c. xi Lyra is given under the double Species of Bread and Wine that thereby spiritual Refection may perfectly be shewed forth and because it is a memorial of Christ's Passion in which the Blood was separated from the Body And again Utrumque est de perfectione huju Sacramenti both is expressed perfectly the Passion of Christ semblably of which this Sacrament is the memorial 2dly Because both signifie nourishment perfectly Though the Body and Blood of Christ saith (t) In 1 ad Cor. c. xi Carthusian are called Sacraments in the plural yet speaking formally of their perfect and integral Vnity they are but one Sacrament for they are ordained to one end and compleat act viz. to the spiritual Refection of the Soul in which spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink is required The eating saith (u) L. 4. de emend Christianae Reipub. cap. 19. Andreas Frisius is named separately and the drinking separately by his Wisdom to which all humane Wisdom concerning the inseparability of living Blood from living Flesh ought to give place for here we are are not to dispute from humane reason but to have respect to the will of Christ which instituted convivium non mancum not a maimed Banquet but added drink to the meat If any of these Doctors do elsewhere contradict their own Assertions for that I am not much concerned it being natural and almost unavoidable for Men who maintain things contradictory to common reason to say one thing when they discourse according to the innate Notions of common reason and another thing when they serve the Hypothesis to which they are enslaved it sufficeth me to make these plain Inferences from what they have discoursed § 5 1. If both Species ae to be delivered to represent Christ not as imperfect but as perfect Life to teach us that there is a perfect and full Refection in this Sacrament to shew that Christ redeemed the whole Man and that there may be in this Sacrament a representation according to the Institution then we who do thus represent thus teach thus act according to the Institution must be blameless if the Institution hath appointed both these Species to signifie one perfect Refection they act not suitably to their appointment who use but one If the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine the Blood and not the Body and if the Sacrament under one kind be not compleat according to the Sign then seeing every Sacrament is Sacrae rei signum a sign of something sacred this Sacrament can never be compleat when it is administered only in one of the appointed signs because a sacred thing appointed to be signified must then be wanting If whole Christ be no under either Species Sacramentall if the Sacramental Body be not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body If he who receives the Body only receive not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally then they who administer the Body only do not administer the whole Sacrament Sacramentally nor as is requisite to the Sacramental Perfection of the Ordinance If both Species were given for an entire reparation of the whole Man to be Food to the Faithful and to avail to the Safety and Salvation both of Soul and Body then must they deprive the Laity of their Food and their entire reparation and hinder the Safety and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies who deprive them of one Species If the Species of Wine is to be received for the remembrance of that Redemption which was made by the Effusion of blood for the memory and representation of Christ's Passion that by it we may receive the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward Parts then must they hinder the shewing forth of our Lord's Death and the purification of the Laity who rob them of the Cup If by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both Species to have spiritual Meat and spiritual Drink if the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double and it is necessary to a Supper Sacramentally perfect that the Body and Blood should both Sacramentally be had then they who do not permit the People to have both do not what they ought And Lastly If this be more consonant to the institution to the integrity of the Sacrament to the Example of Christ and of the Primitive Church sure they must act more consonantly to the Institution and the Example of their Lord the Practice of the Primitive Church and the Integrity of the Sacrament who give both Species than they who do deprive the Laity of one though at the same time they do act less consonantly to the Decrees and Constitutions of the Church of Rome CHAP. V. The Contents In opposition to the Council of Constance condemning them as Hereticks who pertinaciously assert That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law of Communion in one kind this Practice is declared to be Sacrilegious by P. Leo §. 1. by P. Gelasius §. 2. The Evasions of the Roman Catholicks fully refuted Ibid. This is farther proved from the Sayings of the Fathers compared with the Descriptions which the School-Men give of Sacrilege §. 3. And from the School-Men §. 4. WHereas the Council of Constance Sess 13. approved by the Church of Rome declares it Erroneous to assert That it is Sacrilegious to observe the Law or Custom of Communicating the Priests that do not consecrate and the Laity in one kind only and commands that they who pertinaciously so assert shall be driven away from the Communion of Christians as Hereticks and be grievously punished by the Diocesans of the place or their Officials or the Inquisitors of Heretical pravity this mutilation of the Sacrament hath by the Doctors of the Ancient Church been adjudged Sacrilege and they who only did receive the Bread but did not partake of the Cup have been pronounced Sacrilegious and as such are commanded to be expelled from the Society of Christians § 1 Thus Leo speaking of the Manichees saith (a) Comque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audent interesse Mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione fe temperant ut interdum quo tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurite omnino declinant quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines his manisestentur indiciis quorum deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi a sanctorum societate sacerdotali authoritate pelantur Serm. 4. in quadrag c. 5. Ed. Quesnel p. 271. They avoid the Sacrament of humane Salvation and believe not that our Lord Christ was truly born truly suffered was buried and raised again in true Flesh of our Nature and when to conceal their Infidelity they dare to be present at our Mysteries they so behave themselves in the Communion of the Sacrament that sometimes least they should not possibly lie hid they take Christ's Body with their unworthy Mouths but they wholly decline drinking the Blood
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.
may learn how excellently these Councils have consulted for the Advantage and the Salvation of Christian People The Fathers of the Council of Constance pretend to have made their Decrees in reference to this Matter (f) Sess 13. Saluti fidelium providere satagentes Endeavouring to provide for the Salvation of the Faithful The Council of Basil preface their Decree against Communion in both Kinds with a Pretence that they had honestly consulted (g) Sess 30. Quid circa perceptionem S. Eucharistiae tenendum sit agendum pro utilitate salute populi Christiani What was to be held or done about the receiving of the Eucharist for the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People The Council of Trent insinuates that she hath established this Custom because it was only such a Change in Dispensation of this Sacrament as the Church (h) Sess 21. c. 2. Utilitati suscipientium magis expedire judicaret Judged most expedient for the Benefit of the Receivers It therefore seems our Lord and his Apostles and the whole primitive Church for a Thousand Years saith their (i) Consult Art. 22. p. 981. Cassander for a Thousand and two hundred Years saith (k) Rerum liturg l. 2. c. 18. p. 862. Cardinal Bona were wickedly unmindful of the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People for our Lord instituted and in compliance with his Institution his Apostles and the whole Christian Church for the forementioned Centuries did minister the Sacrament in both Kinds till those good Souls filled with true Zeal for the Salvation of all christian People Et spiritu pietatis edocti And taught by the Spirit of true Piety forbad them to receive the Cup of Life the Apostles and all the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church were either so ignorant or heedless as that they never thought of making any Laws against Christ's Institution till the Councils of Basil Constance and Trent assisted with the Spirit of Wisdom Understanding and Counsel found it expedient so to do and for the Benefit and Salvation of the Laity to decree peremptorily that they hereafter never should receive the Cup of Blessing and Salvation That they should never drink of the Blood of the New Covenant the Blood of their Redemption the Blood shed for the Remission of their Sins They were so ignorant or so regardless of the Reverence due to the Holy Eucharist That neither the Perils which might happen to it from the long Beards of the Communicants or by growing acid or by being shed could make them think it fit to alter the Institution of our Lord or the Practice of the Church They thought so little of the Scarcity of Wine in some Countries and of the Aversation that some others had unto the tast or the smell of it that none of all these weighty Reasons though they were the same in the First Ages of the Church as in the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Centuries could move them out of Reverence to our Lord 's Institution to forbid the Practice of it till these (l) Catech. Trid. Part. 2. c. 4. Sect. 66. Gravissimae Rationes Most weighty Reasons being deliberately considered by the Roman Catholick Church She to prevent those dreadful Perils and these Scandals introduced this new Custom and confirmed it for a Law in Opposition both to our Saviour's Institution and to the Practice of the Church in which she had continued for a Thousand Years to the great Damage and the Hindrance of the Salvation of her People till these Councils so happily bestir'd themselves for their Advantage and Salvation And Thirdly Whereas these Councils in framing these Decrees style the Practice of Communicating under one Kind (m) Concil Const Sess 13. Romanae Universalis Ecclesiae consuetuod approbata The approved Custom of the Roman and Universal Church and of the (n) Consi Trid. Sess 21. Can. 2. Holy Catholick Church and the Declaration made concerning it at Basil is called Declaratio Catholicae veritatis (o) Sess 30. The Declaration of the Catholick Truth Not to observe at present how horribly Vncharitable these Councils are in excluding out of the Catholick Church and consequently from Salvation all who had not consented to the Violation of our Lord's Institution and to the Alteration of the Practice of the Church of Christ for a whole Thousand Years That is not only all who in the West refused to make so bold with our Lord's Institution but all the Greek and Eastern Churches I say not to insist on this hence it is evident That the present Practice and Judgment of what they call the Catholick and Universal Church can be no certain or sufficient Proof of Tradition Apostolical since in this Matter she hath both practised and decreed in Opposition to the plain Judgment and Tradition of the Church of Christ for Ten whole Centuries § 6 To these Considerations which concern the Definitions of these Councils touching Communion in one Kind I add these following Remarks touching these Councils and the Decrees which they confirmed in their Assemblies 1. Therefore touching the Councils of Constance and of Basil let it be considered that they constantly declare That they were Holy Synods assembled in the Holy Ghost and representing the Church Catholick The General Council of (p) Sess 8.14 Pisa which agreed with them in their Sentiments and met about the same Affairs ascribes unto it self the same great Titles 2. Note that there were present at the Council of Pisa saith (q) Council To. 7. p. 994. binius Three Patriarchs Twenty three Cardinals Thirty Arch-Bishops Two hundred and eighty Governors of Monasteries the Divines and Legats of the Princes of Europe There were present at that Council saith (r) Hist Consil General l. 2. c. 1. p. 35. Richerius an Hundred and eighty Arch-Bishops and Bishops Three hundred Governours of Monasteries an Hundred and twenty Masters in Theology Three hundred Doctors of the canon and the civil Law the Legats of Christian Princes and the Legats and Procurators of all the Universities of Europe At the Council of Constance saith (ſ) To. 7. p. 1134. Binius there were Four Patriarchs Twenty nine Cardinals Forty seven Arch-Bishops an Hundred and sixty Bishops and of Abbots Provosts and Priors and of all sorts of Clerks a very great Number To the Council of Basil saith the same (t) To. 8. p. 525. Binius came a very great Multitude of Prelates from the whole Latin World. Having premised these things I ask whether these Councils knew themselves full and entire Representatives of the Church Catholick and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost or they did not If they did know themselves to be true General Councils representing the Church Catholick c. then they undoubtedly were so And then why were they represented by the Fifth Lateran Council as schismatical seditious Councils Concilium Constantiense ubi definit Concilium esse supra Papam reprobatum est in Concilio Florentino
Lateranensi ultimo Bellar. de Concil l. 1. c 7. de Concil partim Reprobatis and of no Authority Why are they stiled Concilia Reprobata Reprobated Councils by the greatest Part of Roman Catholicks in reference to some of these things which they profess to have decided under this Majestick Character Why is it yet left free for any Romanist to reject their Authority and Decrees in many Matters Moreover if they were true General Councils representing the whole Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost either such Councils must have erred in what they have decreed as matter of Faith and therefore cannot be Infallible and then the whole Church Representative and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost may erre in matters of Faith or if they did not erre it must be matter of Faith That a General Council is superior to the Pope Secondly That General Councils may infallibly determine matters of Faith without him yea against him Thirdly That the pertiancious Resisters of this Doctrine were Hereticks and therefore that Eugenius the 4th Julius the 2d Leo the 10th and the 5th Lateran Council were Heretical If they did not know the Truth of what they thus assert how shall private Persons be able to discern what such Assemblies and so many Universities and Churches throughout the World consenting with them and owning them as such could not discern That is how shall they know when Councils are truly General when they truly represent the Church Catholick and they are assisted by the Holy Ghost Was not this one of their Decrees That for the future Quilibet in R. Pontificem eligendus Every one that was to be chosen Pope should in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Heart and Mouth Profess to God Almighty and to blessed Peter firmy to believe and hold as long as he lived the holy Catholick Faith according to the Traditions of the Apostles the general Councils and in particular of the general Councils of Lateran Lyons Vienna Constance and Basil and to keep that Faith to a tittle unchanged (a) Consil Const Sess 39. Basil Sess 23.37 Et usque ad animam sanguinem confirmare defensare praedicare And to preach confirm and defend it with their Life and Blood Did not the following Popes till after the Time of Eugenius the 4th make this Profession Yea were not the Inquisitors of Hereticks obliged by the Council of Constance to enquire of any who lay under Suspicion of Heresy (b) Vtrum credaet teneat asserat quod quodlibet Concilium Generale etiam Constantinense Vniversalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item utrum credat quod illud quod Sacrum Concilium Constantienense Vniversalem Ecclesiam Repraesentans approbavit approbat in favorem fidei salutem animarum quod hoc est abuniversis Christi fidelibus approbandum tenendum Et quòd condemnavit condemnat esse fidei bonis moribus contrarium hoc ab eisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Sess 45. apud Binium Tom. 7. p. 1124. Whether he believed held and asserted That every general Council and particularly that of Constance represents the Universal Church and whether he believed that what that Council representing the whole Church approved in favour of Faith and the welfare of Souls was to be approved by all the Faithful and what it condemned as contrary to Faith and good Manners was as such to be condemned And after this Profession of these Popes this Inquisition made by all concerned to find out and prosecute Persons suspected of Heresy could they be doubtful whether these Councils were truly General or no Would they condemn Men of Heresy for not believing these Articles if they themselves did not believe them What Hppes can private Persons have that they shall surely know when Councils represent the Church and are accepted by it if the Agreement of so many Nations so many Universities so many Cardinals Arch-Bishops Bishops Divines and Doctors the Profession of so many Popes the Practice of so many Inquisitors do not prove that these Councils were once accepted by the Church Again Was there any Scripture or Tradition of the Church which plainly taught the contrary if not there can be none now and so no Man can hve just Cause from Scripture or Tradition to doubt the Infallibility of these Councils That they represented the whole Church and were assisted by the Holy Ghost That they were above the Pope and Representatives of the Church Catholick without Dependance on him If either plain Scripture or Tradition contradicted these their Assertions and Determinations then must these great Assemblies and all the Universities Nations and Churches which owned them as true general Councils be accounted ignorant of what plain Scripture or Tradition delivered touching a Matter of Faith of so great Import to the Vnion the Peace and Reformation of the Church and why then may not others be ignorant of other Matters plain in Scripture or Tradition without Peril why may we not suppose or at the least suspect That other Councils less numerous have been so Again These Councils of Constance and Basil have declared and decreed That (a) Concil Basil Sess 2. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 22. Sess 18. p. 55. general Councils have Authority immediately from Christ which every one of whatsoever State or Dignity though it be Papal is obliged to obey in things pertaining to Faith the Extirpation of the said Schism and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members That the Pope himself is bound to stand to the Declaration and Definition of these Councils Whatsoever Christian saith the (b) Sess 45. Council of Constance refuseth to profess That he believes asserts and holds this he shall be proceeded against as one suspected of Heresy This saith the Council of Basil is (c) Sess 33. p. 95. Veritas fidei Catholicae A Truth belonging to the Catholick Faith and whosoever pertinaciously resists it censendus est Haereticus Is to be deemed an Heretick It is an Article of Faith which cannot be neglected say they Sine interitu saluts Without the Loss of Salvation They also decreed That it was not in the Power of the Pope to dissolve prorogue or transfer a general Council to another place without the Consent of the said Council And this Decree is also stiled (a) Ibid. Sess 33. p. 59. Sess 38. p. 101. An Article of Faith which he who pertinaciously doth resist is to be deemed an Heretick They also urge in Confirmation of these Decrees 1. That they were established by Martin the Fifth confirming the Decrees of the Council of Constance and by Eugenius the Fourth confirming that of Basil and particularly that of the Eighth Session That (b) P. 33. during that Council there could be no general Council assembled elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council assembled
as certainly true and necessary and therefore fear not any Retortions of this Nature from our Adversaries Had I designed any thing of that Nature I would more cpiously have insisted on those Arguments from Scripture whence that conclusion can alone be made and which I therefore have so briefly touched upon because I was so happily prevented in that matter by the unanswerable Treatise on this Subject against the Bishop of Meaux with which I was unwilling to interfere but finding that the forementioned Bishop had with great confidence appealed for this matter to the constant practice and to the Principles of the Primitive Church P. 160 161. and told us That the constant Practices of the Primitive Church received with universal approbation from the Origin of Christianity till the time of the Council of Constance do invincibly demonstrate that the Council did but follow the Tradition of All Ages when it defined That the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both with many other things of a like nature in which he is also followed by the late Writers of the same Communion And finding also that the once exploded Blackloists were again admitted to plead the infallibility of the Roman Church from practical Tradition and that this was done upon the strength of these two Propositions 1. J. S. That the Church of Rome hath always held close to Tradition and received still her Doctrine by Tradition from the Father to the Son from the first to the second and so to the present Age. 2. That she could not mistake the sense of Tradition in particular points In contradiction to these confident Assertions I have here shewed by confronting the Doctrines and Sayings of the Fathers to the express Determinations of their Councils 1. That the present Church of Rome hath varied in this matter from Antiquity both in Doctrine and Practice and that Tradition plainly contradicts all their Assertions and Decrees relating to it And therefore that all her late Defenders are much mistaken or which is worse would lead others into a known Error when they undertake to perswade them that the practice of their Church in denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests non-conficient is warranted by Tradition and Primitive Practice and by the Principles on which they builded that pretended Practice 2. That in this particular Point she hath either actually mistaken the Sence of Tradition or actually devidated from Tradition And seeing whether she does not differ from or agree with the Primitive Belief and Practice in this Article is a matter of Fact and so may be determined by the Testimony of good Witnesses of what was practised and believed in their Times and by plain Allegations of matter of Fact without Infallibility In plain reason and from her own avowed Principles it follows that her Authority in saying she does not differ from the Tradition of the Ancients and much more in asserting That she hath always held to it and therefore could not mistake the Sence of it can be of no force against plain evidence of Fact to the contrary If then the difference betwixt the Belief and Practice of the Ancients and of the present Church of Rome in this matter be evident as I think I have made it it must be owned that the present received Tradition of that Church can be no certain Rule of Truth and no sure Argument that such was the Tradition of the Primitive Church since in this Controversie she hath actually varied from the Tradition of the Ancients And thus far 1. and no farther would I be thought to drive the Argument drawn from the Citations of the Ancients The Right or Authority claimed by that Church will be best judged of by other Intrinsick Arguments which ought to have the greater force when it appears that Prescription is against our Adversaries Only I cannot but admire why the Trent Council should found their Power of making such a Change in our Lord 's Institution on those words of the Aposlte 1 Cor. iv 1 (t) Id autem Apostolus non obscure visus est innuisse cum ait sic nos existimet c. Sess 21. c. 2. But let a Man account of us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispensatores mysteriorum Dei as Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Since in that very place it is immediately added That of a Steward it is required that he be found Faithful that is saith (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Locum Chrysostom that he do not usurp Authority over the things of his Lord but administer them as a Steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it belongeth to a Steward to administer or distribute well to the Family the things committed to his hands And St. Basil (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haec ipsis integra custodiat Tom. 2. de vera ac pia fide p. 385. b. saith It is the property of a faithful Minister whatsoever things are committed to him by his Lord to distribute them to his fellow Servants and to preserve them for him without Adulteration or Deceit or purely and entirely saith the Latin. 2. The Second thing which I desire may be considered is That nothing in the following Citations can be urged against the Church of England as Erroneous in this Matter Art. 6. For since she professeth to admit nothing as necessary to be believed but what is either expressed in or fairly deducible from Scripture and that it is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike Art. 34. How can in reflect upon her that S. Cyprian for Example held it necessary to mix the Wine with Water or that others have held it necessary to use Unleavened Bread c. All that her Sons are in this Case obliged to is only to give fair and satisfactory Reasons why these things are not necessary which they are both able and willing to do whereas if a disagreement between the present Church of Rome and the Primitive Christians be once proved against them in any of their Articles all their fine Pleas for the certainty of their Traditions Mr. M. Quest of Quest p. 395 396 397. the Infallibility of their Councils as proceeding upon Tradition and meeting only to consult about the Tradition of the Church diffused and all the Prejudices they advance against the Protestants from the present Tradition of their Church must be confessedly vain and Sophistical And the attending to this difference of Principles in each Church will shew how much the Testimonies of the Ancients do affect the one and how little they concern the other and so will prevent the Objections of an Vnwary and the Cavils of a captious Reader THE INTRODUCTION Shewing what the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent have determined touching Communion in one kind THOUGH in many other Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome she contradicteth the plainest Evidence of
all of this Here then §. 12. besides what hath already been observed from these Passages we farther learn 1. That every Order of Believers ought to receive of the Lords Body and of his precious Blood apart That they ought to drink this Cup with the Mouth of the Body 2. That the Tradition of our Lord is to be observed and not departed from by reason of any humane and novel Institution 3. That the Apostles commanded these things to be observed that the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Custom of the Church require the Cup should be received apart Interim autem dum ab eo in hoc mundo peregrinamur Corpore sanguine ejus in via pascimur sicut Apostolis suis hoc Mysterium in coena ultima ante mortem suam tradidit nobis sequentibus frequentandum per eos mandavit Guitm de Sacram. lib. 3. fol. 91. b. that this the universal Church believes and the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed this to be published throughout the world that the Blood of our Lord Jesus is to be drunk by the mouth of the Body that the Gospel commands it should be drunk that the Apostolical Statutes commanded both to be celebrated in the Church that God himself ordered that we should all drink out of one Cup and that this is required by the inspiration and command of God that Christ said Eat me Drink me that he exhorted all Men to drink of his Blood that he sent forth his Apostles and Teachers to invite them to drink of the Wine that he had mingled and to receive the Cup of his sacred Blood that he commanded these things that he so appointed it to be observed and that we drink of the blood of Christ by his command 4. That the command Drink ye all of this was by Christ directed as well unto the People as the Ministers to all without exception that what Christ did he commanded his followers to do what he distributed to them he would have them distribute to others and that in the Primitive Church all communicated because Christ said to his Apostles Drink ye all of this 5. That by receiving of both kinds they shewed forth Christ's Death and this is as much as any Protestant hath said or needs to say CHAP. II. The Contents Whereas these Councils take upon them to Decree this Sacrament shall be celebrated otherwise than by their own confession it was instituted by Christ The Fathers in the general assert That this Mystery ought not to be celebrated otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles §. 1. When some delivered the Bread dipp'd in the consecrated Cup as a compleat Communion they condemned this practice as varying from the Institution and from the practice of the Church §. 2. They condemned the offering on the Altar other things besides Bread Wine and Water for the same Reasons §. 3. They condemned the using Wine not mixed with Water on the same account §. 4. They condemned the celebration of this Mystery in consecrated Bread and Water only from the same grounds §. 5. Inferences against Communion in one kind from the premises §. 6. SEcondly Sess 13. Sess 21. c. 3. whereas the Councils of Constance and of Trent confess That Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament under both species and so delivered it to his Apostles and that the Primitive Church did practise suitably unto this Institution and yet deny that there lies any Obligation on Christians from this Institution or this practice to administer it or to receive it in both kinds Sess 21. cap. 2. asserting they have power as dispensatores Mysteriorum Dei Dispensers of the Mysteries of God to make this change in the Administration of this Sacrament whereas I say these are the bold Assertions of the forementioned Councils in opposition to them the Sayings of the Fathers are very clear and pregnant in which they plainly shew they thought themselves and all that bare the Name of Christians obliged to observe the Institution of the Sacrament which by the Confessions of the Councils of Trent and Constance was in both kinds and in the distribution of it to do as Christ the Author of it did viz. to give both species apart to the Communicants which came to be partakers of this Holy Sacrament And § 1 1. The Author which passeth under the Name of Ambrose in his Comment on these words He that eateth this Bread or drinks this Cup unworthily c. saith thus (a) Indignum dicit esse domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore In locum He pronounces him unworthy of the Lord who otherwise doth celebrate this Mystery than it was delivered by him for he cannot be devout who presumes to do it otherwise then it was given by the Author And this good Rule in after-Ages was approved of and even transcribed by the Ritualists and by the Commentators on the same place (b) Indigne dicit i. e ordine non observato viz. qui aliter Mysterium illud celebrat vel sumit quam traditum est a sanctis patribus Haym in locum p. 130. He eats unworthily saith Haymo that is not observing order who either celebrates or takes that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by the Holy Fathers St. Anselm in his Comment on the same Chapter saith That St. Paul reproved the Corinthians because they did not well observe what he had delivered touching this matter he having delivered to them what the Lord delivered to him and therefore that which they ought to retain reverently and inviolably adding That (c) Qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam a Christo traditum est Ibid. he eats and drinks unworthily who either celebrates or receives that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by our Lord. The Gloss cites the same words from Ambrose Aquinas from the Gloss He is unworthy saith Hugo who celebrates the Mystery otherwise than by Christ it was delivered And he saith Lyra is unworthy (d) Qui non observat ritum a Christo institutum Ibid. who observes not the Custom instituted by Christ Gregory the Third condemns the placing Two or Three Cups upon the Altar at once as being not agreeable to the practice of our Lord. For saith he (e) In missarum solenniis observandum est quod dominus noster Jesus Christus Sanctis suis distribuit discipulis accepit enim calicem dedit eis dicens Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in meo sanguine hoc facite quotiescunque sumitis Ep. ad Bonifacium In the Solemnities of the Mass that is to be observed which our Lord Jesus gave to his Disciples for he took the Cup and gave it to them saying This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood this do as often as you take it And (f) De
of the Cup on that account Isidore Peleusiota in the same Age extolling the Sacerdotal Order saith That by their means we are regenerated (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. Ep. 52. and made partakers of the divine Mysteries without which no Man can attain the Heavenly rewards as is apparent from the Heavenly Oracles now saying That unless a Man be born again c. and anon Vnless we eat c. we have no life in us Which Argument he seems to have borrowed from St. Chrysostom who saith (g) Hom. 3. de Sacerd. tom 6. p. 16. l. 38. If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who is not born again of Water c. If he that doth not eat the Flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood is deprived of Eternal Life and all these things are not otherwise communicated but by the Hands of the Priest who can without these Men avoid the Fire of Hell or enjoy the Crowns laid up in Heaven Amphilochius saith (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Vit. Basil c. 17. p. 221. It is impossible that any one should be saved unless he be regenerated by Baptism and made partaker of the Life-giving Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ (i) De Ecclesiast Officiis l. 1. de Sacrificio c. 18. Isidore Hispalensis cites and approves that passage of (k) Timendum est ne dum qui abstentus seperatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso vel dicente Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem ejus non habebitis vitam in vobis Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Et Raban Maur. de institut Cler. l. 1. c. 31. St. Cyprian in his Treatise on the Lord's Prayer It is to be feared least any one being long separated from the Body of Christ should be far from Salvation Christ having said Vnless you eat c. Hincmarus Remensis saith That Christ spoke those words of his Body and Blood inviting his Servants to his Table that l Locutus est nobis de corpore sanguine suo commendans talem escam talem potum Nisi manducaveritis c. haec sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur Tom. 2. p. 92. this and Baptism are the Sacraments of the Church without which we cannot enter into true Life (m) Habet vitam aeternam hanc ergo non habet qui istum panem non manducat nec istum sanguinem bibit nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt aeternam vero omnino non possunt August Tract 26. in Joh. p. 229. Sinc isto cibo potu Raban M. de instit Cler. l. 1.31 Rabanus speaks thus The Truth saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed Men may have temporal Life without this Meat and Drink eternal they can never have Which Words he borrowed from St. Austin's Comment on the Sixth of John. Regino cites this passage from the Capitulars of Charles the Great That (n) De Eccl. discipl l. 1. can 195. great discretion is to be used as to the Receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ for care is to be taken least being deferred too long it tend to the Destruction of the Soul our Lord having said Vnless you eat c. (o) Quasi quodam jurejurando protestatur dicens Amen Amen c. Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 1007. Humbert in his Disputation against the Greeks saith That Christ restified with an Oath that without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had saying Verily I say unto you except c. The Flesh is taken by it self saith Lanfranck and the Blood by it self not without a certain Mystery though in another Sence whole Christ is said to be eaten viz. By spiritual desire of eternal Life and Meditation of his Passion (p) Utraque comestio necessaria utraque fructuosa altera indiget alterius ut boni aliquid operetur hinc in Evangelio legitur nisi manducaveritis c. De Sacr. Euch. p. 126 127. both these Comestions are necessary for hence it is read in the Gospel that unless we eat c. (q) Comment in 6. Joh. Rupertus Tuitiensis saith That least any Man should think he hath recovered by Faith alone the Life of his Body and Soul without the visible meat and drink of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently needs not the Sacrament Christ repeats the same thing again touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood by this undoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly believe whosoever despiseth to eat and to drink for although thou be a Faithful Man and profess thy self to be a Catholick if thou refusest to eat of this visible Meat and Drink even by this that thou presumest that this Meat and Drink is not necessary to thee thou cuttest thy self off from the Society of the Members of Christ which is the Church § 4 Now if that sence which the constant interpretation of the Fathers hath put upon these words from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century be owned by Romanists the consequence is unavoidable that it is necessary to Salvation to receive the Sacrament under both kinds for they who do receive the Body only may be said well to eat the Flesh of Christ because they take something by way of Meat but they cannot be said to drink his Blood as here our Lord requireth them to do since they take nothing by way of drink The privation of Life is here connected with the neglect of Drinking as much as with the neglect of Eating since therefore eating the drinking are distinct Actions he cannot properly be said to drink who only eats and therefore must neglect what by the Fathers descants on these Words is necessary to life eternal Moreover since on this sole account they constantly did minister the Cup to little Children as Roman Catholicks confess they ministred both the Bread and Cup to Children capable of receiving both as the Church History attests it follows that they held it necessary to Salvation in conformity to these Sayings of our Lord recorded by St. John that both should be received by all Christians capable of taking both Species And therefore in condemning this Doctrine Sess 21. can 4. and that with an Anathema the Fathers of the Trent Council must have virtually Anathematized the whole Church of Christ for Nine whole Centuries and by renouncing of this Interpretation so generally received the Doctors of the Roman Church must at least seem to us to violate that Oath Jaramentum professionis fidei a Pio 4. editum which they have taken never to interpret or own any sence of Scripture Nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers CHAP. IV. The Contents In opposition to that Determination of the Trent Council That a true or an
secret Traditions should be manifested to the Eyes of Christians that the People might know what they are to avoid and fly from 3ly The very word Superstition shews that Gelasius did not intend the Manichees for superstition intimates a design of Reverence and Veneration of the Sacrament although misplaced and not well designed whereas the Manichees in their refusal of the Cup were acted by the grosest Heresie they refused Wine as being unclean and the Gall of the Devil and as P. Leo saith condemned the Creature in Creatoris injuriam to the reproach of the Creator 4ly Gelasius speaks only of those persons who were then within the Country of Squillaci and in the Diocess committed by him to Majoricus and John whereas it is uncertain whether one Manichee was ever there and is most certain they did abound elsewhere Nor 5ly can these words Let them receive the entire Sacraments or be excluded from them be reasonably applied to the Manichees for none who know the * Vide Concil Laod. can 6. 33. Discipline of Ancient times can think that the Abettors of so gross an Heresie as that of Manes which held (i) Aug. ad quod vult Deus c. 46. That there were two first Causes one Good the other Evil which denied the Worship of the God of the Old Testament denied the Resurrection and the Virgin birth of our dear Lord and worshipped the Sun as God could be admitted to the participation of the Holy Sacraments without a previous condemnation of those prodigious Errors and a publick Penance much less that they could be admitted with such freedom by that Gelasius who declares That (k) Cum nullo prorsus eorum participare debetis mensae dominicae puritatem quam majores nostri semper ab haeretica magnopere servarunt pollutione discretam Caus 24. qu. 2. c. nec quisquam Christians might not partake of the purity of the Lord's Table with an Heretick which Table our Ancestors have always abundantly kept severed from all Heretical Pollution and who succeeded that Leo who compelled the Manichees before they were admitted to the Communion of Christians to do publick Penance and by a publick Profession and Subscription in the Church to condemn the Manichean Heresy Now the Confutation of this pretence that Pope Gelasius made this Decree against the Manichees is a full confutation of all that Romanists do offer to elude the force of it against them for then it follows that this Decree cannot reasonably be restrained to them who regarded the species of Wine as an object of aversion or who abstained from the Cup out of an horrour of Wine or of the blood of our Lord For all these descants evidently do relate unto the Doctrine of the Manichees and therefore they are all confuted by the refutation of that vain pretence That P. Gelasius made this Law against the Manichees And whereas others tell us that these were laws then made to restrain the liberty the Church before had granted to receive in publick in one kind this as it is said without any shadow of proof so it is fully confuted by the very words of the Decrees of these Two Popes Leo objects against the Manichees that by avoiding of the Cup they declined the drinking of the Blood of their Redemption Now can it be supposed that he knew then of any liberty the Church had granted to the Faithful to decline the drinking the Blood of their Redemption that is of doing the very thing for which he so severely doth condemn the Manichees Gelasius decrees touching them of Squillaci That they shall either take the Sacraments entire or be entirely driven from them plainly insinuating that they who received not the Cup received not an entire Sacrament and could the Faithful in those times receive the Sacrament so that in the judgment of so great a Pope it was imperfectly received by them Moreover that this practice must in the judgment of the Holy Fathers be Sacrilegious will farther be made evident from the comparing of their Sentiments touching the distribution and receiving of the Cup by all the Faithful with those descriptions which the School-men given of Sacrilege For 1. Sacrilege saith (l) Medul Theol. l. 3. Tr. 1. de primo praecepto Dec. c. 2. Dub. 2. Busenbaum is the violation of a thing holy that is dedicated to divine Worship and to violate what is holy is saith (m) In 22. Disp 6. q. 15. punct 1. Gregorius de Valentiâ nothing else but to do something repugnant to that Worship to which a thing is designed Wherefore if the reception of the Cup by the Laity was designed for their shewing forth the Lord's Death and the remembrance of his Passion it must be Sacrilege to rob them of it because it is the violation of a thing dedicated to Divine Worship and the doing that which is repugnant to that Worship to which the Cup was designed Now the Fathers frequently tell us after St. Paul That we are to eat this Bread and drink this Cup to shew forth the Lord's Death (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moral c. 3. p. 432. We ought saith Basil to eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ in remembrance of our Lord's Obedience to the Death and this he proves from our Lord's institution Luke xxij and from St. Paul's rehearsal of it 1 Cor. xi (o) Quoniam morte domini liberati sumus hujus rei memores in edendo potando carnem sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus In 1 Cor. xi p. 170. Because we are delivered by the death of the Lord being mindful of this thing saith St. Ambrose we signify it by eating and drinking of the things that are offered (p) Glaphyr l. 2. The Communicating of his holy Plesh and the Cup of his holy Blood hath in it a Confession of Christ's Death by the participating of these things in this world we commemorate Christ's Death saith Cyril of Alexandria When the Hoast is broken saith (q) Apud Grat. dist 2. c. de consecr Lanfranc de Sacr. Ench. p. 124. St. Austin whilst the Blood is poured out of the Cup into the Mouth of the Faithful what other thing is showed forth but the offering of our Lord's Body on the Cross and the Effusion of his Blood out of his Side Christ in this Mystery saith P. Gregory is offered again for us (r) Ibi Christi Corpus sumitur ejus caro in populi salutem partitur ejus sanguis non jam in manus infidelium sed in os fidelium funditur Dial. l. 4. cap. 58. for his Body is there taken hsi Flesh is parcell'd out for the Salvation of the People his Blood is not given into the hands of Infidels but poured into the Mouths of the Faithful (s) Quem cum bibimus quid aliud quam mortem domini annunciamus De Corp. sang Dom. cap. 21. When we drink out of this Cup saith
Paschasius what do we else but declare the Lord's Death This do saith (t) In 1 Cor. xi Anselm that is drink this Cup in remembrance of me as oft as you drink it that you may never drink it without the Memory of my Passion but may have in mind that I suffered Death for you Therefore saith the Apostle our Lord said This should be done in commemoration of him for as oft as you shall eat this Bread of Life and shall-drink this Cup of eternal Salvation you shall shew forth that is shall represent the Death Christ suffered for us till he comes to Judgment (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In 1 Cor. xi v. 25. By the Cup thou dost celebrate the commemoration of our Lord's Death saith Theophylact. (x) L. 2. cap. 8. Algerus in answer to this Question Why the Bread is consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood apart saith This was done because the Custom prevailed in the Church from Christ himself who consecrated and gave his Blood not for division of the Substance but for distinction of the Figure that whilst the Bread is grinded by the Teeth it might signifie Christ's Body broken in his Passion and whilst the Wine is poured into the Mouth of the Faithful it might signifie Christ's Blood shed from his Side nor is the Body and Blood said to be apart as if the Body were without the Blood or the blood divided from the Body but it is so said in memory of his Passion because in the Sacrament we ought to shew forth the Death of Christ When the Bread of the Lord that is the Body of the Lord is eaten saith (y) De Sacra edit Erasm fol. 212. Petrus Cluniacensis when the Cup of the Lord that is the Blood of the Lord is drunk the Death of the Lord is shewed forth that is it is then represented What he did saith (z) Comment in vi Joh. Rupertus that we well know we do in Commemoration of his Death viz. Eat his Flesh and to drink his Blood. And surely when two things are equally designed and set apart by Christ for the commemoration of his Passion when they are equally apt and proper to shew forth and bring to our remembrance the thing they were designed to signifie when Christ and his Apostles do command both should be done in prosecution of that end when the Fathers do with one voice declare without the least disparity distinction or limitation that both concurr unto that end And lastly when one naturally doth import and shew the breaking of Christ's Body on the Cross the other doth as naturally signifie shew forth and bring to our remembrance his Blood shed and separated from his Body and in both these consists the Passion of our Lord to say our Saviour's Passion is wholly and entirely represented by the Reception of one of the two Species only is to reflect unworthily upon the Wisdom of our Lord's Institution of them both and his command to do both in order to the shewing forth his Death and evidently to contradict the plain Assertions and the concurring Judgment of the Church of Christ that by drinking and receiving into our Mouths this Cup this Blood we do and ought to declare signifie represent commemorate and shew forth Christ's Death Secondly Christians saith (a) L. 2. q. 99. Art. 1. thomas Aquinas are sanctified by the Sacraments of Christ and therefore what is done to the injury of Christian People pertinet ad irreverentiam rei sacrae unde rationabiliter Sacrilegium dicitur is Sacrilege because it appertaineth to the irreverence of a sacred thing To Sacrilege saith (b) Q. 99. p. 1146. Becamus is referred omnis injuria omnisque abusio Sacramentorum all injury and abuse of the Sacraments and this is evident even from the drift of the Commandment Thou shalt not steal for that for bids in reference to temporal concerns omne nocumentum quod homini injustè infertur in rebus exterioribus All hurt done to them in external Things In reference to spirituals it therefore must for bid all spiritual hurt or injury Men suffer by the detaining of things spiritual from them Now surely if Christians can be hurt orinjured they must be so when they by others are deprived of the means of Grace and of Sanctification and spiritual Blessings Now of these say the fathers Christians are deprived as oft as they are thus deprived of the Cup of Blessing For they constantly affirm That the eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup did tend to the Sanctification both of Soul and Body (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 151. The Temperature of both the drink and the word saith Clemens of Alexandria is called the Eucharist of which they who by Faith are made partakers are sanctified in Body and Soul. In the New Covenant saith Cyril of Jerusalem there is the Heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifying the Soul and Body (d) Catech. Mystag 5. p. 245. Come to the Cup and receiving of the Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thou sanctified Who can express saith (e) Et Sacrosanctum vivifici corporis sanguinis sui Mysterium Membris suis tribuere quibus corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur In Psal vi poenit Gregory the greatness of that Mercy by which Mankind was redeemed with the Effusion of Christ's precious Blood and The sacred Mystery of his Life-giving Body and Blood was given to his Members by which the Church his Body is fed and made to drink is washed and sanctified The super substantial Bread and the Cup consecrated by solemn Benediction (f) Ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit Apud Cypr. p. 39 40. doth profit to the Life and the Salvation of the whole Man saith Arnoldus Carnotensis the Bread is Meat the Blood is Life the Bread for fitness of Nourishment the Blood for efficacy of giving Life Moreover this is written with a Sun-Beam in the Church's Liturgies in which they call the Cup received after the Body (g) Const Clem. l. 8. c. 13. Lit. S Petri p. 26. Lit. Greg. p. 22. Marc. p. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of everlasting Salvation In which they declare that Christ Blessing the Cup (h) Lit. Chrysost p. 1001. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and filling it with the Holy Ghost said Drink ye all of this and said it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fulness of the Holy Spirit that it was the Blood of the New Testament shed for many (i) Lit. St. Marc. p. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and distributed for the Remission of Sins in which they order the Deacon when he hath received it to say This hath touched my Lips and will take away mine iniquities and purge away my Sin and in which they lastly pray That (k) Lit.
561. It is a manifest Error to deliver to the people the Consecrated Bread dipped in the Chalice for a Complement of the Communion as being not agreeable to the Institution and surely for the same reason it must be a more manifest Error to give them the Consecrated Bread alone for a compleat Communion it being more dissonant from the Institution to give only one part than to give both only in another manner than was appointed by the Institution The Blood is well joined to the Flesh saith Paschasius because (f) Nec caro sine sanguine uti nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur c. Cap. 19. Bis neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly communicated for the whole Man which consists of Two Substances is redeemed and therefore fed together both with Flesh and Blood. Algerus in answer to the Question Why Bread by it self is Consecrated into the Flesh of Christ and the Wine into his Blood saith That therefore the Blood and Flesh are seen apart in the Sacrament that because Christ dyed for redeeming our Body by his Body and our Soul by his Soul when we had perished both in Body and Soul it might be signified that his Body and Soul were in Death divided (g) Unde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 8. And therefore Austin saith That neither the Flesh without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh is rightly Communicated In a word this Constitution thus established for a Law makes it a Sin to obey and comply with the Institution of our Lord by reason of the Laws of Men and whether this be not Erroneous let any reasonable person judge from this Consideration Had our Lord instituted this Sacrament to be Received under the Species of Bread alone and had he so distributed the same to his Disciples none coming after Christ could have thought it lawful to have added Consecrated Wine and to have distributed it after the Bread Therefore by parity of Reason Christ having instituted the Eucharist in both the Species of Bread and Wine and so distributed it no man can rightly think it fawful to Give the Sacrament in Bread alone to persons capable of both Species For confirmation of this Argument let it be considered that the Trent Council declares this power was always in the Church That in the dispensation of the Sacraments (h) Sess 21. c. 2. Salva illorum substantia ea statueret vel mutaret That retaining their substance she may appoint or change those things which she doth judge expedient for the profit of the Receivers If therefore when the Cup was instituted by Christ to be Received she may change so far the Institution as to make a Law it shall not be received by the Laity if it had not been Instituted why might she not appoint it should have been received by them § 3 3. Whereas the Church of Rome by the Authority of her Councils (i) Concil Const Sess 13. commands That they be Excommunicated Who contrary to her Decree Exhort the People to Communicate under both Species of Bread and Wine and who do take upon them so to administer the Sacrament unto the People and doth require that they be treated as Hereticks if they persist without Repentance in so doing The Fathers did not only thus administer the Sacrament in publick for a thousand Years together but also did exhort all Christians so to do (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cat. Myst 5. p. 245. After the Communion of the Body of Christ come to the Cup saith Cyril of Jerusalem The Priest saith (l) Eccles Hier. c. 3. Dionysius the Areopagite shewing the Consecrated Gifts comes himself to partake of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and exhorts others so to do The Gifts he shewed them were the Bread and Cup apart of these he therefore did exhort them to Communicate after the usual manner that is apart From taking of the Blood of this Sacrifice saith (m) Q. 57. in Levit. Austin not only no Man is restrained but All Men are exhorted to drink it who will have life And again They who have no eaten and have no drunk let them being invited make haste to these Banquets (n) Accedite ad carnem domini accedite ad sanguinem domini Serm. 46. de verbo dom cap. 4. Come to the Flesh of the Lord come to the Blood of the Lord. The Deacon saith the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom bowing takes the Cup with reverence and lifting it up he shews it to the People saying (o) Tom. 6. p. 1003. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Come to it with the Fear and Love of God. In the Antient Synodal form of Admonition used in the West we find one Admonition to the (p) Omnes fideles ad Communionem corporis fanguinis domini accedere admonete Apud Baluz p. 605. Ad Communionem corporis domini nostri Jesu Christi invitate 16. Not. in Reg. p. 609 p. 613. Priest to call upon all the Faithful to come to the participation of the body and the Blood of Christ Whereas in the Two New Admonitions transcribed by Baluzius from the R. Pontifical the injunction is only to invite them to the Communion of the Body of Christ which alteration seems to be occasioned by the change of the Custom of the Romish Church in this particular The Jews drank of the Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ (q) Et tu hibe ut te Christus sequatur De Sacr. l. 5. cap. 1. Drink thou also saith the spurious Ambrose that Christ may follow thee The Jews came to Crucify him saith Hincmarus of Remes (r) Tom. 2. p. 94. Let us come to him ut corpus sanguinem ejus accipiamus That we may receive his Body and Blood. (s) Sume vinum de torculari crucis expressum De tribus capitib Take the Wine pressed out of the Fat of the Cross saith Fulbertus of Chartres St. Paul doth in the like manner say Let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. And a greater than St. Paul saith Drink ye all of this for whom this Blood was shed for this is my Blood of the New Testament shed for many for the Remission of Sins § 4 Lastly Whereas the Councils of Constance and Basil to give the better colour to their absurd Decrees say That this Custom of Communicating under one kind only was ab Ecclesia diutissimè observata observed for a long time in the Church before they had assembled to make this Custom binding by their Laws and Sanctions it is matter of Surprize that two such great and numerous Assemblies should with such confidence assert these things since as Lindanus saith (t) Quod per occidentem fuerit populo utraque administrata
all the Faithful as much as in them lieth to receive both kinds which is proved by Three Reasons § 2. 2dly That it appears not from the words of our Saviour Joh. vi that Christ left that Practice indifferent where by many Arguments it is proved That nothing in that Chapter relates to the Sacramental eating of the Eucharist § 3. 3dly That this appears not from the Practice of our Lord or his Disciples § 4. 4ly That it was the Custom of the Church for a Thousand Years to give the Sacrament to the Sick in both kinds § 5. And in like manner to Infants capable of receiving both § 6. 5ly That neither Leo nor Gelasius gave any precept to the Church touching this matter § 7. § 1 BY way of Appendix to this Treatise I shall consider what the Author of a Papist misrepresented and represented hath discoursed upon this Subject Chap. 21. where he asserts That the Papist truly represented believes That he is obliged to obey all the Commands of Christ and that neither his Church nor any other Power upon Earth can limit alter or anull any precept of Divine Institution contrary to the intention of the Law-giver Neither is the denial of the Cup to the Laity a practice any way opposite to this his Belief he being taught that though Christ Instituted the blessed Sacrament under both kinds and so delivered it to his Apostles who only were then present and whom he had made Priests just before yet he gave no command that it should be so received by all the Faithful but left this indifferent as is evident from his own Words where he attributes the obtaining Life everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to the receiving under both kinds sometimes under one as when he says If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever He that eateth me even he shall live by me He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Joh. vi 51 57 58. And a curious Reader may find as many Texts for thus receiving under one kind as for the other And St. Augustin who was so far of this Opinion that he says That Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only viz. to those two going to Emaus Luc. c. last 30. and that the Apostles afterwards did often practise the like when they assembled to break Bread Acts ii c. which place he and many other Fathers explicate of the Sacrament Aug. l. 49. de Cons Evang. And this was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children the Sick used so to carry it with them is attested by all ancient Writers and modern Historians Nay he finds that this was the practice of the Church to communicate under one kind only or else under both as every one thought good especially in all Private Communions for the first Four hundred years after Christ and that the first precept of receiving under both kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. in the Year 443 and confirmed by Pope Gelasius in 490. Not for correcting any Abuse that had crept into the Church but for the discovering the Maniches who being of Opinion that Christ had no true Blood and that Wine was the Gall of the Devil used to lurk among the Christians and receiving under the form of Bread only as the rest did remained undistinguished till by this obligation of all receiving the Cup which they judged unlawful and abominable they were all detected And now if a thing till that time indifferent was for these motives determined by an Ecclesiastical Precept and so observed for many hundred Years without scrupling or questioning the Authority why should he doubt to submit to the same Authority when upon different motives and circumstances they issue forth another Precept Which Harangue contains these two Assertions I. That Christ gave no Command that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be received in both kinds by the Faithful II. That he left this indifferent and that this appears 1. From his own words Joh. vi 2. From his own practice and from the practice of his own Disciples administring the Sacrament to the Faithful in Bread alone 3. From the Custom of the Primitive Church who gave it to the Sick to Infants to Men in a Journey to carry with them in one kind only 4. Because it was a thing indifferently practised even in the Church till Leo the First in the Year 443 upon occasion of the Manichees and for Conviction of them commanded the Receiving in both kinds and Pope Gelasius A. D. 490. confirmed that Precept In Opposition to which Assertions I dogmatically affirm First That Christ's Institution of this Sacrament is virtually a Command which lays an Obligation on all the Faithful as much as in them lieth to receive both kinds Secondly 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 Thirdly That it was the Custom of the Church for a Thousand Years together to give the Sacrament to the Sick and to Infants capable of Receiving it in both kinds Fourthly That neither Leo nor Gelasius gave any new Precept to the Church touching this matter And § 2 First That Christ's Institution of this Sacrament is virtually a Command obliging all the Faithful as much as in them lieth to receive both kinds will be apparent from these following Arguments 1. That our Lord said in the Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye All of this For whereas Romanists pretend That Christ said only Drink ye all of this to them to whom he said when speaking of the Bread Do this and that those words were only spoken to his Apostles whom he then made Priests To this I answer That we have clear and convincing Evidence that these words Drink ye all of this are to be applied to others besides the Apostles As V. Gr. 1. From Christ's Institution whence I argue thus Christ Instituted no other Supper than that which he administred to his Disciples if then he did not institute that for all Believers capable they have no right to any part of it by virtue of Christ's Institution it can be unto them no Sacrament for whom it was not instituted by Christ since by the definition of the Sess 7. c. 1. Trent Council the Sacraments of the New Testament were all instituted by him they can expect no blessing from it since that depends upon Christ's Ordinance nay they must be esteemed Sacrilegious Vsurpers as laying claim to that Sacrament which never by Christ's Institution did belong unto them If Christ did Institute that Sacrament for all Believers capable that is to be a standing Ordinance by which as his Disciples then did so all Believers capable should afterwards eat of what he called his Body and drink of what he called his Blood then did he Institute