsum solum sed etiam vestes quodam modo adorabant And are Christs Garments then to be Worshipt with Latria as well as Christ himself or as the Sacrament I think they will not say this of any of the Relicks they have of Christ or his clothes Did they who Worshipt Christ when he was upon the Earth worship his clothes too Did the Wise men worship the blankets the clouts and the swadling-cloths as well as the blessed Babe lying in the Manger Might it not as well be supposed that the People worshipt the Ass upon which Christ rode not for himself but for the sake and upon the account of Christ who was upon him as that they worshipt his clothes or his Sandals on which he trod or the Garments which he wore Bellarmines quodammodo adorabant shews his heart misgave him and that he was sensible the Similitude would not do when he used it but T. G. is a man of more heart and courage or front at least and he found the cause was in great need of it and so he saies boldly without any trembling quodammodo that they worshipt his Garments The humane Nature it self of Christ considered alone and being a meer Creature is not an object of Worship as St. Augustin saies a St. Aug. Serm. 58. De verbis Dom. Si natura Deus non est filius sed Creatura nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus Adorandus Ego Dominicam carnem imo perfectam in Christo humanitatem propterea adoro quod a divinitate suscepta atque Deitati unita est Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo ut Photinus vel Paulus Samosatenus illi ego nunquam credo nec servio but only as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it as to make one Person with it with God himself one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so one Object of Worship and if the Sacramental Symbols or Species are to be adored with true latria not per se or upon their own account but by reason of the intimate Union and Conjunction which they have with Christ as they say not only with Christs body for that alone is not to be worshipt much less another thing that is united to it but with Christs Person and then there must be as many Persons of Christ as there are consecrated Wafers then these Species being thus worshipt upon the same account that Christs humanity is
those Persons wholly of this who violate his Institution and who receive not both species as he has appointed and commanded team which is a very dreadful consideration which should make men afraid to dare to alter any such thing as Christ's own Institution upon which the whole vertue of the Sacraments does depend 7. 'T is from the Institution of the Sacrament that we know what belongs to the substance of it and is essential to it and what is onely circumstantial and accidental I own there were several things even at the Institution of it by Christ which were onely circumstantials as the place where the time when the number of persons to whom the posture in which he gave it for all these are plainly and in their own nature circumstantial matters so that no body can think it necessary or essential to the Sacrament that it be Celebrated in an upper Room at night after Supper onely with twelve persons and those sitting or lying upon Beds as the Jews used to do at Meals for the same thing which Christ bids them do may be done the same Sacramental Action performed in another place at another time with fewer or more persons and those otherwise postured or situated but it cannot be the same Sacrament or same Action if Bread be not blessed and eaten if Wine be not blessed and drunken as they were both then blessed by Christ and eaten and drunk by his Apostles The doing of these is not a circumstance but the very thing it self and the very substance and essence of the Sacrament for without these we do not do what Christ did whereas we may do the very same thing which he did without any of those circumstances with which he did it Thus in the other Sacrament of Baptism or washing with water whether that be done by washing the whole body in immersion or by washing a part of the Body in sprinkling is but a circumstance that is not necessary or essential to Baptism but to wash with Water is the very thing in which Baptism consists and the very substance of the Sacrament which is essential and unalterable the quantity of Water with which we wash is not no more is the quantity of Bread and Wine which we eat and drink in the Sacrament but eating Bread and drinking Wine is as essential to the Eucharist as washing with Water is to Baptism Monsieur de Meaux betrays the great weakness of his Cause and his own inability to defend it when to take off the Argument from the Institution he says * P. 168. We do not give the Lord's Supper at Table or during Supper as Jesus Christ did neither do we regard as necessary many other things which he observed And when he recurs to Baptism †P. 173. as if by not using immersion we did not observe the Institution of that Sacrament when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so plainly signifies washing with water without plunging or immerging as Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they are washed or baptized when they return from the Market they eat not and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washings of Pots and of Cups Mark 7.4.8 and in the washing of the dead and divers washings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Jews Hebrews 9.10 which were without any plunging or immerging as is sufficiently made out by all Authors against the Anabaptists A great man must be mightily put to his shifts when he is fain to use such poor cavils and such little evasions as these against a plain command and a clear Institution where to drink is as evidently commanded as to eat and where it is equally commanded to do both and where it appears that doing both those in remembrance of Christ make up the very substance and essence of what was done and commanded by him in the Institution The matter of the Sacraments is certainly of the substance of them Why else might we not Baptize without Water as well as perform the Eucharist without Bread and Wine This the Schools are unanimously agreed in and this was the Argument of St. Cyprian against the Aquarii who used Water instead of Wine of Pope Julius against other Hereticks who used Milk and of Thomas Aquinas against the Artotyritae who offered Bread and Cheese together in this Sacrament they tell them that †Excluduntur per hoc quod Christus hoc Sacramentum instituit in pane Aquinas Part 3. Quest 24. Christ Instituted this Sacrament in another Element ‖ Nulli lac sed panem tantùm calicem sub hoc Sacramento noscimus dedisse Julius P. apud Gratian de Consecr that he did not give Milk but Bread and Wine in this Sacrament and that * Admonitos nos scias ut in calice offerendo Traditio observetur neque aliquid fiat à nobis quà m quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit nemini fas est ab eo quod Christus Magister precepit gessit humanâ novellâ institutione decedere they ought to observe the Divine Tradition neither ought any thing to be done but what was first done by our Lord for it is not lawful for any by any Humane and Novel Institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did and that this was a sufficient confutation of them that they did not do that which our Lord Jesus Christ the Author and Teacher of this Sacrifice both did and Taught ‖ Non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster Sacrificis hujus Auctor Doctor fecit docuit Cypr. Ep. 63. They all suppose it necessary to use the Elements which Christ used and appointed and that because of his Institution by which it plainly appears what belongs to the Essence and Substance of this Sacrament to wit Eating of Bread and drinking Wine blessed in remembrance of Christ It must be a very strange thing sure to make these to be but circumstances in the Sacrament and to doubt whether they do belong to the substance and essence of it and to pretend that we cannot know this from the Institution Monsieur de Meaux could not have done this in earnest had he not considered the cause he was to defend more than the Institution of Christ in which no man that will not shut his eyes but must see what belongs to the Essence and Substance of the Sacrament It is no less boldness to say as Monsieur Boileau ‖ P. 191. and others do though de Meaux was too wise to offer any such thing in all his Book That Christ himself varied from his own Institution after his Resurrection and gave the Sacrament to some of the Disciples at Emmaus under the one Species of Bread. And that the Apostles after his Ascension and the sending of the Spirit upon them Celebrated the Eucharist together with the whole Multitude of Believers onely in Bread. It will be very strange if the Apostles the very first time they
believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body †Sanctificatur vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had as truely the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament though they used not those words of Consecration which the Latines now do and the Latines had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues in which as Strabo says they used the old simple manner of Communion as much as on any other days De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration or else he must own this to be a true one The Roman Order says not onely the Wine is Consecrated which it does in more places then one but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated so that the people may be confirmed by it ‖ Vt ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum Ord. Rom. a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration that he says * Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis vini consecrat vinum non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit Hittorp He who according to the order of that Book Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine does not observe the Tradition of the Church of which Innocent speaks that on these two days Friday and Saturday before Easter no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated So that he complains of it because such a Consecration is used on that day The Author of the Book of Divine Offices under the name of Alcuinus †De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem Alcuini lib. de Off. div p. 253. Ib. makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion but says expresly that the Vnconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same in the place produced before that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter ‖ C. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ oratione Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plenè possit communicare quod utique superflao praeciperet si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur that the Wine is Consecrated on that day so that the people might fully Communicate to shew that it would not have been sufficient as he thinks to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept and I suppose he was of de Meaux's mind that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it even from one day to the next but he is so far from Communion in one kind that in that very Chapter against Intinction he mentions Pope Julius his Decree * Julias Papa huiusmodi intinctionem penitus probibet seorsùm panem seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem sumenda docet which forbids that and commands the Bread to be given by it self and the Wine by it self according to Christ's Institution and likewise the Decree of Gelasius †Vnde beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico à calicis participatione se abstinerent nam ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Ib. Microlog in these words He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup And he asserts says he in the same Decree that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind for it is plain this Communion was in both and it was the belief of the Church and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century when Corruptions were come to a great height that the Communion on that day was full and entire as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that and held to be so by the opinion of them all The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church will afford as little assistance if not much less to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist which is a Religious Feast of Joy upon those days which they appoint to Fasting Mortification and Sadness and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays on which they do not fast and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presanctified The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested as de Meaux says seeing it appears not in the sixth Age as he would have it but in the seventh whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very
viro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit Ib. reprehending those who presumed upon pardon to be obtained by Baptism without repentance and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus determines That the form of Baptism by aspersion is as good and valid as by immersion and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purifications †Aspergam super vos aquam mundam Ezech. 36.25 non erit mundus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19 Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9 unde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere Cypr Ep. 96. Edit Oxon. which were onely by sprinkling It is not the manner of washing nor the quantity or the sort of Water but onely washing with Water which is essential to Baptism and unalterable and so it is not the sort of Bread or Wine or the manner of receiving them that is essential to the Eucharist but the receiving both of them is because they are both commanded and instituted and both of them are the matter of that Sacrament as much as Water is of Baptism in a word without those we cannot do what Christ did and commanded to be done though we may without the other circumstances with which he did them which I think is a very plain way to distinguish the one from the other though de Meaux is so unwilling to see it The second principle of de Meaux is That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of a Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of that Sacrament But must we regard nothing else must we not regard the outward part as well as the inward and does not that appertain to the substance of a Sacrament as well as the other I confess the word substance which de Meaux uses is equivocal and ambiguous for it may signifie either the outward part of it as 't is a sacred sign or symbol and so the matter and form does appertain to the substance or essence of it or it may signifie the inward grace and vertue which is also of the substance of the Sacrament as 't is the thing signified and it is not onely one but both of these that do appertain to the substance of the Sacrament or to speak more clearly and plainly that make it a Sacrament If de Meaux understands nothing else by the substance of the Sacrament but the essential effect of it then his words are confused and run together and he had as good have put it thus That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the essential effect of the Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of the Sacrament Which though it had not been sense yet he had better told us his meaning by it but surely there is something else that does plainly belong to the substance of the Sacrament besides the essential effect 't is strange that de Meaux the Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age as he is stiled by the Translator but who like the Oracles of old too often doubles and equivocates that so great a man should not either understand or consider the plain nature of a Sacrament so as to account the external and visible part to belong to the essence or substance of it as well as the internal or the essential effect Does not every Catechism tell us that the Sacrament is made up of these two parts of the Res Terrena and Caelestis as Irenaeus * L. 4. calls it the Esca Corporalis and Spiritualis as St. Ambrose †De Myst the Sacramentum or outward Sign and Res Sacramenti as St. Austin ‖ De Consecdist 2. and must we not have regard to both these without which we destroy the very nature of a Sacrament as well as to one The very essence or substance if de Meaux pleases of the Sacrament of Baptism lies in the outward washing the body with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the outward form of it without which it was declared null as well as in the cleansing the Soul and we must regard the one as well as the other * 1 Pet. 3.21 though St. Peter tells us It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh whereby baptism saveth us but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Yet still we are to observe the outward ceremony and may know by another way namely from the Institution that that does appertain to the substance of it else with the Quakers and Socinians we may leave off all Sacraments and all the positive and outward ceremonies of Christianity and onely regard the essential effect and invisible grace of them which they also pretend to have without the visible sign As washing with water does appertain to the substance of Baptism so does eating Bread and drinking Wine appertain to the substance of the Eucharist and we must regard those which are the true matter of this Sacrament as well as the essential effect of it else how were the Aquarii that used Water and others that used Milk reproved so severely by St. Cyprian and Pope Julius if the keeping to the outward Elements which Christ has instituted and appointed be not as well to be regarded as the inward and essential effect and if these do not appertain to the substance of the Sacrament and could not be easily known and distinguisht from the other circumstances of the Sacrament by other means than by regard to the essential effect which they might hope to partake of without them De Meaux is so wholly taken up with the essential Effect and entire Fruit and the inseparable Grace of the Sacrament with which words he hopes to blind and amuse his Reader and therefore he drops them almost in half the Pages of his Book that he takes not due care nor is much concerned about the outward and visible part of the Sacrament which he knows is so grosly violated and shamefully mangled and mutilated in his Church and yet this is so considerable that 't is not a true Sacrament without it and Gelasius plainly calls the dividing of the outward part of the Sacrament the dividing of the Mystery and to be plain with him and to give the killing blow to his cause and to all the artifical slights with which he fences and defends it and as he speaks For once to stop the mouth of these Cavillers I shall lay down this principle that the essential effect or inward substance of the Sacrament is not ordinarily to be received or partaken without receiving and partaking the external part or the outward substance of it which is instituted and appointed by Christ And by this plain principle which I have made use of before and shall further strengthen and confirm all that he says about receiving the Grace and Vertue and essential Effect of the Sacrament by one
the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing †P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened †P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and
themselves upon the Sabbath on which they were commanded so strictly to rest it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable and not any Tradition or any sentence of the Sanhedrim and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath does not reprove them for keeping it as it was commanded or otherwise than Tradition had explained it but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week this was not done by Tradition but by the Apostolical Authority and whatever obligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven it can neither be proved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now or I may adde if they were that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law. All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up are very short of proving that and though I have examined every one of them except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead which is both false and to no purpose yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down If any instance could be found by de Meaux or others of any Tradition or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution and to a plain Law of God they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ‖ Mar. 15.3 Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law so as to make it of none effect was truly ancient and authentic and derived to them from their fore-Fathers but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void and was contrary to a Divine Law. There is no Tradition nor no Church which has ever broke so plain a Law and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution as that which has set up Communion in One Kind the true reason why it did so was not Tradition no that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it but onely some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first the danger of spilling the Wine and the difficulty of getting it in some places and the undecency of Laymens dipping their Beards in it These were the mighty reasons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie as he calls it of Communicating in both Kinds †Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt or that men wore Beards or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance and therefore he takes very little notice of them and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine because he all along pleades for either of the Species and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament because both are commanded and both instituted and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament and so to the essence of it and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament because that is annext to both by the Institution and cannot warrantably be expected without both To conclude therefore Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament which is to represent the Death of Christ and his Blood separated from his Body a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them to wit His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us and which it is the peculiar priviledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of and lastly a robbing them of that Grace and Vertue and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part but to the whole of it and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life to be tainted and poysoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace and the Cement of Unity among all Christians and to make them all one Bread and one Body may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil be made a means to divide and separate them from each other and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve FINIS A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1. A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion 2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith being an Answer to Three Questions I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sence of Scripture II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession can teach the true
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near