spiritual Drinke for corporal Refection is not perfected without both these And as he elsewhere saith because spiritual effects are done under the likeness of visible it was fit that this spiritual nourishment should be delivered to us under the Species of those things which Men do ordinarily use for corporal nourishment and therefore this Sacrament is delivered to us under the Species of Bread and Wine 2. For the signification of it for it is a memorial of the Lord's Passion whereby his Blood was separated from his Body and therefore in this Sacrament the Blood is offered by it self And elsewhere Because the Completion of our Salvation was made by the Passion and Death of Christ by which is Blood was separated from his Flesh separatim nobis traditur Sacramentum corporis ejus sub specie panis sanguis sub specie vini the Sacrament of his Body is delivered N. B. to us apart under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine that so in this Sacrament might be the memory and representation of our Lord's Passion 3. For the healthful Effect of it for the Body is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Body and the Blood is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Soul for the Soul is in the Blood. (k) In 4. Sent. dist 8. q. 2. dist 11. q. 2. Bonaventure saith That as to the signification both Species are of the integrity of this Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither of them by it self but in both together which appears thus Here Christ is signified as Meat perfectly refreshing them that eat him Sacramentally and Spiritually but a perfect Refection is not in Bread alone or Wine alone but in both he therefore is signified as perfectly refreshing not in one Species only but in both And again This Sacrament though it contains two Signs and two Words yet because a perfect Sign ordained for one thing sc the Vnion of the Body Mystical results from them therefore the Sacrament is one and the reason of this Integrity and Ordination comes from Nature for neither is Bread nor Wine apart fully Refectory but both and one full Refection in nature comes from both and so they are disposed to signifie one Refection but this is compleated by the Divine Institution which by one Institution hath appointed these two Signs to signifie one perfect Refection and so it is one Sacrament on the account of nature and of Divine Institution (l) In 4. Sent. dist 8. Art. 13. Albertus Magnus lays down this general Rule The Sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in Grace which it doth not signifie in Similitude and that the Sacraments of the New Law are the cause of nothing of which they bear not a sensible Image and thence infers That the Vnion of the Mystical Body is not perfectly caused and signified but by a double Sign and therefore by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both And in his Comment upon the Sixth of John he saith That as in the Flesh is received what is vivifying and restorative of the spiritual and divine Life lost in us so by the Blood is received the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward parts And making the enquiry why to that manducation Spiritual Drink was necessary to be added he answers it is so because Meat cannot be without Drink In his Comment on (m) c. 22. f. 321. St. Luke Some saith he more curious than devout enquire to what end was the Sacrament of the Blood instituted after the Sacrament of the Body since the Body of Christ is not without the Blood nor the Blood without the Body But to this we say that though these are as to their nature undivided yet have they different Effects for one by Christ is ordained to incorporate the Blood for the washing away of Sins whence it is said That without shedding of Blood there is no Remission And that which they say that the Body is not without the Blood is true but yet by virtue of the Sacrament the Sacramental Body is not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body That therefore we might have a Supper Sacramentally perfect it was necessary that it should be instituted that the Body and Blood should be Sacramentally had this therefore is the cause and manner of the Institution so our King and Priest saves us out of the Flour and out of the Wine-Press (n) Rat. l. 4. c. 54. f. 126. Durantus saith That the Church instituted the Sacrament to be taken after the consecration of both Species to shew that he who receives the Hoast only receives not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally For although the Blood be in the consecrated Hoast yet is it not Sacramentally there because the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine signifies the Blood not the Body wherefore because the Sacrament under one kind is not compleat according to the Sign the Sacrament ought to be compleat before the Priest use it And again (o) Ibid. c. 4â— f. 106. Although under the Form of Bread the Blood may be taken with the Body and under the Form of Wine the Body may be taken with the Blood yet according to Innocent the Third neither the Blood under the Form of Bread nor the Body under te Form of Wine is drunk and eaten because as neither Blood is eaten nor the Body drunk so neither under the Form of Bread is drunk or eaten under the Form of Wine Cassunder informs us of (p) De com sub utraque specie p. 1034. Petrus de Palude that he asserted That the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double viz. the matter of Bread and Drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be perfectly represented by the matter in a way agreeable to natural things because the Sacraments effect what they do figure but the effect of the Sacrament is full Refection of the Soul and therefore the matter representing this ought to do it by perfect Refection of the Body which only is by Meat and Drink (q) Lyturg. p. 77. Guilielmus de monte Landano as he there cites him adds That he who receives the Body receives the whole Truth but not the whole Sacrament and therefore in many places they Communicate with Bread and Wine that is with a whole Sacrament The (r) De commu sub utraque specie ibid. Dean of Lovain as he cites him saith That with respect to the Sacrament and the perfection of it it is more convenient that the Communion should be made under both kinds for this is more consonant to the Institution and integrity of it to corporal Refection to the Example of Christ and the Primitive Church And again He freely confesseth that the Laity communicating under one kind only receive not a full Sacrament which consists of two Parts This Sacrament saith (s) In 1 ad Cor.
of our Redemption which therefore we make known to your Holiness that such Men may be known to you by these Tokens and that by the Sacerdotal Authority they may be expelled from the Communion of Saints whose Sacrilegious Simulation is thus found out for blessed Paul hath well admonished the Church of God of such Men saying We beseech you Brethren that you mark them who cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which you have received and avoid them Where evident it is that the Practice of the Manichees in Receiving of the Body of the Lord in the Christian Mysteries that so they might dissemble their Infidelity is called Simulation and their declining to drink the Blood of our Redemption is that which made this Simulation to be Sacrilegious 2dly Here it is also evident that in St. Leo's days to eat the Body of our Lord or to receive it and to drink his Blood were look'd upon as two distinct things one of which might be done without the other the Body being taken when the Blood of our Redemption was not which wholly overthrows the Doctrine of Concomitance on which this Sacrilege is founded 3ly Observe that Leo would have such persons expelled from the Communion of Saints for this Sacrilegious Simulation That 4ly He makes the declining of the Cup at any time a mark sufficient to discern these Sacrilegious Persons and a cause sufficient for their Exclusion from the Communion of Saints whereas had others at any time been permitted in the Church-Assemblies to Communicate in Bread alone for any other Reason this mark had been no certain indication of a Manichee to Priest or People since being caught they might pretend that they had formerly received the Cup but now abstained for some special cause approved by the Church The Faithful therefore must have then generally Communicated at all times or else the Manichee could not be certainly discovered by one Dry Communion Moreover Pope Gelasius did by a Law condemn this half Communion as a great Sacrilege (b) Non esse sumendum Corpus Domini sine Calice Gelasius Majorico Johanni Episcopis apud Ivon decret part 2. cap. 8 9. Comperimus quod quidam in eadem Regione sumpta tantum Corporis Sacri portione a Calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem Mysteril sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire We have found saith he that some in the same Country having taken only a portion of the Holy Body abstain from the Cup of the Holy Blood who because I know not by what Superstition they are said to be bound ought without doubt to receive the entire Mysteries or to be driven from both for the division of one and the self same Mystery cannot happen without great Sacrilege Where note 1. That this Law respecteth not Priests only for as (c) Ad A. D. 496. Sect. 20. Baronius observes This is no mention in the Law of the Priest Sacrificing or of any other of that Order whence saith he it is evident that what is generally spoken here ought not to be restrained to them Moreover Cassander doth assure us That in his Old Manuscript this was the Title of this Decree That (d) Quod nulli liceat absque sanguinis participatione solius carnis Communionem percipere P. 19. p. 1106. it was not lawful for any one N. B. to Receive the Communion of the Flesh without partaking of the Blood. In Ivo the Title of it runs thus That the Body of our Lords is not to be taken without the Cup. (e) Excommunicari illos praecipit quicunque sumpto corpore dominico a calicis participatione se abstinerent Nam ut ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi Sacrilegio provenire non poterit Microl. Cap. 19. Micrologus saith That P. Gelasius commanded that they should be Excommunicated quicunque whosoever they were that having taken the Body of our Lord abstained from the Cup. (f) Prop. 23. p. 579. Radulphus de Rivo transcribes the very words of Micrologus and both of them give the same reason of this precept viz. For as he in the same Decree asserts such a division of the Sacraments cannot come to pass without great Sacrilege Now from these Testimonies it is evident 1. That from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century it was esteemed an unlawful and Sacrilegious thing for any that were capable of both to receive the Bread without partaking of the Cup. Yea Sacrilege is by them declared to be inseparable from such a divisio of this Mystery It therefore must according to the judgment of Pope Gelasius and of the following Ages who approved of his Decree be inseparable from the constant practice of the Church of Rome since te times of the Council of Constance 2. Whereas the R. Doctors say this Decree was made against the Manichees who held Wine in abomination and therefore did refuse the Cup and so concerns them only who refuse upon a like account to drink of it It is observable that neither Gelasius himself nor any who have since that time took notice of this Law have told us that it was peculiarly made against the Manichees who abstained from drinking of the Cup for the formantioned reason but they without Exception declare that by this Law it was not lawful for any one to receive the Flesh without the Cup and that whosoever did so was by virtue of it to be Excommunicated And hence (g) L. 2. c. 8. Algerus in the Twelfth Century cites this Decree to prove that the Bread is separately to be consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood of Christ and that both are to be received by the Faithful And they had reason to speak thus generally of it for that this Law of P. Gelasius was not directed against the Manichean Heresie may be made evident from numerous considerations For 1. had this Pope made this Law against the Manichees there can be no reason imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them 2ly That Expression in the body of this Law that he knew not by what Superstition they were bound up cannot filty be applied to the Manichees for it was doubtless a matter well known to Gelasius why the Manichees refused the Cup and not unto Gelasius only but to all the People For Leo who preceded him had taken care that not only (h) Omnia quae tam in Scripturis quam in occultis traditionibus suis habent profana vel turpia ut nosset populus quid refugeret aut vitaret oculis Christianae plebis certa manifestatione probavimus Decret Leonis P. c. 6. Collect. à Dionysio exiguo apud Justel p. 224. All the profane and filthy things which were in their Writings but also that the things contained in their
to remember That Christ shed his Blood for them and by that Blood shed confirmed the New Covenant to them and since Christ hath appointed the drinking of this Cup and this alone to be the memorial of his Blood shed all Christians capable of doing so must be obliged when they do Sacramentally Commemorate these Mercies to drink of this Cup. And this demonstratively follows from the ensuing words Vers 26 Do this as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's death till he come for they do manifest that as well by drinking of the Cup as eating of the Bread the Lord's Death is shewed and that until his second coming both these things are to be done in order to that end And since these words are not the words of Christ but of St. Paul who speaks here of the whole Church of Corinth the words preceeding Do this as oft as you shall drink it in remembrance of me must belong also to all the Members of that Church because of the connective Particle which joins the 25th and 26th Verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be spoken to in the words This do c. and in the following words For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. And if this was the Duty of the whole Church of Corinth it must be equally the Duty of the whole Church of Christ there being no peculiar reason why the Church of Corinth should be obliged to drink this Cup in order to these ends more than all other Christian Churches And when our Lord hath taken so great Care to tell us That the Bread is his broken Body and therefore is to be eaten in remembrance of him i. e. of his Body broken that the Cup is the New-Tastament in his Blood and therefore is to be drank in remembrance of his Blood shed for us When his Apostle doth as distinctly say 1 Cor. x. 16. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup which we bless is the Communion of the Blood and neither of them have hinted in the least that the Cup is the Communion of his Body or the Bread of his Blood but by a particular and separate institution distribution and signification ascribed to them have strogly insinuated the contrary for men after all this to say one of these Species will suffice for the Bread is as well the blood shed as the broken Body and the participation of it is the Communion of the Blood of Christ and that by the partaking of it we do as well remember and shew forth the shedding of his Blood upon the Cross as by the partaking of the Cup is to my apprehension an affront offered to our dear Lord and to the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost In Answer to these Arguments some of the Roman Doctors are pleased to say that this Discourse of the Apostle imports only a conditional Order to do this in Remembrance of Jesus Christ as often as one shall do it and not an order absolutely to do it To this I Answer 1st He who not only doth command us at the celebration of the Sacrament to remember his Blood shed but also Institutes a sign for the memorial of it and doth command us to use this sign because it is appointed to be the memorial of it commands us when we receive the Sacrament to receive that sign for he who wills the end must will the means which he hath instituted for the accomplishing that end but this doth Christ for he institutes a Cup of Wine to represent his Blood shed he saith Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood shed this I command you to do in remembrance of me He therefore doth command us when we receive the Sacrament to receive this sign which in his Institution of this Sacrament he appointed as the means of this remembrance 2dly He who commands us to drink this Cup as oft as we drink it in remembrance of him because we do by drinking of it shew forth the Lords Death till he come commands us to do it as oft as we receive the Sacrament seeing as oft as we receive the Sacrament we shew forth the Lord's Death but Christ saith the Apostle did lay upon us this command for this very Reason saying Do this as oft as you shall drink it in nomembrance of me for as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come 3dly Where there is parity of Reason there the command may very well be deemed of equal latitude and extent for ratio legis est lex where there is equal reason to command there may we reasonably suppose the will of the Law-giver to be equal in commanding but ther is equal reason why our Lord should absolutely command the drinking of the Cup in remembrance of his Blood shed as why he absolutely should say touching the eating of the Bread Do this in remembrance of me the one being as much the Symbol of his Blood shed as is the other of his broken Body and the one shewing forth his Death as much as doth the other we therefore have no cause to doubt but that he equally intended the doing both in order to this end § 3 Second That it doth not appear either from the words of our Saviour Joh. vi or from the practice of himself or his Disciples that he left this practice indifferent will be made evident from an impartial consideration both of our Saviour's words and of his practice and first to clear up the true meaning of our Lord's Discourse in the Sixth Chapter of St. John Let it be observed First That our Lord 's mystical Expressions of labouring for the Meat that doth not perish of eating the true Bread from Heaven are by himself plainly expounded to import only the believing on him or the embracing of him as their Prophet and their Saviour for when he had exhorted them to labour for the meat that did not perish he tells them v. 29. That this was to believe on him that God had sent when he had told them v. 35. That he was the Bread from Heaven he immediately adds He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Having said that he was he Bread which cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. He confirms this Expression v. 40. by these words This is the Will of my Father that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him should have eternal Life And again v. 47. Verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath everlasting Life I am that Bread of Life Secondly Observe that nothing was more common among the Eastern Nations than to express the Actions of believing embracing and obeying the words of Wisdom Vide Leight Hor. Hebr.
materia ut effectualiter puniant eos contra hoc decretum excedentes qui communicando populum sub utraque specie panis vini exhortati fuerint sic faciendum esse docuerint si ad poenitentiam redire non curaverint animo indurato per censuras Ecclesiasticas per eos ut Haeretici sunt coercendi Ibid. if any Priest communicates the People under both kinds he is to be excommunicated and process is to be directed by the Authority of the General Council of Constance to all Patriarchs Primates Arch-bishops Bishops and their Vicars in Spirituals commanding them under the penalty of Excommunication that they effectually punish those who contrary to this Decree exhort the People to Communicate in both kinds of Bread and Wine and take upon them so to minister the Sacrament unto them and to deal with them as Hereticks if they continue obstinately without Repentance in so doing Yea the Trent Council hath pronounced an Anathema upon all those (k) Si quis dixerit Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis rationibus adductam fuisse ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret aut in eo errasse Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 21. Can. 2. who shall say she was not moved by just Causes and Reasons to make this Law that non-conficient Priests and Laicks should communicate in Bread alone or in that species only or that she erred in making of that Law. 5. That (l) Insuper declarat Quamvis Redemptor noster in suprema illa coena hoc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instituerit A postolis tradiderit tamen fatendum effe etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi ac propterea quod ad fructum attinet nulla gratia necessaria ad salutem eos defraudari qui unam speciem solam accipiunt Concil Trid. Sess 21. Cap. 3. Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus separatione facta totum Christum contineri Anathema sit Sess 13. Can. 3. though Christ instituted this Sacrament in both kinds and so delivered it to his Apostles yet must it be confessed that whole and entire Christ and a true Sacrament is received under one kind only and that therefore as to the benefit of the Sacrament they are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation who receive one kind only yea that it is most true that as much is contained under either species as under both for whole Christ is under the species of Bread and under every part of it under the species of Wine and every particle of it 6. That (m) Nullatenus ambigendum est quod non sub specie panis caro tantum nec sub specie vini sanguis tantum sed sub qualibet specie est integer totus Christus Concil Bas Sess 30. Concil Constant Sess 13. Vinaturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae qua partes Christi Domini inter se copulantur Concil Trid. Sess 13. Cap. 3. by force of the natural Connexion and Concomitance which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body Christ's Body is under the species of Wine and his Blood under the species of Bread and so whole Christ under each species and every particle of them it being firmly to be believed and in no wise doubted that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the species of Bread as under that of Wine and not the Flesh only under the species of Bread nor the Blood only under the species of Wine and (n) Si quis negaverit in Sanctiffimae Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem una cum anima divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum Anathema sit Ibid. Can. 1. this whosoever shall deny saith the Trent Council let him be Anathema 7. That no man must dare hereafter (o) Cunctis Christi fidelibus interdicit ne posthac de iis aliter vel credere vel docere vel praedicare audeant quam ex his decretis explicatum atque definitum Conc. Trid. Sess 21. Cap. 1. Sess 13. praefat to preach teach or believe otherwise than is by these Decrees explained and defined These are the Doctrines Decrees and Definitions of these Councils and how extreamly opposite they are unto the formerly received Doctrines of the Church of Christ and to the plain Assertions of the Ancient Fathers shall be my business in the ensuing Sections to demonstrate CHAP. I. The Contents Shewing in opposition to the decrees of the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church till the 12th Century tanght that the Laity by divine precept were obliged to receive both species which is proved from the Testimonies of Justin Martyr Cent. 2. § 1. Of Cyprian Gent. 3. § 2. Of Basil Ambrose and the Apostolical Constitutions Cent. 4. § 3. Of Chrysostome and St. Austin Cent. 5. § 4. Of Caesarius Arelatensis and Procopius Gazaeus Cent. 6. § 5. Of Isidore Hispalensis and the Council of Braga Cent. 7. § 6. Of venerable Bede Cent. 8. § 7. Of Hincmarus Remensis and Paschasius Cent. 9. § 8. Of Lanfrank and Anselme Cent. 11. § 9. Of Paschal Hugo de Sancto Victore Arnoldus Carnotensis St. Bernard and Rupertus Taitiensis Cent. 12. § 10. Of Albertus Magnus Cent. 13. § 11. Five Corollaries from the Doctrine of the Fathers in this Point § 12. FIRST then whereas the Councils of Constance § 1. Basil and (a) Sancta Synodus declarat docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Sess 21. Cap. 1. Concil Const Sess 13. Trent have declared defined and determined That the Faithful Laity and the Clergy that do not consecrate are not obliged by divine precept to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both the species of Bread and Wine The Fathers do in opposition to this Doctrine either expresly or by plain consequence assert that the Laity as well as Priests by divine precept are obliged to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in both kinds and that the precept drink ye all of this was by our Lord directed as well to Lay-men us to Priests Justin Martyr in his Second Apology relates the practice of the Christians thus After the President hath given thanks and all the People said Amen (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 97. the Deacons give to every person present to participate of the Bread Wine and Water which are blessed and this food me call the Eucharist which none but he that believeth our Doctrine and is Baptized can receive And to shew us that he did not look upon this practice as an arbitrary thing he adds That
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98. the Blessed Apostles in their Gospels had delivered that Christ commanded them to do so for be having taken Bread and given thanks is by them declared to have said Do this in remembrance of me this is my Body and also when he had taken the Cup and given thanks to have said This is my Blood and to have given it to them alone Where note first that Justin Martyr speaks here of a command of Christ which cannot possibly relate unto the consecration but to the participation of the Elements the command being Do this Take eat Drink ye all of this Secondly he had said before that only (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 98. Believers did communicate this he now proves because Christ delivered the Elements to them alone commanding them to partake of them He therefore clearly speaks of delivering the Bread and Wine to the Communicants Moreover speaking of the service performed by Christians on the Lord's Day he saith Prayers being finished we offer Bread P. 98. Wine and Water and the President gives thanks and Praise and the People say Amen and there is made a Distribution of those things which have been consecrated and every one partakes of them and then he thus concludes that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 99. B. Christ rising upon this day appeared and taught those things which we have now laid before your Eyes He therefore must have taught according to Justin Martyr the distribution of the Bread and Wine to every Communicant Here then observe to the confusion of the Trent Council First That it was the Tradition of the Apostles that Christ commanded that the Eucharist under both kinds should be given to every one present at the Sacrament and that the distribution of those things which were consecrated so that every one should partake of them is that which Christ taught Secondly That they declared that Christ gave this commandment in his Gospels whence it is evident that the Apostles and all the Christians of their times and of the times of Justin Martyr did interpret the Institution of the Sacrament by Christ as a command that every faithful Person present should partake both of the consecrated Bread and Cup and that both should be distributed to them St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Cacilian complains of some § 2. who out of Ignorance or Simplicity in sanctifying of the Cup of the Lord and (f) In calice Domini sanctificando plebi ministrando Ep. 63. ed. Oxon. p. 148. in the Ministration of it to the People did not that which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of that Sacrifice did and taught because they used only Water and mixed not Wine with it in the Cup they consecrated and distributed among the People Where note that this they did not out of any prophane Opinion of the Wickedness of drinking Wine as the Aquarii and Encratitae and the Tatiani did but only out of Ignorance and Simplicity and therefore he informs us That they did this only in their morning Sacrifice that the Heathens might not conclude that they were Christians and so hale them away to Martyrdom because they smell'd of Wine And that (g) Cum ad coenandum venimus mixtum calicem offerimus p. 155 156. in their evening Sacrifice they offered a Cup mixt according to Custom Now against this humane and novel Custom he argues First From the Custom of (h) Quanquam sciam Episcopos plurimos Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto mundo divina dignatione praepositos vangelicae ritatis ac minicae traditionis tenere rationem nec ab eo quod Christus magifter praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere Ibid. p. 148. most Bishops in the Church of Christ Who says he keep to the evangelical Truth and the Tradition of our Lord and do not by any new and humane Institution recede from that which Christ our Master hath commanded and performed Whence it is evident that in the Judgment of St. Cyprian Christ both commanded That the Cup mixed with Water should be administred to the People and did so administer it Secondly From the Necessity of obeying Christ's Institution and Command for saith he (i) Religiosum pariter necessarium duxi has ad vos literas facere ut siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur veritatis luce perspecta ad radicem atque originem traditionis dominicae revertatur Quando aliquid Deo inspirante mandante praecipitur necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet excusatus a pud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat qui offensam domini timere compellitur nisi faciat quod jubetur ib. I thought it both Religious and Necessary to write these Letters to you That if any be yet held under this Error seeing the Light of the Truth they may return to the Root and Original of the Tradition of our Lord. For when any thing is injoined by the Inspiration and Command of God it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord and he will be excused of all Men That he arrogantly assumeth nothing to himself who is compelled to fear the Anger of the Lord if he do not what he hath commanded St. Cyprian therefore did believe that Christ required That the Cup offered in Remembrance of him should be mixed with Wine and Water and being thus offered should be distributed to the People and that he who did not so Administer did arrogantly assume unto himself and had just Cause to fear the Indignation of his Lord. Thirdly This he proves also from the Exhortation and Command of Wisdom * Prov. ix 5. Come eat of my Bread and drink of the Wine that I have mingled Where by mixed Wine the Cup of the Lord mixed with Wine and Water is saith he prophetically spoken of adding That we could not drink the Blood of Christ had not He first been pressed and trampled upon and (k) Nisi Christus calicem prior biberet in quo credentibus propinaret p. 150. had not be first drunk the Cup in which he drunk to Believers Moreover as Christ saith he commanded the Water of eternal Life to be given to Believers in Baptism so also by the Example of his Mastership he taught the Cup was to be mingled with Wine and Water For about the Day of his Passion taking the Cup He blessed it and gave to his Disciples saying Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins And the Apostle Paul saith the Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and giving Thanks he brake it and said This is my Body which shall be delivered for you do this in Remembrance of me likewise after Supper he took the Cup saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood this do as oft as
in the plural not by one of them only and (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 580. how this should be done Christ saith he hath taught us saying unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. And at the close of the Gospels it is written that Jesus taking Bread and giving thanks brake and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body broken for you this do in remembrance of me and taking the Cup and giving thanks he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this c. The Apostle also doth attest these things saying I received from the Lord that which I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus in the Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and giving thanks brake it and said This is my Body broken for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise after Supper he took the Cup saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood do this in remembrance of me for as of as you shall not this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 581. What therefore do these words profit us That eating and drinking we might be always mindful of him who died for us and rose again Which words are as full a confutation of the Roman Doctrine as can be desired by any Protestant For they expresly teach that every Baptized person (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moral Reg. 21. Tom. 2. p. 431. is bound to partake of both the Mysteries of the Bread and of the Cup that our Lord hath taught him how he should be nourished by these mysteries even by eating Sacramentally of his Flesh and drinking Sacramentally his Blood. That the words of the Institution of this Supper mentioned in the Gospels and in particular those words Drink ye all of this belong to all Believers even as much as the forementioned words He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. they being here introduced to prove that all Believers ought to be nourished by the holy Mysteries that therefore 3. Do this in both these Places is not a Command directed to the Apostles to Sacrifice Christs Body and his Blood but to Believers to eat and drink them And 4. That we are to remember and shew forth Christs Death not only by eating but by drinking also St. Ambrose speaking of these Sacraments as he and many of the Ancients call the consecrated Bread and Wine informs us that Christ speaks of them in the Song of Songs saying (y) Edite inquit fratres mei inebrianimi De Sacram l. 5. c. 3. quoties enim bibis remissionem accipis peccatorum inebriaris in Spiritu ibid. Eat my Brethren and be inebriated for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins and art inebriated with the Spirit And the same Ambrose elsewhere saith If as oft as this Blood is poured out it is poured out for the Remission of Sins (z) Debeo illum semper accipere ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur l. 4. c. 6. I ought alwaies to receive it that my Sins may always be remitted In which Words he not only asserts That Christ's Blood poured out ought to be received which cannot be done by receiving it only by Concomitance with the Body but also that our Lord commands his Brethren not to eat only of these Mysteries but to be inebriated and saith That we are thus inebriated by drinking St. Chrysostom is copious on this Subject for saith he § 4. many things conduce to christian Love (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matt. Hom. 32. p 223. one Table is offered to all the same Drink is given to all and not only so but it is given out of one Cup For the Father being willing to induce us to love one another ordered this making us to drink out of one Cup which is an Instance of intense Love So that the Sacrament of the Cup according to St. Chrysostom was of the Institution of the Father and he thus ordered Matters for the Advancement of his great Commandment of Christian Love. In his Twenty seventh Homily upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians he saith That as Christ said over the Bread and over the Cup do this in Remembrance of me (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 421. revealing to us the Cause of giving us this Mystery So doth St. Paul here say As often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's Death Christ therefore did command the drinking of this Cup and did it for a Cause which will remain to the Worlds End and equally concern all Christians viz. The Remembrance and Annunciation of his Death And in his Fifteenth Homily upon the First of Timothy he brings in Christ thus speaking to the Laity as well as Clergy I have united I have joined you to my slf (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 316. I have said eat me drink me And whether Christ or the Trent Council should be obeyed in this Matter it is not hard to judge especially if we consider That in the Judgment of St. Chrysostom Christ did not only institute but command these things to be done His Words are these As chiefly we remember those Words which we last hear from our departing Friends and are wont to say by way of Admonition to their Heirs if they dare to transgress their Commands consider this is the last Voice which your Father uttered and till his last Breath he required these things Even so Paul being willing hence to render his Discourse formidable Remember saith he that he gave this his last Mystery and in that very Night in which he was to be slain for us (d) In Cor. 1. Hom. 27. pag. 421. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he commanded these things St. Austin doth sufficiently inform us of the same thing by asking of this Question When our Lord saith Exceept ye ear my Flesh and drink my Blood you shall have no Life in you how is it that the People are so much reslrained from the Blood of the Sacrifices which were offered for Sins If by those Sacrifices this one Sacrifice was signified (e) Ab hujus Sacrificii sanguine sumendo in alimentum non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam qu. 57. in Levit. from taking of the Blood of which Sacrifice not only no Man is restrained but All Men are exhorted to drink it who will have Life for surely such an Exhortation must be equivalent to a Command § 5 It is worth the Enquiry saith (f) In Levit. p. 327. Procopius Gazaeus how it comes to pass That when in the Law the eating of Blood is forbidden Now Christ commandeth us to eat his
the Bread. Hildebert Bishop of Mans doth vehemently reprove the Custom of giving the Bread sopped used in this or some other Monastery for writing to the Abbot of some Monastery he saith It is judicial obstinacy to preferr Custom before Truth And having proved this from the words of St. Cyprian and St. Austin he proceeds thus This Brother I have therefore spoken that being rouzed up thou maist awake and see that (n) Traditioni Sacramentorum Altaris quae in vestro celebris est Monasterio nec Evangelia consonant nec decreta concordant In eo enim consuetudinis est Eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dari quod nec ex Dominica Institutione nec ex Sanctionibus Authenticis reperiatur assumptum Epist 64. neither the Gospels nor Decrees agree with that distribution of the Sacrament of the Altar which is practised in your Monastery for there the Custom is to give the Sacrament to none but in Bread steeped in the Wine which is neither found to be taken from our Lord's Institution nor from Authentick Sanctions If you consult St. Matthew Mark and Luke you will find the Bread to have been delivered apart and the Wine apart for we read not that Christ gave Bread sopped to any but that Disciple whom he thereby shewed to be the betrayer of his Master (o) Eucharistia intincta non debet dari populo pro supplemento Communionis Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Lit. f. The Eucharist saith Lombard ought not to be given to any Body sopped for a Supplement of the Communion for we read of no sopped Bread given to any one but Judas Lastly a Council held at London A. D. 1175. (p) Inhibemus ne quis quasi pro complemento Communionis intinctam alicui tradat Eucharistiam nam intinctum panem aliis Christum praebuisse non legimus excepto illo tantum Discipulo quem intincta buccella Magistri proditorem ostenderit Apud Binium Tom. 7. Part 2. p. 642. forbids any person to deliver the Eucharistical Bread dipped in Wine for a compleat Communion for say they we read not that our Lord gave the Bread sopped to any but to that Disciple whom he thereby declared to be the Disciple that was to betray him Now hence saith (q) De utraque specie p. 1027. Cassander it appears That they who received the Custom of dipping the Bread into the consecrated Cup did believe that both kinds were by all means to be used for an entire and full Communion For wherefore did they dip the Bread in the Mystical Cup of our Lord's Blood if one species by it self would have sufficed for a full and lawful Communion And seeing they who administred the Bread dipp'd in the consecrated Cup did this because they conceived it necessary that both kinds should be received at least together and they who reprehended this Custom did therefore reprehend it because they held that both kinds were to be received apart according to our Lord's Institution and the constant Custom of the Church It is evident hat all did then agree that both kinds were to be received and that it was not lawful to receive under the species of Bread alone 3ly § 3. Others attempted to vary from the Institution of our Lord and from the practice of the Apostles and the succeeding Ages of the Church by offering on the Altar or communion-Table not only Bread and Wine but also Milk and Honey c. which thing the Ancient Fathers and Councils do with one voice condemn as being contrary to the Institution of our Lord. The Title of the Third Canon of the Apostles runs thus That nothing is to be offered in the Sacrifice besides that which our Lord appointed and in the body of the Canon the offering Milk or Honey is condemned as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides the Constitution of our Lord touching the Sacrifice and the Bishop or Presbyter who doth this is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as doing besides the Constitution of the Lord. Our Lord saith Zonaras upon this Canon delivering to his Apostles the celebration of this unbloody Sacrifice to be performed in Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this cause the Apostles forbad any other thing to be brought to the Sacrifice The Church of (r) Can. 37. Africa made a Canon to the same effect viz. That it is not lawful to offer any thing in the Sacraments besides Bread and Wine mixed with Water and the reason there assigned is That nothing else is to be offered quèm quod ipse Dominus tradidit than that which our Lord himself delivered This Canon is cited and confirmed in the Fifth General Council held in (s) Can. 32. Trullo for the same Reason That in this Sacrament things ought to be performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as our Lord himself delivered Pope Julius in the Fourth and the Council of Braga in the Seventh Century say not as the Canons of the Eastern Church that some offered Milk besides Bread and Wine but that they offered lac pro vino Milk for Wine this practice they condemn in these words (t) Cum enim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sacrificium suis commendaret discipulis nulli lac sed panem tantum Calicem sub hoc Sacramento cognoscimus dedisse legitur enim in Evangelica veritate accepit Jesus panem Calicem c. cesset ergo lac sacrificando offerri quia manifestum evidens exemplum veritatis Evangelicae illuxit quod praeter panem vinum aliud offerri non liceat Concil To. 2. p. 525 526. Concil Brac. To. 6. p. 564. When the Master of Truth would commend to his Disciples the true Sacrifice of our Salvation he gave to none Milk but only Bread and Wine in the Sacrament let therefore Milk cease to be offered because the manifest and evident example of Evangelical Truth hath shined forth that besides Bread and Wine nothing else may be offered And again Henceforth it shall be lawful to none to offer any thing else in the divine Sacrifices but according to the Sentence of the Ancient Councils Bread and Wine only mixed with Water (u) Lib. de rebus Eccles cap. 18. Strabo informs us That though the use of the Sacraments was delivered by Christ and from the Apostles and Apostolical Men was diffused throughout the whole Catholick Church yet we understand from the Apostolical Canons that in the first Ages some were wont to offer other Oblations who therefore by the third of their Canons are to be deposed as doing contra Constitutionem Domini against the Constitution of our Lord. And these Decrees we find in (x) Decret part 2. c. 18. Ivo and in (y) Decret part 3. de consecr dist 2. c. 4 5. Gratian and do thence learn that they continued to be Authentick in their Days Now here let it be noted that all these Fathers and Councils who condemn intinction and the oblation of
other things upon the Altar besides Bread Wine and Water give this as a sufficient reason for so doing That these things were not agreeable unto that institution which was to be revered by Men and Angels from which it was by no means lawfull to depart and to which Christians were obliged to adhere and surely they who so Religiously condemned and strenuously opposed themselves against the Custom of iminction and of offering Milk and Honey because of the Repugnancy which these things bore unto the manner of and the Rule observed in our Lord's Institution of this Sacrament would have been filled with holy indignation had they known of any who wholly did with-hold from or deny the Cup unto the People Sure they who taught that to do these things against the Divine Orders and Apostolical Constitution was to be guilty of a manifest Error and of Schismatical Ambition could not have passed a milder Censure on the substraction of the Cup from all the Laity They who declared that to do these things was to act contrary to the Evangelical Doctrine and Ecclesiastical Custom or the Practice of the Church would have declared with a greater zeal against the defalcation of that Cup of which our Lord said in the Institution Drink ye all of this of which all the Apostles drank and which was in complyance with this Institution and this Example confessedly received by all Christians in the first Ages of the Church They who would not allow intinction to be sufficient for a compleat and full Communion of the People or for a Supplement of the Communion would much less have allowed that the Communion was intire and full when nothing but the Bread was given to them They who declared that nothing could be offered to justifie this variation from our Lord's Institution could much less think that any thing would justifie this greater variation from it They who affirm it could not be that any one should commend this Mystery of Faith more conveniently or truly than that Jesus to whom the most perfect knowledge of any Man being compared is the highest ignorance and that the Tradition of our Lord is to be kept and not receded from on the account of any humane or novel Institution could not imagine the Councils either of Trent or Constance could have any power given by the Author of that Institution to make a Law for the omitting one part of it with a (z) Concil Const Sess 13. non obstante to our Lord's Institution and to the practice of the Church They lastly who assert It is judicial obstinacy to preferr Custom before Truth must have abhorred that plea for half Communion used by the Council of Constance that it was a Custom reasonably introduced by the Church and by the Holy Fathers and had been long observed and therefore was to be retained as a Law. Again They who condemn the offering Milk and Honey on the Altar as being besides the Institution of our Lord and for this reason do forbid and punish it would more assuredly have condemned and punished that defalcation of the Cup which is confessedly contrary to the Institution They who took care that in this matter things should be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the lord delivered them would never have allowed that this Sacrament should be administred otherwise than he had Instituted it to be received And lastly they who argued That nothing else was to be offered because nothing else was mentioned in the Gospel would never have endured that what was mentioned in the Gospel as offered and distributed to all should not only be omitted but forbidden under the severest Penalties § 4 4ly Some varied from the practice of the Church from the beginning used with respect to the Cup and that Two Ways 1. By using in this Sacrament Wine not mixed with Water this neglect the Ancient Fathers and Councils do with one voice condemn as varying from the Institution of our Lord and from the practice of the Church and solemnly decree that in conformity to both the Wine they offered and distributed should be continually mixed with Water The Constitutions of St. clemens say That (a) L. 8. c. 12. P. 351. our Lord mixed the Cup with Wine and Water and sanctifying it he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it and that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his Order or Institution they offered to him this Bread and this Cup. And this they did saith Cotelerius against Two Heresies that of the Monophysites and the Armenians who used only Wine in the Mysteries The (b) Can. 37. African Council saith that nothing is to be offered in the Sacraments but Bread merum aqua mixtum and Wine mixed with Water as our Lord delivered Pope Julius saith That (c) Calix dominicus juxta Canonum praecepta vino aqua permixtus debet offerri non enim potest Calix domini esse aqua sola aut vinum solum nisi utrumque misceatur Apud Ivon Decret part 2. c. xi the Cup of our Lord according to the commands of the Canons ought to be offered with Wine mixed with Water and that the Cup of the Lord cannot be Wine or Water alone but that both must be mixed The Councils of (d) Concil Wormatense apud eundem Cap. 12. Concil To. 2. p. 526. Worms and (e) Calix dominicus juxta quod quidam Doctor edisserit vino aqua permixtus debet offerri Concil Brac. 4. Concil To. 6. p. 563. Braga condemn the neglect of mixing Water in the very words of Pope Julius The General Council held in Trullo saith the same thing condemning the Armenians who celebrated the Eucharist with Wine not mixed with Water as acting against the Tradition of the Apostles and Decreeing That the Bishop or the Priest who did thus celebrate the Mysteries should be deposed (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 32. as imperfectly shewing forth the Mystery and innovating in things delivered Isidore saith That Wine alone cannot be offered in the Sacrifice of the Cup and that (g) Quando autem miscetur utrumque tunc spirituale Sacrificium perficitur Lib. 1. c. 18. the spiritual Sacrifice is then perfected when they are both mixed This mixture some of them held necessary because our Saviour's side being pierced with a Launce not only Blood but Water also issued thence for which cause saith (h) In Can. 32. Concil Trull Zonarus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was necessarily determined by the Church that in the holy Mysteries Wine should be mixed with Water That Wine and Water ought thus to be mixed saith (i) Quia utrumque ex latere ejus in sua passione profluxisse legitur Apud Ivon decret Part. 2. c. 15. Pope Alexander We have received from the Fathers and even reason teacheth because both flowed from our Saviour's Side in his Passion (k) 1 Cap. de celebr Miss p. 88. c. 10. 2 L. 1. c. 10.