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
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
of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all
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
short form whereby they will have the Apostles made Preists so suddenly and unexpectedly happens to be too quick and to make them Priests a little too soon which is a very unlucky thing for their purpose for Christ said those words Hoc facite do this just as he gave them the Bread and spoke them in one continued sentence with Take eat this is my body so that whether he gave the Bread severally to each of them or they took it as it was upon the table as it is said they divided the Cup among themselves it cannot be supposed but that those words hoc facite were spoken by Christ before the Apostles did receive the Bread or at least before they ate it so that it might as fairly be pretended and as truly that the Apostles ate the Bread as Priests as well as drank the Wine as such for they were made as much Priests by those words before they ate the Bread as before they drank the Wine If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands before those words were pronounced by our Saviour which is the most that can be yet they could not eat it before they were And so this fine and subtle Hypothesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup will deprive them of the Bread too and will in its consequence and by the same train of arguing tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the People and make it peculiar to the Priests as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar but it shall be reserved as a peculiar right and priviledge of the Priests to which the Laity ought not to pretend because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests and were made Priests fore they either ate the Bread or drank the Wine this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other Which is the great reason they themselves give and no doubt a true one for their taking away the Cup from the People and I don't question but so great a Wit and so eloquent an Artist in pleading as the Bishop of Meaux is who can say a great deal for any cause be it never so bad may with as good grounds and as great a shew of reason justifie if he please the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles receiving both kinds as Priests to prove the Laiety have a right to neither and may take off the necessity of both parts as well as one by pretending that the real effect and vertue of the Sacrament is received some other way by the Sacrifice of the Mass or by Spiritual Manducation or by some thing else without partaking any of the Symbols as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed for if the effect and vertue of the Sacrament depend upon Christs Institution then both are necessary if it may be had without keeping to that then neither is so but of this afterwards when we come to examine his grounds and reasons I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament and offer some considerations against these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries 1. I would ask them whither those words of our Saviour Do this in remembrance of me do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles if they do not then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament either in both or in one kind Where is there any command at all for Christians to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper or to observe this Christian Rite which is the peculiar mark and badge of our Profession and the most solemn part of Christian Worship Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World as they did upon the Apostles at that time or else we must say with the Socinians That the Sacrament was onely a temporary Rite that belonged onely to the Apostles and was not to continue in the Church or be observed by all Christians in all Ages But St. Paul says * 1 Cor. 11.26 we do hereby shew or declare the Lord's death till he come by this solemn way of eating Bread broken and Wine poured out we are to remember Christ who dyed for us and is gone into Heaven till he come again when we shall live with him and enjoy his Presence for ever Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this and they are to Do this in remembrance of him they are as much obliged to this as the Apostles were and the command does as much belong to the People to receive the Sacrament as to the Apostles or to their Successors to give it them The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts which is not onely to receive but to dispence and distribute the Sacrament and the People or Christian Laiety are commanded to do theirs which is to receive it The Apostles are to do that which Christ did to Bless the Bread and breake it and give it to be eaten to bless the Cup and give it to be drunk by the Communicants and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them and perform those proper parts of their Duty which are here commanded them they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain command of Christ Do this in remembrance of me No body ever denyed that those words and this command of Christ belonged to the Apostles but to say they belong to them alone and not to all Christians is to take away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper 2. This command of Christ as it obliges all Christians to receive the Sacrament the Laiety as well as the Clergy so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacrament so it obliges them to give it in both kinds for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ belongs as much to one kind as the other and is as expresly added concerning the Cup as concerning the Bread for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread Bellarmine observing these words in St. Luke to be added only after the giving of the Bread for they are in neither of the two other Evangelists falls into a mighty triumph and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devotion admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD * Mirabilis est providentia Dei in
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