required it * P. 113. And why they should not desire that as well as the other I cannot imagine the onely argument he has against it is that they could not keep it any long time But could not they keep it so long as till the next publick Communion could they not conserve the Wine in little Vessels to that purpose as well as the Bread Does Nature it self as he pretends more oppose the one than the other when we find by experience that Wine will keep much longer without corruption than Bread What a vain cavil is it therefore which begins and runs through his whole Book to make us believe that the Christians so often communicated under the species of Bread alone because the species of Wine could not be either so long or so easily reserved being too subject to alteration and Jesus Christ would not that any thing should appear to the sense in this Mystery of Faith contrary to the ordinary course of Nature †P. 9. But it is matter of fact we have now to do with and that must be made out not by slight surmises but by good testimony and whether the Christians when this custom of Domestic Communion was in use among them did not reserve and carry home both kinds the Wine as well as the Bread let us now examine Monsieur de Meaux has not one Authority that proves any thing more than that they used to reserve the Sacrament or Body of Christ which by a Synecdoche is a common phrase in Ecclesiastical Writers for the whole Eucharist and is used by Tertullian and St. Cyprian where the two Species were unquestionably used as in the Public Communion St. Basil who speaks of the Communion of Hermits and who is produced as an evidence by de Meaux that they communicated in the Deserts advises them expresly to partake of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Ep. 280. and when those Solitarys had the Communion brought to them that it was in both kinds appears from their own Cardinal Bona * Re um Lyturg l. 2. c. 18. in the relation of Zozimus an Abbot of a Monastery his carrying in a Vessel a portion of the sacred Body and Bloud of Christ to one Mary of Aegypt who had lived forty seven years in the Wilderness That those who communicated at home had both kinds sent to them appears evidently from Justin Martyr †Apolog. 2. and de Meaux owns from him That the two species 't is true were carried ‖ P. 112. but this says he was presently after they had been consecrated Not till the Public Communion was over and then also the Faithful carried away what they reserved but it does not appear that they kept them nor does it appear to the contrary but they might have kept them if they had pleased He who wrote the Life of St. Basil by the name of Amphilochius reports the story of a Jew who being got secretly among the Christians at the time of Communion communicated with them and took the Sacrament first of the Body and then of the Bloud and then took and carried away with him * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amphiloch vit Basil c. 7. some part of each of the Elements and shewed them to his Wife to confirm the truth of what he had done Monsieur de Meaux has made no objection to the credit of this Writer and no doubt had it not been usual for Christians to carry away both the Elements the Writer of that Life let him be who he will had not told so improbable a Story Gregory Nazianzen †Orat. 11. relates of his Sister Gorgonia That what her hands had treasured up of the Anti-types of the precious Body or Bloud of Christ that she mingled with her tears and anointed her self withal So that it seems her hands treasured up both the Species or Anti-types as he calls them and it is a mighty subtilty to say She did not treasure them up both together when she certainly treasured up both But if we had no such instances as these there are two such unanswerable Authorities against de Meaux his Opinion That the faithful carried home only the Bread and communicated but in one kind as are enough to make him give up this part of the Cause and those are the famous Albaspinaeus Bishop of Orleans and Cardinal Baronius two men whose skill in Antiquity is enough to weigh down whatever can be said by de Meaux or any other and whose words will go farther in the Church of Rome than most mens and they are both positive that not onely the Bread but that the Wine also was reserved and carried home by Christians in their Domestic Communions Vpon what account can they prove says Albaspinaeus ‖ Sed quo tandem pacto probare poterunt Laicis Eucharistiam sub specie panis domum portare licuisse sub vini non licuisse Albaspin Observat 4. l. 1. that it was lawful for Laics to carry home the Eucharist under the Species of Bread and not under the Species of Wine Consider says Baronius * Hic Lector considera quà m procul abhorreant à Patrum Traditione usuque Ecclesiae Catholicae qui nostro tempore Heretici negant asservandam esse Sacratissimam Eucharistiam quam videmus non sub specie panis tantum sed sub specie vini olim consuevisse recondi Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. to his Reader how the Hereticks of our time differ from the Tradition of the Fathers and the Custom of the Catholic Church who deny that the Eucharist is to be reserved when we see it used to be kept not onely in the Species of Bread but in the Species of Wine And that he meant this of private reservation as well as in the Church he goes on further to prove this keeping of both Species by the Authority of Gregory the Great who gives an account in his Dialogues of one Maximianus a Monk and others his Companions who being in a great Storm and Tempest at Sea and in great danger of their Lives they took the Sacrament which they had carried with them and in both kinds received the Body and Bloud of their Redeemer †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Dialog Graecè l. 3. c. 36. But to this says Monsieur de Meaux To shew the faithful had kept the two Species in their Vessel from Rome to Constantinople it ought before to have been certain that there was no Priest in this Vessel or that Maximian of whom St. Gregory speaks in this place was none though he was the Superiour of a Monastery But Gregory speaks not a word of any Priest being there and Maximian might be no Priest though he were Superiour of a Monastery for they and the Monks were often no Priests but if a Priest had been there it had been unlawful for him according to the Principles of the Roman Church to
without it I have therefore prevented de Meaux in all he brings for Tradition and the Practice of the Church unless he will lay so great stress upon that as to make it null and supersede a divine Law nor am I at all concerned in all the instances he brings for it out of the Old and New Testament ‖ § V. §. VI. unless he can bring one to prove that either the Jewish Synagogue or the Christian Church did ever make void a Divine Law by a contrary Practice and Tradition of their own I can never allow any Church to have a power and Authority to do this and I am willing to allow it all Authority that is kept within those bounds It was boldly and openly done indeed by the Council of Constance when it owned That Christ instituted the Sacrament and administred it to his Disciples under both kinds * Licet Christus post caenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit subutrāque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum Et similitèr quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à sidelibus sub utrâque specie Concil Constant Sess 11. and that the faithful received it under both kinds in the Primitive Church Yet to command it under one by its own power and authority and by its own Prerogative to give a Non obstante to Christ's Institution this was done like those that had a sufficient plenitude of power and were resolved to let the World see they had so and that Christ's own Institution was to give way to it they had not then found out the more sly and shifting subtilties that Christ gave the Cup to his Disciples onely as Priests and made them Priests just after the giving them the Bread this was a late invention found out since that Council by some more timerous and wary Sophisters who were afraid of setting up the Churches Power against a Divine Institution neither did they then offer to justifie the Communion in one kind by the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church as de Meaux and others have done since but they plainly gave up this and onely made a late Custom which was afterwards introduced to become a Law by vertue of their present Power notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church to the contrary Here the Case truly lies though de Meaux is willing to go off from it there must be a power in the Church to void a Divine Institution and to null a Law of Christ which can be no other than an Antichristian power in the strictest sense which may by the same reason take away all the positive Laws of Christianity or else Communion in one kind is not to be maintained and this power must be in a particular present Church in opposition to the Primitive and the Universal or else this Communion is not to be maintained in the Church of Rome De Meaux must be driven to defend that post which he seems to have quitted and deserted or else he can never defend this half-Communion which is contrary as I have proved and as the Council of Constance owns to the Institution of Christ and to the Practice of the Primitive Church The new Out-work he has raised from Tradition in which he puts all the forces of his Book and the main strength of his Cause this I have not beat down or destroyed but taken from him and his cause can never hold out upon his own principles of Tradition and the Practice of the Church which is a very strong battery against it as I have largely shewn so that all that he says for Tradition is in vain and to no purpose since this Tradition he pleades for is utterly against him and if it were never so much for him yet no Tradition can take away a Divine Law. He seems to own and I think he dare not expresly deny that what is essential to the Sacraments or belongs to the substance of them cannot be taken away by Tradition or the Power of the Church but he utterly destroys this by making onely Tradition and the Practice of the Church to determine what is thus essential to the Sacraments for if nothing be essential but what is made so by them and may be known by them then they have a power to make or to alter even the very essentials of the Sacraments which are hereby made wholly to depend upon the Church and Tradition We are willing to own that nothing is unalterable in the Sacraments but what is essential to them and that all other indifferent things belonging to them may be altered by the Church or by Tradition but then we say that what is essential is fixt and known by the Institution and by a Divine Law antecedent to Tradition and if it were not so then there were nothing essential in the Sacraments at all but all would be indifferent and all would depend upon Tradition and the Churches Power and then to what purpose is it to say That the Church has power onely in the Accidentals and may alter whatever is not essential or belongs not to the substance of the Sacraments this onely shews that they are ashamed to speak out and they dare not but grant with one hand that which they are forced to take away with another they dare not openly say That the Church has power over the essentials of the Sacraments but yet they say That there are no essentials but what are made and declared to be so by the Church So the streight they are in obliges them in effect to revoke their own concessions and Truth makes them say that which their Cause forces them to unsay again and they are put upon those things in their own necessary defence which amount in the whole to a contradiction If the Bishop of Meaux can shew us that any Divine Institution was ever altered by the Jewish or Christian Church or any Law of God relating to Practice and Ceremony was ever taken away by a contrary Practice and Tradition then he says something to the purpose of Communion in one kind but if the many Instances which he brings for Tradition out of the Old and New Testament do none of them do this they are then useless and insufficient they fall short of what they ought to prove and come not up to the question in hand but are wholly vain and insignificant and to shew they are so I shall reduce them to these following heads 1. They chiefly relate to the Churches Power in appointing and determining several things which are left indifferent and undetermined by the Law of God and here we acknowledge the Church to have a proper Power and that it may oblige even in Conscience to many things to which we are not obliged by the Law of God and may determine many things for the sake of Peace and Uniformity in Divine Worship which are not so precisely determined by
The Three Grand CORRVPTIONS of the Eucharist THE THREE GRAND CORRVPTIONS OF The Eucharist IN THE CHURCH of ROME VIZ. The Adoration of the Host The Communion in one kind The Sacrifice of the Mass In Three Discourses LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST As it is Taught and Practiced in the CHURCH of ROME Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1685. right Charge of the Church of England of which no honest man can be a Member and a Minister who does not make and believe it I might give several Instances to shew this but shall only mention one wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion in which are these remarkable words It is hereby declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Ware there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Here it most plainly declares its mind against that which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration if they do remain as we and all Protestants hold even the Lutherans then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements they worship meer Creatures and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry as I shall show by and by and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood be not corporally present there neither with the Substance nor Signs of the Elements then the Adoring what is there must be the Adoring some things else than Christs body and if Bread only be there and they adore that which is there they must surely adore the Bread it self in the opinion of our Church but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it and declared that to be false and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration and it continued of the same mind and exprest it as particularly and directly in the Canons of 1640 where it says a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonies That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass all Popish Altars were demolisht so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point than our Church has done It recommends at the same time but with great Temper and Moderation the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist and in it and in neither a Ib. Cans 7. 1640. Vpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table or in the mystical Elements but only to give outward and bodily as well as inward Worship to the Divine Majesty and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling b Rubric at Communion in a posture of Adoration as the Primitive Church used to do with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaks c Cyril Hierosolym Catech. Mystag 5. and as I shall shew is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to but at the Sacrament so far are we from any unbecoming or irreverent usage of that Mystery as Bellarmine d Controv. de Eucharist when he is angry with those who will not Worship it tells them out of Optatus that the Donatists gave it to Dogs and out of Victor Vticensis that the Arrians trod it under their Feet that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body as is used by them in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire or into the Air or Water to stop a Tempest or Inundation or keep themselves from drowning or any the like mischeif to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions 'T is out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful and Abuse and so gross an Idolatry We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God and are set apart to his Worship and Service to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell and to be more immediately present to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated to the Holy Vessels that are always used in those Administrations to the Holy Bible which is the Word of God and the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is his Body and the New Testament in his Blood to the Font which is the Laver of Regeneration wherein we put on Christ as well as we eat him in the Eucharist and if we would strain things and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these it would go as far and look as like to adoring them as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament as I shall afterwards make appear in Answer to what the a Jacob. Boileau Paris De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist has culled or rather raked together out of the Fathers It seems from that Declaration of our Church that some were either so silly or so spiteful as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere b Boil p. 145. outwardly Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as outwardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are
Jacobi as it is in the Church of England and I hope Boileau will not pretend that this is to the Holy Table it self If whatever we worship before is the very Object of our Worship then the Priest is so as well as the Table but it is neither he nor the Table nor the Sacrament but only Christ himself to whom this Worship is or ought to be given at the Celebration of the Eucharist and therefore this Adoration was as well before as after the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements and so could not be supposed to be given to them 3. There were several very ancient Customs relating to the Sacrament which are no ways consistent with the Opinion the Papists have of it now and with the worship of it as a God. It was very old and very usual for Christians to reserve and keep by them some of the Elements the Bread especially which they had received at the Sacrament as is evident from Tertullian n De Orat. c. 14. Accepto â—orpore Domini reservato and from St. Cyprian o De Lapsis who reports a very stronge think that happened to a Woman and also to a Man who had unduly gone to the Sacrament and brought some part of it home with them I shall not enquire whither this Custom had not something of Superstition in it whither in those times of Danger and Persecution it were not of use but had the Church then thought of it as the Papists do now they would not have suffered private Christians to have done this nay they would not have suffered them hardly to have toucht and handled that which they had believed to be a God no more than the Church of Rome will now which is so far from allowing this private Reservation of the Elements that out of profound Veneration as they pretend to them they wholly deny one part of them the Cup to the Laity and the other part the Bread they will not as the primitive Church put into their hands but the Priest must inject it into their Mouths The sending the Eucharist not only to the Sick and Infirm and to the Penitents who were this way to be admitted to the Communion of the Church in articulo mortis as is plain from the known Story of Serapion p Euseb Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 34. but the Bishops of several Churches sending it to one another as a token and pledg of their Communion with each other and q Iren. apud Euseb l. 5. c. 24. it being sent also to private Christians who lived remote in the Country and private Places which custom was abolisht by the Council of Laodicea these all show that tho the Christians always thought the Sacrament a Symbol of Love and Friendship and Communion with the Church so that by partaking of this one Bread they were all made as St. Paul says One Bread and one Body yet they could not think this to be a God or the very natural Body of their Saviour which they sent thus commonly up and down without that Pomp and Solemnity that is now used in the Church of Rome and without which I own it is not fit a Deity should be treated But above all what can they think of those who anciently used to burn the Elements that remained after the Communion as Hesychius r In Levit. 8.32 testifies was the custom of the Church of Hierusalem according to the Law of Moses in Leviticus of burning what remain'd of the Flesh of the Sacrifice that was not eaten but however this was done out of some respect that what was thus sacred might not otherwise be profaned yet they could not sure account that to be a God or to be the very natural and substantial Body of Christ which they thus burnt and threw into the Fire So great an honour and regard had the Primitive Church for the Sacrament that as they accounted it the highest Mystery and Solemnest part of their Worship so they would not admit any of the Penitents who had been guilty of any great and notorious Sin nor the Catechumens nor the Possest and Energumeni so much as to the sight of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Participation of this Mystery used always in those times to go together as Cassander Å¿ Consult de Circumgest Sacram. owns and Albaspinaeus t L'ancienne Police de l'Eglise sur l'administration de l'Eucharistie liure prem Chap. 15 16 17. proves in his Book of the Eucharist And therefore as it is plainly contrary to the Primitive practice to carry the Sacrament up and down and expose it to the Eyes of all Persons so the reason of doing it that it may be worshipt by all and that those who do not partake of it may yet adore it was it is plain never thought of in the primitive Church for then they would have seen and worshipped it tho they had not thought fit that they should have partaken of it But he that will see how widely the Church of Rome differs from the ancient Church in this and other matters relating to the Eucharist let him read the learned Dallee his two Books of the Object of religious Worship I shall now give an Answer to the Authorities which they produce out of the Fathers and which Monsieur Boileau has he tells us been a whole year a gleaning out of them v Annuae vellicationis litirariae ratiocinium reddo Praef. ad Lect. Boileau de Adorat Euchar. if he has not rather pickt from the Sheaves of Bellarmine and Perrone But all their Evidences out of Antiquity as they are produced by him and bound up together in one Bundle in his Book I shall Examine and Answer too I doubt not in a much less time They are the only Argument he pretends to for this Adoration and when Scripture and all other Reasons fail them as they generally do then they fly to the Fathers as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the open Field fly to the Woods or the Mountains where they know but very few can follow them I take it to be sufficient that in any necessary Article of Faith or Essential part of Christian Worship which this of the Sacrament must be if it be any part at all it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us or that the Scripture is silent and speaks of no more than what we own and admit In other external and indifferent Matters relating meerly to the Circumstances of Worship the Church may for outward Order and Decency appoint what the Scripture does not But as to what we are to believe and what we are to Worship the most positive Argument from any humane Authority is of no weight where there is but a Negative from Scripture But we have such a due regard to Antiquity and are so well assured of our cause were it to be tryed only by that and not by Scripture which
and to the belief of Lies as most Idolaters generally were but may it please him who is the God of Truth to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived in this or any other matter in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church which is much better than Cursing and Anathematizing its Adversaries I hope as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THere are several mistakes of the Press but most of them are so Plain and Obvious that it is hoped that every Reader will immediately see and correct them without any trouble and without any particular account of them Five Sermons of Contentment one of Patience and one of Resignation to the Will of God By Isaac Barrow D. D. late Master of Trinity Colledg in Cambridg Never Published before in Octavo Printed for Brabazon Aylmer Licensed Aug. 3. 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind IN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OF THE BISHOP of MEAVX's OF Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVII AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE of the Publisher THe Translatour of the Bishop of Meaux's Book of Communion under both Species having told us why he made choice of this Author whom he stiles The Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age and in brief to speak all in a word the Great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Having thus brought forth this great Champion of the Roman Church he makes a plain Challenge with him to us of the Church of England in these words If this Author write Reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted By this I perceived he expected that we should be so civil as to take notice of so great a Man as the Bishop of Meaux or any thing that bears his Name and not let it pass unregarded by us after it was for our benefit as he tells us made English and besides I did not know but some unwary persons among us might believe the reason he writes however bad and therefore I thought he deserved to be confuted and ought by no means to go without the civility and complement of an English Answer This I doubt not might have been very well spared had the Publisher been pleased to have gone on a little further with his Work of Translating and obliged us who are strangers to the French Tongue with one of those Answers which are made to de Meaux's Book in that Language but since he has not thought fit to do that I must desire him to accept of such Entertainment as our Country will afford him though it is something hard that we must not only treat our Friends at home but have as many Strangers as they please put upon us But we who cannot Translate so well as others which is a much easier part than to Write at ones own charge must beg leave of our French Adversaries if we sometimes speak to them in plain English and the Bishop of Meaux must excuse me if Truth has sometimes made me otherwise answer him then if I were a Curé in his own Diocess Whoever has so great an opinion of the Bishop of Meaux's Vertue and Learning as to take matter of Fact upon his word which the Translatour's mighty Commendations were designed no doubt to beget in his Reader must believe the Communion in One Kind was the Practice of the Primitive and the Catholic Church which if it were true would be a very great if not sufficient excuse for the Roman This the Bishop asserts with all the confidence in the World and this his Book is designed to make out and whoever will not believe it must necessarily question either the Learning of this great Man or else his Sincerity I shall not dare to do the former but his late Pastoral Letter has given too much reason to suspect the latter He that can now tell the World That there has been no Persecution in France and that none has suffered violence either in their Persons or their Estates there for their Religion may be allowed to say That the Primitive Church had the Communion but in one Kind a great while ago But the one of these matters of Fact deserves more I think to be confuted than the other I suppose it was for the sake of the Author that the Translatour chose this subject of Communion in One kind though he says It is a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants this being the main Stone of Offence and Rock of Scandal and it having been always regarded since the Reformation as a mighty eye-sore and alledged as one sufficient Cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the Pre-existent Church of Rome When this Pre-existent Church of Rome fell into her Corrupt Terrestrial and Vnchristian State among other Corruptions this was one that gave just offence and was together with many more the Cause of our separating from it That it gave the Eucharist but in one kind contrary to Christ's Institution and took away the Cup of Christ's precious Bloud from the People But yet this point of highest concern is in the judgement of the Translatour but a bare Ceremony and upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman seems to him reducible in great measure to meer Form and Ceremony If it be then I hope it may be easily compromized and agreed for I assure him I am as little as he for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the Spirit of those who tear Christ's seamless Garment for a meer Form and Ceremony but we who are sometimes thought fit to be called Heretics and to be Censured and Anathematized as differing in Essential matters from the Church of Rome at other times are made such good Friends to it that we differ but very little and there is nothing but Form and Ceremony between us But what is to Accomodate this matter and Reconcile this difference between the two Churches Why the Doctrine of the Real Presence in which Both Churches he says agree that Christ our Saviour is truly really wholly yea and substantially present in the Sacrament This is to close up the difference not onely of Communion in one kind but of the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Mass too in the Translatour's judgement But does the Church of England then agree with the Roman in the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body and Bloud in the Sacrament Does it not expresly say the contrary namely That the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here and that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one * Rubric after Office
communicant etiam de sangine Casand Lyturg. Reliquis omnibus nationibus Christiani nominis ut Graecis Ruthenis Armeniis Aethiopibus priscum institutum porrigendi populo sanguinis in hunc usque diem retinentibus Id. Dialog But we need not call in any other Churches to vouch for the universal and primitive practice of the Communion in both kinds We have in the last place 6. The most learned of our Adversaries who cannot but confess this and therefore are forced to take other measures to defend themselves and their cause namely by the Authority of the present Church and not by the Tradition or Practice of the Primitive as de Meaux vainly attempts to do which they freely give up and acknowledge to be contrary to the Communion as it is now practiced in one kind Cassander has fully and plainly declared his mind in a particular Treatise on this Subject among his Works printed at Paris and in his Dialogue which was put out by Calixtus not being among his other Works in his Consultation and in his Lyturgics Concerning the administration says he of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is sufficiently known that the Vniversal Church of Christ to this very day and the Western or Roman for above a thousand years after Christ did exhibit both the Species of Bread and Wine to all the members of the Church of Christ especially in the solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament which appears from innumerable testimones both of ancient Greek and Latine Writers †De administratione sacrosancti Sacramenti Eucharistiae satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mille ampliùs à Christo annis in solenni presertim ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoriis manifestum est Cassandri Consultatio de utrà que specie Sacramenti In his Dialogue speaking against those who pretended that the use of either one or both kinds was indifferent and who indeavoured to make this out by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Church which is the way which de Meaux takes he thus seriously and heartily gives his judgement I have searcht says he ‖ Equidem haud oscitanter veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem perscrutatus sum attento aequoque animo torum scripta qui hoc argumentum tractarunt legisse rationes quibus indifferentem eum morem probare nituntur expendisse profiteor neque tamen firmam ullam demonstrationem quae non apertissimè refelli possit reperire hactenus potui quamvis id vehementèr exoptassem quin multae firmissimae rationes suppetunt quae contrarium evincunt G. Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 6. and that not slightly the Custom of the ancient Church and I profess I have read the Writings of those who have handled this argument with an attent and impartial mind and have weighed the reasons by which they endeavour to prove this indifferent Custom but neither could I yet find any firm proof which could not be most plainly refuted although I most earnestly desired it but there remain many and those the most strong Reasons which do evince the contrary And because de Meaux pretends that there are some instances of public Communion in the Church in one kind I will add one other testimony of that great man who after the strictest search and enquiry into every thing in Antiquity that could be brought to colour any such thing thus determines Wherefore I do not think that it can be shewn that for a whole thousand years and more that this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was ever administred from the Lord's Table in the holy Communion to the faithful people in any part of the Catholic Church otherwise than under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine * Quare nec puto demonstrari totis mille amplius annis in ullâ Catholicae Ecclesiae parte Sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramentum alitèr in sacrâ synaxi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli populo quam sub utroque panis vini symbolo administratum fuisse Id. de Sac. Com. sub utraque specie p. 1027. Wicelius another Divine of great learning and judgement agrees fully with Cassander It is confest that the holy Sumption from the Ecclesiastic Altar was equally common to all Christians for Salvation through all the times of the New Testament †Et in confesso sumptionem sanctam de altari Ecclesiastico aequè omnibus Christianis communem extitisse ad salutem per omnia novi testamenti tempora Vicel via Reg. tit de utr Specie by which he means of the Christian Church as appears by what immediately follows It is a little obliterated indeed among us of the Western Church and separated from a promiscuous use for some reasons but not wholly blotted out and destroyed * Obliteratam quidem paulisper apud nos Occidentales ab usu promiscuo semotam suas ob causas at non deletam omninò atque exstinctam Ib. For it was then granted to some as to the Bohemians Of this thing that is of the Holy Sumption common to all Christians Since we are †Ejusce rei cum nube quodam certissimorum testium septi sumus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amplectimur omni excluso dubio Ib. encompast with a cloud of most certain witnesses we embrace this as a most sure thing without any doubt And therefore in his Account of Abuses he reckons that of the Communion in one kind ‖ Id. Elench abus But lest these two men though their learning and credit be unquestionable should be thought through their great temper and moderation to have yielded more in this cause than others of that Communion I shall shew that the same has been done by others who cannot be suspected to have granted more than the meer force of Truth extorted from them Thomas Aquinas who was the first man that proposed that question to be disputed Whether it were lawful to take the Body of Christ without the Bloud * Vtrum liceat sumere corpus Christi sine sauguine Th. Aquin. Sum. pars 3 qu. 80. art 12. And who first tells us That it was the use of many Churches so to do †Multarum Ecclesiarum usus in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum non autem sanguis Ib. though Bonaventure his contemporary who died the same year mentions nothing of it he in his Comment upon the Sixth of St. John where he says It was observed not in many but in some Churches that for fear of effusion the Priest alone Communicated of the Blood and the rest of the Body ‖ Propter periculum effusionis in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicet sanguine reliqui
vero corpore Id. in Johan 6. freely owns that according to the custom of the ancient Church all persons as they communicated of the Body so they communicated also of the Bloud * Dicendum quod secundum antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpori ita communicabant sanguini Ib. and this he addes is as yet also observed in some Churches †Quod etiam adhuc in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur Ib. Which shews that this half-Communion was not univerfally brought into the Latine Church in the thirteenth Century Salmeron the Jesuit says We ingenuously and openly confess which ingenuity it were to be wisht Monsieur de Meaux had had that it was the general custom to communicate the Laics under both species ‖ Ingenui aperti consitemur morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicos sub utraque specie Salmeron Tract 35. Cardinal Bona upon this subject owns * Certum quippe est omnes passim Clericos Laicos viros mulieres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumsisse cum solenni eorum celebrationi aderant consentiunt omnes tam Catholici quam sectarii nec eam negare potest qui vel levissimâ rerum Ecclesiasticarum notitiâ imbutus sit semper enim Vbique ab Ecclesiae primordiis usque ad saeculum duodecimum sub specie panis vini communicarunt fideles Bona rer Lyturg. l. 2. c. 18. That it is certain that Clergymen every-where and Laics men and women did anciently receive the holy Mysteries under both kinds when they were present at the solemn Celebration of them In this says he all both Catholics and Sectaries agree neither can any one deny it who is endued with the least knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Affairs for at all times and in all places from the first beginnings of the Church even to the twelfth Age the faithful communicated under the species of Bread and Wine Nay Bellarmine himself owns that both Christ instituted under both species and that the ancient Church ministred under both species but the multitude increasing this was found more and more inconvenient and so by degrees the custom of both kinds ceased †Nam Christus inftituit quidem sub duplici specie Ecclesia autem vetus ministrabat sub duplici specie crescente autem multitudine magìs magìs apparuit incommodum sic paulatim desiit usus sub utrâque Bellarm. l. 4. c. 4. de Euch. But when did it cease not so soon as Christians grew very numerous for that they were long before this was practiced in the most flourishing Ages of Christianity but after the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation made them grow superstitious and afraid to spill that liquor which they were taught to believe was the very substantial and natural Blood of Christ It is plain from Thomas Aquinas that it was not wholly ceased in the thirteenth Century and Valentia owns ‖ De legit usu Euch c. 10. that it was but a little before the Council of Constance It was not so much by the command of the Bishops as by the practice and use of the people it was first disused says Costor in his Enchiridion where he owns that in the time of Cyprian the people received both species * Estque boc diligentèr notandum alterius speciei Communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato quam populi usa facto introductam p 415. †Quia suô i. e. Cypriani tempore populus utramque speciem sumebat Ib. p. 421. But when the Bishops took advantage of that superstition they had taught the people and made this new Custom of theirs a Law of the Church yet in that very Council which first commanded the Communion in one kind It was owned that it used to be received of the Faithful in both in the Primitive Church ‖ Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ bujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub utrâque spscie tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula scandala est rationabilitèr introducta Concil Constant Sess 13. but to prevent some scandals and dangers which the Primitive Church it seems never thought of nor took care to avoid as the people themselves now did the Council declares this custom to be fitly brought in and so decrees it to be observed under the penalty of Excommunication The Council of Trent also acknowledges though as spairingly as may be that in the beginnings of Christian Religion the use of both kinds was not infrequent or unusual * Licet ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimè jam mutatâ illâ consuetudine de gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbavit Sess 5. Canone 2. de Doctr. why truely that which was constant was not infrequent but in the progress of time 't was a pretty long progress from the beginning of Christianity to the Thirteenth Century that custom being very widely chang'd for great and just causes such as the Lay-mens dipping their Beards in the Wine when in the Primitive times I suppose they had no Beards it approved the custom of Communicating in one kind though contrary to the custom of the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years who must yet have had the same reasons to have done it if they had been such great and just ones for there can be no other reason given now but what would have been as good five hundred or a thousand years before but they having altered the Doctrine of the Primitive Church this was a just reason to alter the practice I might adde several other confessions of their own learned men for the Primitive Practice of Communion in both kinds as Albaspinaeus de la Cerda and many others but it might be tedious to my Reader as well as my self I will conclude with one whom Monsieur de Meaux is very well acquainted with and whom he knows to be as great a Master in Antiquity and all Learning as any the French Church now has and I will beg leave to put the same words to Monsieur de Meaux †Negabitne hunc Eucharisticae sub utraque specie Communionis usum Apostolis temporibus fuisse Multisque inde saeculis apud Ecclesiam perseverasse Atqui hoc negare vel inficiari non potest nisi vel in ultimâ indoctorum vel certé in primâ imprudentium hominum classe censeri velit Petav de paenit pub c. 5. that he does to Monsieur Arnaud Will any one deny this use of the Eucharistic Communion to have been in both kinds in the times of the Apostles And that it continued in the Church many Ages after No man can deny or question this unless he be willing to be reckoned either in the last rank of unlearned or in the first of imprudent men And now having given so
The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body and the reason why they did not was some either Manichean or other Superstition so that this Decree I own was occasioned by them and particularly relates to them and shews that they herein differed from the Faithful not onely in their superstition but in the practice too but to say that he forbad this practice onely in respect of such a Superstition going along with it and that he did not forbid the Practice it self which was the effect of it is so notoriously false that the Decree relates wholly to the Practice and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was or wherein it consisted no doubt it must be some Superstition or other that hinders any from taking the Cup the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood or the superstitious belief that one Species contains both the Body and Bloud together and so conveys the whole vertue of both which is truely Superstition as having no foundation in Scripture or in the Institution of Christ which gives the Sacrament its whole vertue and and annexs it not to one but to both Species And whatever the Superstition be Gelasius declares it is Sacriledge to divide the Mystery or to take one Species without the other the reason which he gives against taking one kind is general and absolute because the Mystery cannot be divided without Sacriledge so that however our Adversaries may assoile themselves from the Superstition in Gelasius they can never get off from the Sacriledge How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark which de Meaux aims at I shall let him see from one of his own Communion whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way inferiour to his own and his honesty much greater who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit nam ex iis Manifestè constat horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâque specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fuisse Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur quod ingredientes Ecclesiam percepto cum reliquis corpore Domini à sanguine Redemptionis abstinerent nisi calix Dominici sanguinis distributue fuisset quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis pertione à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus in Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus non igitur ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontisices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos evitandos hic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censait Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant Cassand de Com. sub utrâque p. 1026. The Conjecture says he which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo and the Decrees of Gelasius does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends for from them it manifestly appears that in the time of these two Popes the Communion was onely used in both kinds for how should the Manichees be known by this mark that when they came to the Churches they abstained from the Bloud of our Redemption after they had with others taken the Body of the Lord unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed and how should they be convicted of Superstition who took a portion of the Lord's Body and abstained from the Cup unless the Cup of his sacred Bloud had been offered to all in the Church These holy Popes did not therefore as some imagine appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree but those who neglected this solemn and received custom of taking the Cup one of these Popes would have them avoided and markt as those who were a-kin to the Manichean Heresie the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament or else to be wholly kept from all Communion for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely that is in both kinds There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind than such improbable Guesses and forced Conjectures whereby plain and full evidences are rackt and tortured to get that out of them which is contrary to their whole testimony sense and meaning Let us enquire then whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact which will make it appear that the Church ever used onely one kind in its Public Communions this de Meaux attempts to shew in the last place and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his otherwise vanquisht cause He brings both the Latine and Greek Church to his assistance though the latter he owns appears not for the most part very favourable to Communion under one Species but yet this manner of Communicating is practised however and consecrated too by the Tradition of both Churches If it be but practiced in both Churches this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church though neither of those Churches singly nor both of them together do make the Catholic But let us see how this is practiced in those two great though particular Churches Why in the Office of Good-Friday in the Latine Church and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday at those times it seems these two Churches have the Communion onely in one kind as appears by their public Offices if they have it so at those times at other times then I suppose they have it in both or else how come those particular times and those particular Offices to be singled out and remarked as distinct and different from all the rest then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds according to the Tradition of both those Churches and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church is violated by the Roman But the Priest himself who officiates takes but in one kind in the Missa Parasceues as they call it or the Mass on Good-Friday as appears by the Office this custom then will shew that the Priest himself or the Minister Conficiens may receive onely in one kind in the Public Communion as well as the People which I think they ordinarily think unlawful and call it Sacriledge if he should ordinarily do so and if I
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