before they ate the Bread as before they drank the Wine If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands before those words were pronounced by our Saviour which is the most that can be yet they could not eat it before they were And so this fine and subtle Hypothesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup will deprive them of the Bread too and will in its consequence and by the same train of arguing tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the People and make it peculiar to the Priests as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar but it shall be reserved as a peculiar right and priviledge of the Priests to which the Laity ought not to pretend because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests and were made Priests fore they either ate the Bread or drank the Wine this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other Which is the great reason they themselves give and no doubt a true one for their taking away the Cup from the People and I don't question but so great a Wit and so eloquent an Artist in pleading as the Bishop of Meaux is who can say a great deal for any cause be it never so bad may with as good grounds and as great a shew of reason justifie if he please the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles receiving both kinds as Priests to prove the Laiety have a right to neither and may take off the necessity of both parts as well as one by pretending that the real effect and vertue of the Sacrament is received some other way by the Sacrifice of the Mass or by Spiritual Manducation or by some thing else without partaking any of the Symbols as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed for if the effect and vertue of the Sacrament depend upon Christs Institution then both are necessary if it may be had without keeping to that then neither is so but of this afterwards when we come to examine his grounds and reasons I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament and offer some considerations against these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries 1. I would ask them whither those words of our Saviour Do this in remembrance of me do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles if they do not then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament either in both or in one kind Where is there any command at all for Christians to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper or to observe this Christian Rite which is the peculiar mark and badge of our Profession and the most solemn part of Christian Worship Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World as they did upon the Apostles at that time or else we must say with the Socinians That the Sacrament was onely a temporary Rite that belonged onely to the Apostles and was not to continue in the Church or be observed by all Christians in all Ages But St. Paul says * 1 Cor. 11.26 we do hereby shew or declare the Lord's death till he come by this solemn way of eating Bread broken and Wine poured out we are to remember Christ who dyed for us and is gone into Heaven till he come again when we shall live with him and enjoy his Presence for ever Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this and they are to Do this in remembrance of him they are as much obliged to this as the Apostles were and the command does as much belong to the People to receive the Sacrament as to the Apostles or to their Successors to give it them The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts which is not onely to receive but to dispence and distribute the Sacrament and the People or Christian Laiety are commanded to do theirs which is to receive it The Apostles are to do that which Christ did to Bless the Bread and breake it and give it to be eaten to bless the Cup and give it to be drunk by the Communicants and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them and perform those proper parts of their Duty which are here commanded them they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain command of Christ Do this in remembrance of me No body ever denyed that those words and this command of Christ belonged to the Apostles but to say they belong to them alone and not to all Christians is to take away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper 2. This command of Christ as it obliges all Christians to receive the Sacrament the Laiety as well as the Clergy so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacrament so it obliges them to give it in both kinds for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ belongs as much to one kind as the other and is as expresly added concerning the Cup as concerning the Bread for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread Bellarmine observing these words in St. Luke to be added only after the giving of the Bread for they are in neither of the two other Evangelists falls into a mighty triumph and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devotion admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD * Mirabilis est providentia Dei in sanctis literis nam ut non haberent haeretici justam excusationem sustulit eis omnem tergiversando occasionem Nam Lucas illud Hoc facite posuit post datum Sacramentum Sub specie panis post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur Sacramentum sub specie autem vini non utrem Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 4. c. 25. that to take away all Heretical Tergiversation this should so happen that it might be plainly understood that the Wine was not to be given to all and that this command did not belong to that but onely to the Bread But this shews how over-hasty he was to catch at any thing though by the plainest mistake in the World that might help him in his straights and how over-glad to find any thing that might seem to favour and relieve him in his
onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio at Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much-artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de precepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and-in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26,27,28 JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Mark 14.22,23,24 JESUS took bread and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it And he said unto them This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many Luke 22.19,20 And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the cup after supper saying This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you 1 Corinthians 11.23,24,25 The LORD JESUS the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in
suppose think they were not to drink with him too and that he was not to provide Wine as well as other Victuals neither did Joseph's own Brethren suspect he would send them away dry and thirsty when they onely heard that they should eat bread there v 25. Notwithstanding this alone is mentioned yet they met with plenty of Wine too as may be seen at the latter end of the Chapter where in the vulgar Latin it is said Biberunt inebriati sunt cum eo The Greeks thought Wine and Drinking so considerable a part of the Feast that they called the whole from that one part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet when they thus drank together at their Entertainments they did no doubt eat too though if we will as strictly insist upon the phrase and not allow a Synecdoche here as well as in the Jewish one of breaking or eating Bread we must make their Feasts to be all of Liquids and the other all of Solids But the phrase is so clear and so usual that nothing could make men deny its being so but their being willing to stick to any thing however weak and little it be that seems in the least to favour a bad cause which is forced to call in the help of a Phrase used in a short History and that against its usual meaning to combat with a plain Command and clear Institution I would only ask these Gentlemen and Monsi Boileau with whom I am especially concerned whither he does not think the first Christians when they met together to break Bread allowing thereby it was to receive the Sacrament did not also at the same time feast together at their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether those were not joyned with the Sacrament and whethese also are not meant here and included in their breaking of Bread together Which I think he or any one versed in Antiquity will not deny And if so he must either say that at those Love-feasts they used no Wine or Drink because none is expresly mentioned here though it is plain they did in the Church of Corinth even to excess or else that this Jewish phrase of breaking Bread is to be here taken as it is in other places by a Synecdoche for both eating and drinking together and that either at the Lord's Table or at any other But in the 3. Third place I have an undeniable Argument to prove either that this must be so meant or else that the Sacrament cannot be meant either in these places or any other where there is onely mention of Bread without Wine For it is universally owned by all the Popish Writers as well as by all others that to the making a Sacrament there ought to be both the Species Consecrated though they are not both given So that in this says Boileau †Hoc enim convenit nobis cum Protestantibus semper debere sacerdotes Eucharistiam conficere sub utraque specie p. 207. we agree with the Protestants that the Priests always ought to Consecrate the Eucharist in both kinds and Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 182. when he pretends that he finds upon several occasions in Antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body which I shall examine by and by yet confesses that never one of them was Consecrated without the other and it would be Sacriledge says Valentia * Si enim una species absque alterâ conficiatur Sacrilegium committitur De usu Sacram. c. 13. if one Species were Consecrated without the other and after they are Consecrated Bellarmine †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei sumptio necessariaestex parte Sacramenti de Euch. c. 4. owns That the sumption of both Species is necessary to the Priests who Consecrate and that upon the account of its being a Sacrament as well it seems as both ought to be Consecrated to make it a Sacrifice Now in all these places of the Disciples at Emmaus of those in the Acts of St. Paul at Troas which is another but too slight to be particularly considered there is no mention of any thing but breaking Bread not one word said of any other Species either as consecrated or as received by any one So that if these places do prove any thing for Communion in one kind they prove as much for Consecration in one kind and for the sumption of one kind even by the Priest that consecrates So that as it was wisely declared in the Council of Trent ‖ Soave's History of the Coun. of Trent l. 6. These places and the reasons from them must be laid aside because by them it would be concluded that it was not Sacriledge to Consecrate one kind without the other which is contrary to all the Doctors and meaning of the Church and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament So that Monsieur Boileau's strongest Argument is too high charged and recoils upon himself and his own Church and his friends are obliged to take it out of his hands least he do more harm to them by it than execution upon his enemy But he is a bold man that dare face the mouth of a Cannon who dare undertake to prove the Communion in one kind out of the eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians which is such a perfect demonstration against it that a man must out-face the Sun who offers at any such thing St. Paul as the best and truest means to correct the abuses got into the Church of Corinth about the Eucharist recurs to the Institution which he received from Christ himself and which he delivered to the Church of Corinth in which there is so full an account of both the species and such a command of both as is sufficient to shew the Apostolical practice conformable to the Institution of Christ and to let us see what Tradition they left in their Churches about it Had there been any difference between the Priests and the Peoples receiving the Bread and Wine St. Paul who wrote to the Laiety would no doubt have taken notice of it and told them their respective duties but he delivers the Institution to them just as Christ did to his Apostles says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup but on the contrary adds that command to it which is in none of the Evangelists Do this in remembrance of me Gives not the least intimation that this was given to the Apostles as Priests or that they were made Priests then but what is observable does not so much as mention the Apostles or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution and to whom the words Do this were spoken So that so far as appears from him they might be spoken to other Disciples to ordinary Laics nay to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament as well as the Apostles and so must have been made