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
the sacrifice of Christ and of those of the Jews and compare them so much together and show the excellency of the one above the other that he should never say the least word of the sacrifice of the Mass when he had so much occasion to do it that it can hardly be imagined he should have so wholly omitted it had it been as others since account it as true and proper a sacrifice as any of the Jewish or of Christs himself upon the cross Fourthly The Apostle here plainly layes down a principle directly contrary and wholly inconsistent with their Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and that is that if Christ be offered he must suffer and that without shedding of blood there is no Remission Nor yet saith he at the 25 26. verses and 9th chapter That he should offer himself often as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself For then must he often have suffered if he had been often offered without suffering then Christ cannot be offered and sacrificed and indeed to sacrifice any thing is to consume and destroy it so that it be wholly parted with and given up to God and to sacrifice any thing that is living is to take away its life and to kill it and so to make it suffer death as a vicarious punishment in anothers stead this is the common and allowed notion of sacrifices but Christ cannot thus suffer in the Mass therefore he cannot be truly offered or sacrificed since according to the Apostle if he be often offered he must often suffer and they would not I hope crucifie to themselves the Lord of Life again and put him to death upon the Altar as the Jews did upon the cross and yet without this they cannot truly sacrifice him or properly offer him according to the Apostle But this says their great Champion the Bishop of Meaux is done mystically Christ is mystically slain and doth mystically suffer death upon the Altar that is by way of representation and resemblance and the mysterious signification of what is done there as St. Paul says to the Galatians chap. 3. v. 1. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you Now so Christ may be crucified every time we hear or read his crucifixion lively represented to us as we may see a bloody Tragedy without one drop of blood spilt so Christ may be mystically slain in the Sacrament when his body is broke and his blood poured out in mystery and representation but this is not true and proper Offering which is necessary to make a true and proper sacrifice as they will have that of the Mass to be if they would be contented with a mystical sacrifice to represent and commemorate Christs death that they know we are willing to allow and then a mystical suffering that is not a real and proper would be sufficient for a mystical that is not proper sacrifice but the suffering must be as true and proper as the sacrifice and if the one be but mystical the other must be so too if the Bullock or Goat of the sin-offering which was to be offered on the great day of Atonement had been only Mystically slain and Mystically offered upon the Altar they had been as really alive for all that as any that were in the Fields and had been no more true and proper sacrifices of atonement and expiation then they were for without sheding of blood as the Apostle says there is no Remission Heb. 9.22 it was the shedding or pouring out the blood in which the Life was supposed to be and therefore the taking away the Life of the sacrifice that did really make the sacrifice to be truly propitiatory or available before God as a price and recompence for the remission of sins and how then can the sacrifice of the Mass be truly propitiatory when the blood is not truly shed when according to themselves it is Incruentum sacrificium an unbloody sacrifice and therefore according to the Apostle it cannot be pro pitiatory for the Remission of sins as will be further insisted upon afterwards Thus we see how much there is in those clear places of Scripture against the sacrifice of the Mass and how little there is for it in those dark ones which are produced by our Adversaries Thirdly It has no just claim to Antiquity nor was there any such Doctrine or Practice in the Primitive Church this is greatly boasted and vaunted of and although their cause runs very low in Scripture yet they pretend it carries all Antiquity before it where nothing is more common than to have the name of Oblation and Sacrifice and Host and Victim attributed to the blessed Eucharist and to have it said that we do there offer and immolate and sacrifice unto God this we readily acknowledge and though we can by no means allow Antiquity to take place of Scripture or to set up either an Article of Faith or essential part of Worship which is not in Scripture and our Adversaries seem to agree with us in this that there must be a divine Institution for a sacrifice or else it can have no true foundation so that if Scripture fails them 't is in vain to flye for refuge to Antiquity yet we doubt not but that Scripture and Antiquity will be fairly reconciled and be made very good Friends in this point and both of them against the sacrifice of the Mass as 't is taught and practised in the Church of Rome The name of Sacrifice and oblation is often given both in Scripture and Antiquity in an improper general and metaphorical sense thus it is applyed to the inward actions of the mind to penitence and sorrow for sin The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit a broken and a contrite heart O God thou wilt not despise Psal 51.17 To the outward Thanksgivings of the mouth when we render unto God the Calves of our lips Hosea 14.2 When we offer unto him Thanksgiving Psal 50.14 or as the Apostle more fully expresses it when he commands Christians to offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name Heb. 13.15 where the Metaphor is carried on in several words and in the very next verse 't is applied to works of Mercy and Charity and beneficence to others but to do good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased verse 16. and St. Paul in another place calls the Philippians Charity an odour of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing to God Philip. 4.18 Nay he calls preaching the Gospel a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Adversaries earnestly contend to mean nothing less then a sacrifice and the converting the Gentiles
The Three Grand CORRVPTIONS of the Eucharist THE THREE GRAND CORRVPTIONS OF The Eucharist IN THE CHURCH of ROME VIZ. The Adoration of the Host The Communion in one kind The Sacrifice of the Mass In Three Discourses LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST As it is Taught and Practiced in the CHURCH of ROME Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1685. right Charge of the Church of England of which no honest man can be a Member and a Minister who does not make and believe it I might give several Instances to shew this but shall only mention one wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion in which are these remarkable words It is hereby declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Ware there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Here it most plainly declares its mind against that which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration if they do remain as we and all Protestants hold even the Lutherans then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements they worship meer Creatures and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry as I shall show by and by and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood be not corporally present there neither with the Substance nor Signs of the Elements then the Adoring what is there must be the Adoring some things else than Christs body and if Bread only be there and they adore that which is there they must surely adore the Bread it self in the opinion of our Church but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it and declared that to be false and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration and it continued of the same mind and exprest it as particularly and directly in the Canons of 1640 where it says a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonies That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass all Popish Altars were demolisht so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point than our Church has done It recommends at the same time but with great Temper and Moderation the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist and in it and in neither a Ib. Cans 7. 1640. Vpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table or in the mystical Elements but only to give outward and bodily as well as inward Worship to the Divine Majesty and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling b Rubric at Communion in a posture of Adoration as the Primitive Church used to do with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaks c Cyril Hierosolym Catech. Mystag 5. and as I shall shew is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to but at the Sacrament so far are we from any unbecoming or irreverent usage of that Mystery as Bellarmine d Controv. de Eucharist when he is angry with those who will not Worship it tells them out of Optatus that the Donatists gave it to Dogs and out of Victor Vticensis that the Arrians trod it under their Feet that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body as is used by them in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire or into the Air or Water to stop a Tempest or Inundation or keep themselves from drowning or any the like mischeif to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions 'T is out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful and Abuse and so gross an Idolatry We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God and are set apart to his Worship and Service to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell and to be more immediately present to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated to the Holy Vessels that are always used in those Administrations to the Holy Bible which is the Word of God and the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is his Body and the New Testament in his Blood to the Font which is the Laver of Regeneration wherein we put on Christ as well as we eat him in the Eucharist and if we would strain things and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these it would go as far and look as like to adoring them as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament as I shall afterwards make appear in Answer to what the a Jacob. Boileau Paris De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist has culled or rather raked together out of the Fathers It seems from that Declaration of our Church that some were either so silly or so spiteful as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere b Boil p. 145. outwardly Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as outwardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are
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
communicant etiam de sangine Casand Lyturg. Reliquis omnibus nationibus Christiani nominis ut Graecis Ruthenis Armeniis Aethiopibus priscum institutum porrigendi populo sanguinis in hunc usque diem retinentibus Id. Dialog But we need not call in any other Churches to vouch for the universal and primitive practice of the Communion in both kinds We have in the last place 6. The most learned of our Adversaries who cannot but confess this and therefore are forced to take other measures to defend themselves and their cause namely by the Authority of the present Church and not by the Tradition or Practice of the Primitive as de Meaux vainly attempts to do which they freely give up and acknowledge to be contrary to the Communion as it is now practiced in one kind Cassander has fully and plainly declared his mind in a particular Treatise on this Subject among his Works printed at Paris and in his Dialogue which was put out by Calixtus not being among his other Works in his Consultation and in his Lyturgics Concerning the administration says he of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is sufficiently known that the Vniversal Church of Christ to this very day and the Western or Roman for above a thousand years after Christ did exhibit both the Species of Bread and Wine to all the members of the Church of Christ especially in the solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament which appears from innumerable testimones both of ancient Greek and Latine Writers †De administratione sacrosancti Sacramenti Eucharistiae satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem Occidentalem vero seu Romanam mille ampliùs à Christo annis in solenni presertim ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum testimoriis manifestum est Cassandri Consultatio de utrà que specie Sacramenti In his Dialogue speaking against those who pretended that the use of either one or both kinds was indifferent and who indeavoured to make this out by the Authority and Practice of the Primitive Church which is the way which de Meaux takes he thus seriously and heartily gives his judgement I have searcht says he ‖ Equidem haud oscitanter veteris Ecclesiae consuetudinem perscrutatus sum attento aequoque animo torum scripta qui hoc argumentum tractarunt legisse rationes quibus indifferentem eum morem probare nituntur expendisse profiteor neque tamen firmam ullam demonstrationem quae non apertissimè refelli possit reperire hactenus potui quamvis id vehementèr exoptassem quin multae firmissimae rationes suppetunt quae contrarium evincunt G. Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 6. and that not slightly the Custom of the ancient Church and I profess I have read the Writings of those who have handled this argument with an attent and impartial mind and have weighed the reasons by which they endeavour to prove this indifferent Custom but neither could I yet find any firm proof which could not be most plainly refuted although I most earnestly desired it but there remain many and those the most strong Reasons which do evince the contrary And because de Meaux pretends that there are some instances of public Communion in the Church in one kind I will add one other testimony of that great man who after the strictest search and enquiry into every thing in Antiquity that could be brought to colour any such thing thus determines Wherefore I do not think that it can be shewn that for a whole thousand years and more that this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was ever administred from the Lord's Table in the holy Communion to the faithful people in any part of the Catholic Church otherwise than under both the Symbols of Bread and Wine * Quare nec puto demonstrari totis mille amplius annis in ullâ Catholicae Ecclesiae parte Sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramentum alitèr in sacrâ synaxi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli populo quam sub utroque panis vini symbolo administratum fuisse Id. de Sac. Com. sub utraque specie p. 1027. Wicelius another Divine of great learning and judgement agrees fully with Cassander It is confest that the holy Sumption from the Ecclesiastic Altar was equally common to all Christians for Salvation through all the times of the New Testament †Et in confesso sumptionem sanctam de altari Ecclesiastico aequè omnibus Christianis communem extitisse ad salutem per omnia novi testamenti tempora Vicel via Reg. tit de utr Specie by which he means of the Christian Church as appears by what immediately follows It is a little obliterated indeed among us of the Western Church and separated from a promiscuous use for some reasons but not wholly blotted out and destroyed * Obliteratam quidem paulisper apud nos Occidentales ab usu promiscuo semotam suas ob causas at non deletam omninò atque exstinctam Ib. For it was then granted to some as to the Bohemians Of this thing that is of the Holy Sumption common to all Christians Since we are †Ejusce rei cum nube quodam certissimorum testium septi sumus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amplectimur omni excluso dubio Ib. encompast with a cloud of most certain witnesses we embrace this as a most sure thing without any doubt And therefore in his Account of Abuses he reckons that of the Communion in one kind ‖ Id. Elench abus But lest these two men though their learning and credit be unquestionable should be thought through their great temper and moderation to have yielded more in this cause than others of that Communion I shall shew that the same has been done by others who cannot be suspected to have granted more than the meer force of Truth extorted from them Thomas Aquinas who was the first man that proposed that question to be disputed Whether it were lawful to take the Body of Christ without the Bloud * Vtrum liceat sumere corpus Christi sine sauguine Th. Aquin. Sum. pars 3 qu. 80. art 12. And who first tells us That it was the use of many Churches so to do †Multarum Ecclesiarum usus in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi sumendum non autem sanguis Ib. though Bonaventure his contemporary who died the same year mentions nothing of it he in his Comment upon the Sixth of St. John where he says It was observed not in many but in some Churches that for fear of effusion the Priest alone Communicated of the Blood and the rest of the Body ‖ Propter periculum effusionis in aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicet sanguine reliqui
The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body and the reason why they did not was some either Manichean or other Superstition so that this Decree I own was occasioned by them and particularly relates to them and shews that they herein differed from the Faithful not onely in their superstition but in the practice too but to say that he forbad this practice onely in respect of such a Superstition going along with it and that he did not forbid the Practice it self which was the effect of it is so notoriously false that the Decree relates wholly to the Practice and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was or wherein it consisted no doubt it must be some Superstition or other that hinders any from taking the Cup the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood or the superstitious belief that one Species contains both the Body and Bloud together and so conveys the whole vertue of both which is truely Superstition as having no foundation in Scripture or in the Institution of Christ which gives the Sacrament its whole vertue and and annexs it not to one but to both Species And whatever the Superstition be Gelasius declares it is Sacriledge to divide the Mystery or to take one Species without the other the reason which he gives against taking one kind is general and absolute because the Mystery cannot be divided without Sacriledge so that however our Adversaries may assoile themselves from the Superstition in Gelasius they can never get off from the Sacriledge How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark which de Meaux aims at I shall let him see from one of his own Communion whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way inferiour to his own and his honesty much greater who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit nam ex iis Manifestè constat horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâque specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fuisse Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur quod ingredientes Ecclesiam percepto cum reliquis corpore Domini à sanguine Redemptionis abstinerent nisi calix Dominici sanguinis distributue fuisset quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis pertione à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus in Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus non igitur ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontisices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos evitandos hic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censait Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant Cassand de Com. sub utrâque p. 1026. The Conjecture says he which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo and the Decrees of Gelasius does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends for from them it manifestly appears that in the time of these two Popes the Communion was onely used in both kinds for how should the Manichees be known by this mark that when they came to the Churches they abstained from the Bloud of our Redemption after they had with others taken the Body of the Lord unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed and how should they be convicted of Superstition who took a portion of the Lord's Body and abstained from the Cup unless the Cup of his sacred Bloud had been offered to all in the Church These holy Popes did not therefore as some imagine appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree but those who neglected this solemn and received custom of taking the Cup one of these Popes would have them avoided and markt as those who were a-kin to the Manichean Heresie the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament or else to be wholly kept from all Communion for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely that is in both kinds There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind than such improbable Guesses and forced Conjectures whereby plain and full evidences are rackt and tortured to get that out of them which is contrary to their whole testimony sense and meaning Let us enquire then whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact which will make it appear that the Church ever used onely one kind in its Public Communions this de Meaux attempts to shew in the last place and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his otherwise vanquisht cause He brings both the Latine and Greek Church to his assistance though the latter he owns appears not for the most part very favourable to Communion under one Species but yet this manner of Communicating is practised however and consecrated too by the Tradition of both Churches If it be but practiced in both Churches this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church though neither of those Churches singly nor both of them together do make the Catholic But let us see how this is practiced in those two great though particular Churches Why in the Office of Good-Friday in the Latine Church and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday at those times it seems these two Churches have the Communion onely in one kind as appears by their public Offices if they have it so at those times at other times then I suppose they have it in both or else how come those particular times and those particular Offices to be singled out and remarked as distinct and different from all the rest then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds according to the Tradition of both those Churches and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church is violated by the Roman But the Priest himself who officiates takes but in one kind in the Missa Parasceues as they call it or the Mass on Good-Friday as appears by the Office this custom then will shew that the Priest himself or the Minister Conficiens may receive onely in one kind in the Public Communion as well as the People which I think they ordinarily think unlawful and call it Sacriledge if he should ordinarily do so and if I
viro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit Ib. reprehending those who presumed upon pardon to be obtained by Baptism without repentance and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus determines That the form of Baptism by aspersion is as good and valid as by immersion and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purifications †Aspergam super vos aquam mundam Ezech. 36.25 non erit mundus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19 Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9 unde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere Cypr Ep. 96. Edit Oxon. which were onely by sprinkling It is not the manner of washing nor the quantity or the sort of Water but onely washing with Water which is essential to Baptism and unalterable and so it is not the sort of Bread or Wine or the manner of receiving them that is essential to the Eucharist but the receiving both of them is because they are both commanded and instituted and both of them are the matter of that Sacrament as much as Water is of Baptism in a word without those we cannot do what Christ did and commanded to be done though we may without the other circumstances with which he did them which I think is a very plain way to distinguish the one from the other though de Meaux is so unwilling to see it The second principle of de Meaux is That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of a Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of that Sacrament But must we regard nothing else must we not regard the outward part as well as the inward and does not that appertain to the substance of a Sacrament as well as the other I confess the word substance which de Meaux uses is equivocal and ambiguous for it may signifie either the outward part of it as 't is a sacred sign or symbol and so the matter and form does appertain to the substance or essence of it or it may signifie the inward grace and vertue which is also of the substance of the Sacrament as 't is the thing signified and it is not onely one but both of these that do appertain to the substance of the Sacrament or to speak more clearly and plainly that make it a Sacrament If de Meaux understands nothing else by the substance of the Sacrament but the essential effect of it then his words are confused and run together and he had as good have put it thus That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the essential effect of the Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of the Sacrament Which though it had not been sense yet he had better told us his meaning by it but surely there is something else that does plainly belong to the substance of the Sacrament besides the essential effect 't is strange that de Meaux the Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age as he is stiled by the Translator but who like the Oracles of old too often doubles and equivocates that so great a man should not either understand or consider the plain nature of a Sacrament so as to account the external and visible part to belong to the essence or substance of it as well as the internal or the essential effect Does not every Catechism tell us that the Sacrament is made up of these two parts of the Res Terrena and Caelestis as Irenaeus * L. 4. calls it the Esca Corporalis and Spiritualis as St. Ambrose †De Myst the Sacramentum or outward Sign and Res Sacramenti as St. Austin ‖ De Consecdist 2. and must we not have regard to both these without which we destroy the very nature of a Sacrament as well as to one The very essence or substance if de Meaux pleases of the Sacrament of Baptism lies in the outward washing the body with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the outward form of it without which it was declared null as well as in the cleansing the Soul and we must regard the one as well as the other * 1 Pet. 3.21 though St. Peter tells us It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh whereby baptism saveth us but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Yet still we are to observe the outward ceremony and may know by another way namely from the Institution that that does appertain to the substance of it else with the Quakers and Socinians we may leave off all Sacraments and all the positive and outward ceremonies of Christianity and onely regard the essential effect and invisible grace of them which they also pretend to have without the visible sign As washing with water does appertain to the substance of Baptism so does eating Bread and drinking Wine appertain to the substance of the Eucharist and we must regard those which are the true matter of this Sacrament as well as the essential effect of it else how were the Aquarii that used Water and others that used Milk reproved so severely by St. Cyprian and Pope Julius if the keeping to the outward Elements which Christ has instituted and appointed be not as well to be regarded as the inward and essential effect and if these do not appertain to the substance of the Sacrament and could not be easily known and distinguisht from the other circumstances of the Sacrament by other means than by regard to the essential effect which they might hope to partake of without them De Meaux is so wholly taken up with the essential Effect and entire Fruit and the inseparable Grace of the Sacrament with which words he hopes to blind and amuse his Reader and therefore he drops them almost in half the Pages of his Book that he takes not due care nor is much concerned about the outward and visible part of the Sacrament which he knows is so grosly violated and shamefully mangled and mutilated in his Church and yet this is so considerable that 't is not a true Sacrament without it and Gelasius plainly calls the dividing of the outward part of the Sacrament the dividing of the Mystery and to be plain with him and to give the killing blow to his cause and to all the artifical slights with which he fences and defends it and as he speaks For once to stop the mouth of these Cavillers I shall lay down this principle that the essential effect or inward substance of the Sacrament is not ordinarily to be received or partaken without receiving and partaking the external part or the outward substance of it which is instituted and appointed by Christ And by this plain principle which I have made use of before and shall further strengthen and confirm all that he says about receiving the Grace and Vertue and essential Effect of the Sacrament by one
without it I have therefore prevented de Meaux in all he brings for Tradition and the Practice of the Church unless he will lay so great stress upon that as to make it null and supersede a divine Law nor am I at all concerned in all the instances he brings for it out of the Old and New Testament ‖ § V. §. VI. unless he can bring one to prove that either the Jewish Synagogue or the Christian Church did ever make void a Divine Law by a contrary Practice and Tradition of their own I can never allow any Church to have a power and Authority to do this and I am willing to allow it all Authority that is kept within those bounds It was boldly and openly done indeed by the Council of Constance when it owned That Christ instituted the Sacrament and administred it to his Disciples under both kinds * Licet Christus post caenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit subutrāque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum Et similitèr quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à sidelibus sub utrâque specie Concil Constant Sess 11. and that the faithful received it under both kinds in the Primitive Church Yet to command it under one by its own power and authority and by its own Prerogative to give a Non obstante to Christ's Institution this was done like those that had a sufficient plenitude of power and were resolved to let the World see they had so and that Christ's own Institution was to give way to it they had not then found out the more sly and shifting subtilties that Christ gave the Cup to his Disciples onely as Priests and made them Priests just after the giving them the Bread this was a late invention found out since that Council by some more timerous and wary Sophisters who were afraid of setting up the Churches Power against a Divine Institution neither did they then offer to justifie the Communion in one kind by the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church as de Meaux and others have done since but they plainly gave up this and onely made a late Custom which was afterwards introduced to become a Law by vertue of their present Power notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church to the contrary Here the Case truly lies though de Meaux is willing to go off from it there must be a power in the Church to void a Divine Institution and to null a Law of Christ which can be no other than an Antichristian power in the strictest sense which may by the same reason take away all the positive Laws of Christianity or else Communion in one kind is not to be maintained and this power must be in a particular present Church in opposition to the Primitive and the Universal or else this Communion is not to be maintained in the Church of Rome De Meaux must be driven to defend that post which he seems to have quitted and deserted or else he can never defend this half-Communion which is contrary as I have proved and as the Council of Constance owns to the Institution of Christ and to the Practice of the Primitive Church The new Out-work he has raised from Tradition in which he puts all the forces of his Book and the main strength of his Cause this I have not beat down or destroyed but taken from him and his cause can never hold out upon his own principles of Tradition and the Practice of the Church which is a very strong battery against it as I have largely shewn so that all that he says for Tradition is in vain and to no purpose since this Tradition he pleades for is utterly against him and if it were never so much for him yet no Tradition can take away a Divine Law. He seems to own and I think he dare not expresly deny that what is essential to the Sacraments or belongs to the substance of them cannot be taken away by Tradition or the Power of the Church but he utterly destroys this by making onely Tradition and the Practice of the Church to determine what is thus essential to the Sacraments for if nothing be essential but what is made so by them and may be known by them then they have a power to make or to alter even the very essentials of the Sacraments which are hereby made wholly to depend upon the Church and Tradition We are willing to own that nothing is unalterable in the Sacraments but what is essential to them and that all other indifferent things belonging to them may be altered by the Church or by Tradition but then we say that what is essential is fixt and known by the Institution and by a Divine Law antecedent to Tradition and if it were not so then there were nothing essential in the Sacraments at all but all would be indifferent and all would depend upon Tradition and the Churches Power and then to what purpose is it to say That the Church has power onely in the Accidentals and may alter whatever is not essential or belongs not to the substance of the Sacraments this onely shews that they are ashamed to speak out and they dare not but grant with one hand that which they are forced to take away with another they dare not openly say That the Church has power over the essentials of the Sacraments but yet they say That there are no essentials but what are made and declared to be so by the Church So the streight they are in obliges them in effect to revoke their own concessions and Truth makes them say that which their Cause forces them to unsay again and they are put upon those things in their own necessary defence which amount in the whole to a contradiction If the Bishop of Meaux can shew us that any Divine Institution was ever altered by the Jewish or Christian Church or any Law of God relating to Practice and Ceremony was ever taken away by a contrary Practice and Tradition then he says something to the purpose of Communion in one kind but if the many Instances which he brings for Tradition out of the Old and New Testament do none of them do this they are then useless and insufficient they fall short of what they ought to prove and come not up to the question in hand but are wholly vain and insignificant and to shew they are so I shall reduce them to these following heads 1. They chiefly relate to the Churches Power in appointing and determining several things which are left indifferent and undetermined by the Law of God and here we acknowledge the Church to have a proper Power and that it may oblige even in Conscience to many things to which we are not obliged by the Law of God and may determine many things for the sake of Peace and Uniformity in Divine Worship which are not so precisely determined by
nor would St. Cyprian or the Bishops who ordained in Council that no offerings should be made for him who appointed a Clergy-Man Executor to his Will have inflicted so severe a punishment upon so small a fault had they thought this would have deprived his soul of a true and real propitiation for his sins nor would blotting out of the Diptychs have been so commonly put in use had this been consigning the soul to the punishments of another World. There was therefore no such thing meant as our Adversaries would now draw from that ancient custom of Oblations for the Dead and yet that this quickly degenerated into superstition and has been farther improved in aftertimes and is now come to very great perfection in the Roman Church we willingly own that the first beginnings of this were lay'd in this unscriptural custom as the Worship of Saints was from the Anniversary memory of the Martyrs is not to be denyed But corruptions in Religion like Diseases in the body might proceed at first from very small causes but by neglect and carelessness grow oftentimes very great and dangerous especially when the Physicians that should have cured them thought it for their purpose and interest rather to heighten and increase them 10. The sacrifice of the Mass must either be unnecessary or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross if it be not necessary for obtaining the pardon and remission of any sin or for the relief of any spiritual want and necessity for which there has been no provision made by the sacrifice of the cross then it is wholly useless unprofitable if it be necessary for any such purpose then the sacrifice of the cross is not perfect and sufficient for all those ends but requires this sacrifice of the Mass to make up what is lacking and behind of the sufferings of Christ upon the cross which is a great diminution to the infinite value of them It is impossible to avoid these inconveniences for if the merit of the cross be so great as to expiate all manner of sin and to take away all kinds of punishment that are due to it and to supply all the spiritual wants and necessities whatever of all Christians then what possible need can there be of any other sacrifice And if Christs sacrifice once offered upon the cross can do all this why should there be any new offering or any reiteration of the same sacrifice when by being once offered it hath done the whole business that it can do were it offered never so often but if there be any kinds of sins which because they are dayly committed by us therefore require a dayly sacrifice as they pretend to be offered for them which implyes that the constant and abiding vertue of the cross cannot reach them which is yet as efficacious to all Christians now as the first day it was offered or as it could be if it were offered every day by Christ himself or if there be any such temporal remains of punishment after the eternal guilt of them is pardoned which are not discharged by Christs sacrifice upon the Cross but there is this small hand-Writing still however against us and continues uncancelled notwithstanding the Death of Christ then we are not perfectly redeemed from all punishment and from the whole Curse of the Law by the sacrifice of the cross but there is something more necessary to deliver and save us if not from Hell yet from Purgatory and whatever Christ has done for us yet the Mass sacrifice must still help us not as an instrument of Religion to work upon us and make us better but as a sacrifice to God to prevail with him to free us from punishment or else we are in a miserable condition which is the true contrivance of the sacrifice of the Mass that necessarily renders it very injurious to the most perfect and sufficient sacrifice of the cross I might add many other Errors belonging to this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass such as saying their Masses in an unknown Tongue putting confidence in the meer opus operatum offering up Masses to the honour of the Saints and the like but those do more properly fall under other heads of controversie and are the peculiar subjects of other Treatises that are written on purpose upon those matters for though these all run into this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass which is the great Lake into which most of the Popish Errors empty themselves yet the first head and rise of them is not from hence and so I shall not take them in here The Mass sacrifice contains in it a whole Legion of Errors but 't is only the principal one which I have endeavoured by this Discourse to cast out and that is its being a proper and truly propitiatory sacrifice which I have shown to be founded upon two monstrous Errours to have no true foundation in Scripture nor no just claim to Antiquity but to be plainly contrary to both those and to be in it self very absurd and Vnreasonable which is enough in conscience against any one Doctrine or any Church that maintains it however Infallible they may both of them pretend to be if this be clearly and strongly made out against them as has been Attempted in this Treatise FINIS Books Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practiced in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boleau 's late Book De Adoratione Eucharist A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux 's of Communion of both Species An Answer to a Book Entituled Reason and Authority Or the Motives of a Late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholick Church Together with a brief Account of Augustine the Monk and Conversion of the English A Request to Roman Catholicks To Answer the Queries upon these their following Tenets Sect. 1. Their Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue 2. Their taking away the Cup from the People 3. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks 4. The Adoration of Images 5. The Invocation of Saints and Angels 6. The Doctrine of Merit 7. Purgatory 8. Their Seven Sacraments 9. Their Priests Intention in Baptism 10. The Limbo of unbaptized Infants 11. Transubstantiation 12. The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass 13. Private Masses 14. The Sacrament of Penance 15. The Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies Restraint therefrom 16. Their Sacrament of extream Vnction 17. Tradition 18. That Thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther 19. The Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils 20. The Pope's Supremacy 21. The Pope's Deposing Power 22. Their Vncharitableness to all other Christians