Forms of Communicating the Sick used in the Ancient Liturgies of the Church and from the Canons which concern this Affair For after the Vnction of the infirm Person it was the Custom to give him the Communion and that he received in both kinds is evident from the words of the Priest who ministred the Sacrament viz. Corpus sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam zeternam Amen The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Life eternal And from the following Prayer viz. Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens aeterne Deus te fideliter deprecamur ut accipienti huic fratri nostro famulo tuo Sacro-sanctum Corpus sanguinem Jesu Christi filii tui Domini noftri tum Corporis animae sit salus Ex Theodori Poeniten p. 326. Father omnipotent eternal God we faithfully pray thee that the Holy Body and Blood of our Lord received by our Brother thy Servant may tend to the Salvation of his Body and Soul. Apud Larroq Hist Euch. p. 135 136. Hugh Menard tells us from a Manuscript of St. Remy of Rheims That when the sacrament was ministred to such as were not extream ill it was said unto them separately the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you to life everlasting the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ransom you to Life everlasting which words make a separate and distinct reception But as for those who were at the point of Death these two Expressions were joined together The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul unto everlasting Life because there was given to the Sick Person in a Spoon the Body of our Lord steeped in the Holy Blood. The reason of this steeping we learn from the Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi ut veraciter Presbyter possit dicere infirmo corpus sanguis Domini proficiat tibi in vitam aeternam De Discip Eccles l. 1. can 70. Canon of the Council of Tours cited by Regino That every Priest shall have his Pyx or Vessel worthy of so great a Sacrament where the Body of our Lord shall be carefully reserved for the Viaticum of the Sick and that this sacred Oblation ought to be steeped in the Blood of Christ that the Priest may truly say to the Infirm The Body and the Blood of our Lord profit thee to Life eternal and for the Remission of Sins Now this practice and the reason of the practice here assigned and approved of do expresly shew their Faith was this That the Priest could not name them both without a Lye unless he gave both and that they who enjoined that what Christ had instituted to be received separately should rather be received together than that either Species should not be received at all did think both Species necessary to a full and entire Communion as it hath been well noted by Cassander For to what purpose should hey so carefully require this intinction if they had then believed that there was nothing wanting to the Grace or the integrity of the Communion when they received under one Species alone And though this be abundantly sufficient to shew what was the practice of the Church till the 12th Century yet it is easie to produce farther evidence of this matter A Synod held in the Region of Ticinum and therefore stiled Synodus Regio Ticinensis thus Decrees That Si is qui infirmatur publicae poenitentiae mancipatus est non potest hujus myfterii consequi medicinam nisi prius reconciliatione percepta communionem corporis sanguinis Christi meruerit Concil Tom. 8. p. 64. if who is infirm is in a state of Penance he cannot have the benefit of this Mystery viz. of Sacred Unction unless being first reconciled he be worthy of the Communion of the Body and the Blood of Christ And mongst the things which visibly and wholesomly are done in the Church In perceptione corporis sanguinis ejus infirmis Viaticum dari L. 1. de Sacr. Euch. cap. 7. fol. 18. b. Algerus mentioneth the giving the Body and Blood of our Lord for the Viaticum of the Sick In the 13th Century L. 3. contr Albing cap. 7. Lucas Pishop of Tuy informs us of an Heretick who being Sick was admonished by his Host to send for a Priest and discourse with him as a Penitent that he might receive from him Sanctissimum Sacramentum corporis fanguinis Domini the most holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Now all these Instances do plainly shew that it was far from being a received and authorized Custom of the Church to Communicate the Sick under the Species of Bread alone or to give nothing to them but one Species only On the contrary it is extreamly evident from all the Canons of the Church produced touching the case of Penitents and others that it was a thing established by the highest Authority of the whole Church of Christ that both the holy Mysteries should be exhibited to the infirm and dying Person And seeing the Ancients looked upon it as so great a benefit to dying Persons to be refreshed with the food of the Body and the Blood of Christ since they took so much care to give the Bread steeped in the consecrated Wine to them who through infirmity of Body could not sallow it down dry and to minister each Species apart to them who were not extream ill since as De Discipl eccles l. 1. c. 195. Regino doth inform us they determined that great care was to be taken least the doing this being deferr'd too long it should prove to the destruction of the Soul our Lord having said unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no life in you I say from all these things it is extreamly evident that it was a receied and in subjects capable was deemed a necessary thing to communicate the infirm and dying person under both Species of Bread and Wine Moreover § 6. that Children also if capable of doing so received in both kinds will be evident against the precarious Assertion of J.L. 1. From the clear Testimony of St. Cyprian in his Book De Lapsis for there he introduceth the Children who by their Parents were carried to eat things offered to Idols or to offer to them thus pleading of their Cause to God Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus perdidit nos aliena perfidia parentes senfimus parricidas p. 125. We have done nothing nor did we of our own accords leaving the Meat and Cup of the Lord hasten to these prophane contagious Solemnities our Parents were our Parricides Where he affords us a plain demonstration that they then ordinarily received both the Elements for had they not as many as were capable received the Bread as well as the Cup why doth he introduce them
you drink it in Remembrance of me for as oft as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew th Lords Death till he come Now saith he (l) Quod si a Domino praecipitur N. B. ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur ut quotiescunque biberimus in Commemorationem Domini haec saciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum est nisi eadem quae dominus secit nos quoque saciamus p. 152. if it be commanded by our Lord and the same thing be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle That as oft as we drink in Commemoration of our Lord we should do that which our Lord did we find that is not observed by us which is commanded unless we do the same things which our Lord did and mingling the Cup of the Lord after the same manner we recede not from the divine Institution Lastly If any of our Predecessors saith he out of Ignorance or Simplicity did not hold and observe that (m) Quod nos dominus facere exemplo Magisterio suo docuit c. p. 156 157. which the Lord taught us to do by his Example and command Gods Mercy may shew Pardon to him whereas no Pardon will be shewed to us being instructed and admonished to offer as our Lord did his Cup mixed with Wine if we do not so Wherefore we have directed Letters to all our Colleagues That the evangelical Command and the Tradition of our Lord should be every where observed and that there should be no receding from that which Christ both taught and did Here then is all that Protestants assert against the Definitions of the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent viz. 1. That our Lord taught both by Example and command the Ministration of the Cup or that this was enjoined by Inspiration and Command of God. 2. That Christ in ministring the Cup drank to Believers and That he commanded them to drink it by saying Drink ye all of this and that the same thing is confirmed by the Apostle saying This do as oft as you drink it in Remembrance of me 3. That this evangelical Command and Tradition of Christ is to be every where observed and that none should recede from what he did both teach and do none should recede from the divine Instruction that it is necessary that the Faithful Servant should obey his Lord and that he may justly fear his Anger if he do not what he hath commanded Now that St. Cyprian in this Epistle speaks not only of the Consecrution or Oblation of the Cup but also of the Distribution of it and the Participation of it by the People is evident beyond all Contradiction For 1. He expresly speaks of sanctifying the Lords Cup and vtinistring it to the People N. B. and of the Blood of the Lord (n) Epoto Sanguine Domint p. 153. drank off by them and of the Cup which in the Psalmist Phrase inebriates the Drinkers of it 2. He adds that some perhaps might plead in favour of that Practice he condemns That they used only Water least their Persecutors perceiving that they smelled of Wine in the Morning might hence conclude they had received the Sacrament and gather thence that they were Christians which could by no means be objected if he argued only for the Consecration of Wine and not for the Participation of it by Believers also seeing they could not smell of that which they did not partake of 3. P. 155. He saith That if the fear of smelling of Wine should keep Men from doing what Christ did and commanded to be done in commemoration of himself the Brother hood would be withdrawn from the Passion of Christ in the times of Persecution whilst they thus learned to be ashamed of his Blood in the Oblations Whereas if it belonged not to them to drink of the Blood of the Oblation jure communications by right of participation as St. Cyorian says it did if they were not obliged to drink of it in remembrance of him this consequence must be infirm 4. Whereas they who did celebrate this Sacrifice with Bread and Water consecrated in the Morning Sacrifice thought this a good excuse that in the Evening Sacrifice they used Wine mixed with Water St. Cyprian saith P. 136. That this excuse is not sufficient partly because the People could not be all invited to the Evening Sacrifice partly because in every Sacrifice me make mention of Christ's Passion and so must do no other thing in any Sacrifice than what Christ did which Reasons can carry no weight in them but upon supposition of an obligation on the People to communicate of the consecrated Wine and Water Lastly He adds That if the blush to drink the Blood of Christ Ibid. we cannot be prepared to pour out our Blood for Christ which not the Priest alone but all the People must be prepared to do it therefore is extreamly evident that here St. Cyprian discourseth not only of the Priest's obligation to consecrate Wine mixed with Water but also of the Peoples obligation to partake of the Cup so consecrated In the Apostolical Constitutions the Apostles are introduced § 3. giving this order (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. 2. c. 57. When the Sacrifice is offered let every order of Believers receive by themselves of the Lord's Body and of his precious Blood. The Title of which Constitution is What every one of the Clergy and Laity ought to do in the Assembly In the Sacramental Thanksgiving they speak thus We give thee thanks O Father for Christ's precious Blood shed for our sakes and for his precious Body (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 25. the Antitypes of which me now celebrate be having commanded us to shew forth his Death This Prayer all the Faithful make and all that are Baptized are the persons who are thus to shew forth his Death In the Prayer after the divine Oblation they say thus (q) Lib. 2. cap. 13. Let the Bishop Communicate then the Priests Deacons c. Amongst the Women the Deaconnesses Virgins and Windows then the Children then all the People in their Order and the Priest let him tender the Oblation saying The Body of Christ and let the Receiver say Amen the Deason let him hold the Cup and giving it say The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and he that drinketh it let him say Amen And in the close of these Prescriptions are these words (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. c. 15. These things we the Apostles have commanded you Bishops Priests and Deacons to observe touching the Mystical Service St. Basil is an express assertor of the same Doctrine for he spends a whole Chapter to prove that he who is regenerated by Baptism (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. ought afterwards to be nourished by the participation of the divine Mysteries
in the plural not by one of them only and (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 580. how this should be done Christ saith he hath taught us saying unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. And at the close of the Gospels it is written that Jesus taking Bread and giving thanks brake and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body broken for you this do in remembrance of me and taking the Cup and giving thanks he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this c. The Apostle also doth attest these things saying I received from the Lord that which I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus in the Night in which he was betrayed took Bread and giving thanks brake it and said This is my Body broken for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise after Supper he took the Cup saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood do this in remembrance of me for as of as you shall not this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 581. What therefore do these words profit us That eating and drinking we might be always mindful of him who died for us and rose again Which words are as full a confutation of the Roman Doctrine as can be desired by any Protestant For they expresly teach that every Baptized person (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moral Reg. 21. Tom. 2. p. 431. is bound to partake of both the Mysteries of the Bread and of the Cup that our Lord hath taught him how he should be nourished by these mysteries even by eating Sacramentally of his Flesh and drinking Sacramentally his Blood. That the words of the Institution of this Supper mentioned in the Gospels and in particular those words Drink ye all of this belong to all Believers even as much as the forementioned words He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life c. they being here introduced to prove that all Believers ought to be nourished by the holy Mysteries that therefore 3. Do this in both these Places is not a Command directed to the Apostles to Sacrifice Christs Body and his Blood but to Believers to eat and drink them And 4. That we are to remember and shew forth Christs Death not only by eating but by drinking also St. Ambrose speaking of these Sacraments as he and many of the Ancients call the consecrated Bread and Wine informs us that Christ speaks of them in the Song of Songs saying (y) Edite inquit fratres mei inebrianimi De Sacram l. 5. c. 3. quoties enim bibis remissionem accipis peccatorum inebriaris in Spiritu ibid. Eat my Brethren and be inebriated for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins and art inebriated with the Spirit And the same Ambrose elsewhere saith If as oft as this Blood is poured out it is poured out for the Remission of Sins (z) Debeo illum semper accipere ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur l. 4. c. 6. I ought alwaies to receive it that my Sins may always be remitted In which Words he not only asserts That Christ's Blood poured out ought to be received which cannot be done by receiving it only by Concomitance with the Body but also that our Lord commands his Brethren not to eat only of these Mysteries but to be inebriated and saith That we are thus inebriated by drinking St. Chrysostom is copious on this Subject for saith he § 4. many things conduce to christian Love (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matt. Hom. 32. p 223. one Table is offered to all the same Drink is given to all and not only so but it is given out of one Cup For the Father being willing to induce us to love one another ordered this making us to drink out of one Cup which is an Instance of intense Love So that the Sacrament of the Cup according to St. Chrysostom was of the Institution of the Father and he thus ordered Matters for the Advancement of his great Commandment of Christian Love. In his Twenty seventh Homily upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians he saith That as Christ said over the Bread and over the Cup do this in Remembrance of me (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 421. revealing to us the Cause of giving us this Mystery So doth St. Paul here say As often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's Death Christ therefore did command the drinking of this Cup and did it for a Cause which will remain to the Worlds End and equally concern all Christians viz. The Remembrance and Annunciation of his Death And in his Fifteenth Homily upon the First of Timothy he brings in Christ thus speaking to the Laity as well as Clergy I have united I have joined you to my slf (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 316. I have said eat me drink me And whether Christ or the Trent Council should be obeyed in this Matter it is not hard to judge especially if we consider That in the Judgment of St. Chrysostom Christ did not only institute but command these things to be done His Words are these As chiefly we remember those Words which we last hear from our departing Friends and are wont to say by way of Admonition to their Heirs if they dare to transgress their Commands consider this is the last Voice which your Father uttered and till his last Breath he required these things Even so Paul being willing hence to render his Discourse formidable Remember saith he that he gave this his last Mystery and in that very Night in which he was to be slain for us (d) In Cor. 1. Hom. 27. pag. 421. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he commanded these things St. Austin doth sufficiently inform us of the same thing by asking of this Question When our Lord saith Exceept ye ear my Flesh and drink my Blood you shall have no Life in you how is it that the People are so much reslrained from the Blood of the Sacrifices which were offered for Sins If by those Sacrifices this one Sacrifice was signified (e) Ab hujus Sacrificii sanguine sumendo in alimentum non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam qu. 57. in Levit. from taking of the Blood of which Sacrifice not only no Man is restrained but All Men are exhorted to drink it who will have Life for surely such an Exhortation must be equivalent to a Command § 5 It is worth the Enquiry saith (f) In Levit. p. 327. Procopius Gazaeus how it comes to pass That when in the Law the eating of Blood is forbidden Now Christ commandeth us to eat his
spiritual Drinke for corporal Refection is not perfected without both these And as he elsewhere saith because spiritual effects are done under the likeness of visible it was fit that this spiritual nourishment should be delivered to us under the Species of those things which Men do ordinarily use for corporal nourishment and therefore this Sacrament is delivered to us under the Species of Bread and Wine 2. For the signification of it for it is a memorial of the Lord's Passion whereby his Blood was separated from his Body and therefore in this Sacrament the Blood is offered by it self And elsewhere Because the Completion of our Salvation was made by the Passion and Death of Christ by which is Blood was separated from his Flesh separatim nobis traditur Sacramentum corporis ejus sub specie panis sanguis sub specie vini the Sacrament of his Body is delivered N. B. to us apart under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine that so in this Sacrament might be the memory and representation of our Lord's Passion 3. For the healthful Effect of it for the Body is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Body and the Blood is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Soul for the Soul is in the Blood. (k) In 4. Sent. dist 8. q. 2. dist 11. q. 2. Bonaventure saith That as to the signification both Species are of the integrity of this Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither of them by it self but in both together which appears thus Here Christ is signified as Meat perfectly refreshing them that eat him Sacramentally and Spiritually but a perfect Refection is not in Bread alone or Wine alone but in both he therefore is signified as perfectly refreshing not in one Species only but in both And again This Sacrament though it contains two Signs and two Words yet because a perfect Sign ordained for one thing sc the Vnion of the Body Mystical results from them therefore the Sacrament is one and the reason of this Integrity and Ordination comes from Nature for neither is Bread nor Wine apart fully Refectory but both and one full Refection in nature comes from both and so they are disposed to signifie one Refection but this is compleated by the Divine Institution which by one Institution hath appointed these two Signs to signifie one perfect Refection and so it is one Sacrament on the account of nature and of Divine Institution (l) In 4. Sent. dist 8. Art. 13. Albertus Magnus lays down this general Rule The Sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in Grace which it doth not signifie in Similitude and that the Sacraments of the New Law are the cause of nothing of which they bear not a sensible Image and thence infers That the Vnion of the Mystical Body is not perfectly caused and signified but by a double Sign and therefore by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both And in his Comment upon the Sixth of John he saith That as in the Flesh is received what is vivifying and restorative of the spiritual and divine Life lost in us so by the Blood is received the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward parts And making the enquiry why to that manducation Spiritual Drink was necessary to be added he answers it is so because Meat cannot be without Drink In his Comment on (m) c. 22. f. 321. St. Luke Some saith he more curious than devout enquire to what end was the Sacrament of the Blood instituted after the Sacrament of the Body since the Body of Christ is not without the Blood nor the Blood without the Body But to this we say that though these are as to their nature undivided yet have they different Effects for one by Christ is ordained to incorporate the Blood for the washing away of Sins whence it is said That without shedding of Blood there is no Remission And that which they say that the Body is not without the Blood is true but yet by virtue of the Sacrament the Sacramental Body is not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body That therefore we might have a Supper Sacramentally perfect it was necessary that it should be instituted that the Body and Blood should be Sacramentally had this therefore is the cause and manner of the Institution so our King and Priest saves us out of the Flour and out of the Wine-Press (n) Rat. l. 4. c. 54. f. 126. Durantus saith That the Church instituted the Sacrament to be taken after the consecration of both Species to shew that he who receives the Hoast only receives not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally For although the Blood be in the consecrated Hoast yet is it not Sacramentally there because the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine signifies the Blood not the Body wherefore because the Sacrament under one kind is not compleat according to the Sign the Sacrament ought to be compleat before the Priest use it And again (o) Ibid. c. 4â— f. 106. Although under the Form of Bread the Blood may be taken with the Body and under the Form of Wine the Body may be taken with the Blood yet according to Innocent the Third neither the Blood under the Form of Bread nor the Body under te Form of Wine is drunk and eaten because as neither Blood is eaten nor the Body drunk so neither under the Form of Bread is drunk or eaten under the Form of Wine Cassunder informs us of (p) De com sub utraque specie p. 1034. Petrus de Palude that he asserted That the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double viz. the matter of Bread and Drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be perfectly represented by the matter in a way agreeable to natural things because the Sacraments effect what they do figure but the effect of the Sacrament is full Refection of the Soul and therefore the matter representing this ought to do it by perfect Refection of the Body which only is by Meat and Drink (q) Lyturg. p. 77. Guilielmus de monte Landano as he there cites him adds That he who receives the Body receives the whole Truth but not the whole Sacrament and therefore in many places they Communicate with Bread and Wine that is with a whole Sacrament The (r) De commu sub utraque specie ibid. Dean of Lovain as he cites him saith That with respect to the Sacrament and the perfection of it it is more convenient that the Communion should be made under both kinds for this is more consonant to the Institution and integrity of it to corporal Refection to the Example of Christ and the Primitive Church And again He freely confesseth that the Laity communicating under one kind only receive not a full Sacrament which consists of two Parts This Sacrament saith (s) In 1 ad Cor.
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
the precious blood of Christ. (a) F. 11 12. Lanfrank informs us That sumitur quidem caro per se sanguis per se The Flesh is taken by it self and the Blood by it self the Flesh under the form of Bread and the Blood under the form of Wine They therefore seem not even in his days to have been acquainted with the new Doctrine of Concomitance Sixthly This is apparent from the Decrees of Leo and Gelasius concerning those who in their time abstained from the Cup. For of the Manichees (b) Serm. 4. in quadrages cap. 5. P. Leo saith That they indeed received the Body of Christ but they declined haurire sanguinem Redemptionis nostrae to drink the Blood of our Redemption he therefore thought that they could not drink the Blood according to our Saviour's Institution who received not the Cup. (c) Apud Ivon decr part 2. cap. 89. Gelasius saith That the declining of the Cup was the dividing of one and the same Mystery which could not truly be affirmed if by taking of the Bread alone an entire Sacrament and whole Christ Body and Blood were taken and received He also adds Let them either take the whole Sacrament or be driven from the whole clearly intimating that by receiving the Bread only they received not the whole But it is needless to proceed in confutation of this vain imagination for had it ever entered into the Heads of the Renowned Fathers of the Church they would not so unanimously have said the Cup was necessary to be received for the remembrance of our Lord's Death and Passion for the procuring of our union to Christ for the Remission of Sins for the increase of Grace for the Sanctification and Salvation both of Soul and Body they would not have concluded the Sacrament was imperfect when it was not received nor would they with such Passion have exhorted those who had received the Body to come and be partakers of the Cup or stiled it as in their Liturgies they always do the Cup of Life Redemption and Salvation as we have seen they did § 6 Mr. Condom nevertheless thus Triumphs over us Gentlemen open your own Books open Aubertine P. 356. the most learned Defender of your Doctrine you will find there in almost every Page passages taken from St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom the two Cyrils and from many others where you may read That in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his Person it self seeing they received say they the King in their Hands they receive Jesus Christ and the Word of God they received his Flesh as living not as the Flesh of a meer Man but as the Flesh of God is not this to receive the Divinity together with the Humanity of the Son of God and in a word his entire Person after this what would you call Concomitancy Answ What is all this to the purpose Is this the manner of speaking used by the Romanists since the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation was invented and since the Sacrilegious Defalcation of the Cup Do they express Concomitance by saying You receive Jesus Christ the King the Word of God the living Flesh of God Is it not this they carefully and frequently inculcate that under that one Species alone which is distributed to them they receive Jesus Christ whole and entire Doth not the Council of Constance thus express it That (d) Sess 13. vide Basil Sess 30. Concil Tom. 12. p. 601. it is firmly to be believed and no way to be doubted that the whole Body and Blood is truly contained both under the Species of Bread and likewise under the Species of Wine Doth not the (e) Sess 13. cap. 3. can 1 Trent Council say That by virtue of this Concomitance the Body is under the Species of Wine and the Blood under the Species of Bread Anathematizing them who teach the contrary and that under one Species is contained a true Sacrament Are not the Romanists still endeavouring to possess the People with these Sentiments That in receiving one Species alone they loose nothing since by Concomitancy they receive both the Body and the Blood Is it not this which the (f) Sess 13. cap. 3. Trent Council is so concerned to teach that as much is contained under either Species as under both Let therefore Mr. Condom if he believes the Fathers held Concomitancy shew out of all their Writings any thing of this Nature which may convince us that they did assert it or let him rest assured that what the Romanists since the Twelfth Century (g) Attendant insuper Sacerdotes quod cum Communionem sacram porrigant simplicibus sollicite eos instruant sub panis specie simul eis dari corpus sanguinem Domini Concil Lambeth A.D. 1281. Concil Tom. 11. part 1. p. 1159. have been continually inculcating and obtruding upon others what filleth all their Books and their Discourses on this Subject but never was once mentioned by any Christian Writer for a Thousand Years though they were equally concerned and had all the same reason if they believed Concomitancy yea and the same occasion if they had generally practised the half Communion so to do is but a Novelty invented by the Romish Doctors only to serve a cause and justifie the Defalcation of the Cup. When the Doctors of that Church would in their suppositious Treatises make the Ancients speak in this new Dialect they do not mince the matter thus but make them speak exactly in their Roman Language Thus in that Epistle falsly said to be writ by Isidore Hispalensis to Redemptus they introduce him speaking thus (h) Cum praedictorum fuerit consecratio non ut quidam putant indocti sub panis specie sola caro Christi in Calice tantummodo sumitur sanguis sed in utroque Deus homo in corpore glorificato totus integer Christus integer Christus in calice panis vivus qui de coelo descendit totus est in utroque Epist Isidori ad Redemptum p. 696. When the consecration of the Elements is made there is under the Species of Bread not the Flesh of Christ only and in the Chalice not his Blood only as some unskilful persons think but in both there is God and Man whole and entire Christ in his Glorified Body whole Christ in the Cup the living Bread who came down from Heaven is entire and whole in both Here is plain dealing only the Language and other unquestionable circumstances as (i) De Eucharist p. 902. Aubertine well notes demonstrate that the Author could not write before the middle of the Eleventh Century because the Controversie betwixt the Greeks and Latins touching unleavened Bread which gave occasion to that Discourse began not till the year 1053. APPENDIX CHAP. VIII The Contents The Assertions of J. L. touching Communion in one kind § 1. Against whom it is proved 1. That Christ's Institution of the Sacrament is virtually a Command obliging
to remember That Christ shed his Blood for them and by that Blood shed confirmed the New Covenant to them and since Christ hath appointed the drinking of this Cup and this alone to be the memorial of his Blood shed all Christians capable of doing so must be obliged when they do Sacramentally Commemorate these Mercies to drink of this Cup. And this demonstratively follows from the ensuing words Vers 26 Do this as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's death till he come for they do manifest that as well by drinking of the Cup as eating of the Bread the Lord's Death is shewed and that until his second coming both these things are to be done in order to that end And since these words are not the words of Christ but of St. Paul who speaks here of the whole Church of Corinth the words preceeding Do this as oft as you shall drink it in remembrance of me must belong also to all the Members of that Church because of the connective Particle which joins the 25th and 26th Verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be spoken to in the words This do c. and in the following words For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. And if this was the Duty of the whole Church of Corinth it must be equally the Duty of the whole Church of Christ there being no peculiar reason why the Church of Corinth should be obliged to drink this Cup in order to these ends more than all other Christian Churches And when our Lord hath taken so great Care to tell us That the Bread is his broken Body and therefore is to be eaten in remembrance of him i. e. of his Body broken that the Cup is the New-Tastament in his Blood and therefore is to be drank in remembrance of his Blood shed for us When his Apostle doth as distinctly say 1 Cor. x. 16. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup which we bless is the Communion of the Blood and neither of them have hinted in the least that the Cup is the Communion of his Body or the Bread of his Blood but by a particular and separate institution distribution and signification ascribed to them have strogly insinuated the contrary for men after all this to say one of these Species will suffice for the Bread is as well the blood shed as the broken Body and the participation of it is the Communion of the Blood of Christ and that by the partaking of it we do as well remember and shew forth the shedding of his Blood upon the Cross as by the partaking of the Cup is to my apprehension an affront offered to our dear Lord and to the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost In Answer to these Arguments some of the Roman Doctors are pleased to say that this Discourse of the Apostle imports only a conditional Order to do this in Remembrance of Jesus Christ as often as one shall do it and not an order absolutely to do it To this I Answer 1st He who not only doth command us at the celebration of the Sacrament to remember his Blood shed but also Institutes a sign for the memorial of it and doth command us to use this sign because it is appointed to be the memorial of it commands us when we receive the Sacrament to receive that sign for he who wills the end must will the means which he hath instituted for the accomplishing that end but this doth Christ for he institutes a Cup of Wine to represent his Blood shed he saith Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood shed this I command you to do in remembrance of me He therefore doth command us when we receive the Sacrament to receive this sign which in his Institution of this Sacrament he appointed as the means of this remembrance 2dly He who commands us to drink this Cup as oft as we drink it in remembrance of him because we do by drinking of it shew forth the Lords Death till he come commands us to do it as oft as we receive the Sacrament seeing as oft as we receive the Sacrament we shew forth the Lord's Death but Christ saith the Apostle did lay upon us this command for this very Reason saying Do this as oft as you shall drink it in nomembrance of me for as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come 3dly Where there is parity of Reason there the command may very well be deemed of equal latitude and extent for ratio legis est lex where there is equal reason to command there may we reasonably suppose the will of the Law-giver to be equal in commanding but ther is equal reason why our Lord should absolutely command the drinking of the Cup in remembrance of his Blood shed as why he absolutely should say touching the eating of the Bread Do this in remembrance of me the one being as much the Symbol of his Blood shed as is the other of his broken Body and the one shewing forth his Death as much as doth the other we therefore have no cause to doubt but that he equally intended the doing both in order to this end § 3 Second That it doth not appear either from the words of our Saviour Joh. vi or from the practice of himself or his Disciples that he left this practice indifferent will be made evident from an impartial consideration both of our Saviour's words and of his practice and first to clear up the true meaning of our Lord's Discourse in the Sixth Chapter of St. John Let it be observed First That our Lord 's mystical Expressions of labouring for the Meat that doth not perish of eating the true Bread from Heaven are by himself plainly expounded to import only the believing on him or the embracing of him as their Prophet and their Saviour for when he had exhorted them to labour for the meat that did not perish he tells them v. 29. That this was to believe on him that God had sent when he had told them v. 35. That he was the Bread from Heaven he immediately adds He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Having said that he was he Bread which cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. He confirms this Expression v. 40. by these words This is the Will of my Father that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him should have eternal Life And again v. 47. Verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath everlasting Life I am that Bread of Life Secondly Observe that nothing was more common among the Eastern Nations than to express the Actions of believing embracing and obeying the words of Wisdom Vide Leight Hor. Hebr.
in Joh. p. 112 113. or hearkening to her Councils and Instructions by eating and by drinking of them Thus Wisdom cryeth in the Streets saith Solomon Come eat of my Bread and drink of my Wine that I have mingled Prov. ix 5. that is Go in the way of understanding v. 6. Eat you that which is good and let your Soul delight it self in Fatness that is Isa lv 2. Incline your Ear hear and your Soul shall live And by the Son of Syrach Wisdom is introduced speaking thus They that eat me shall yet be hungry and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty Ecclus xxiv 21. i. e. He that obeys me v. 22. Hence Philo the Jew informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Joh. vi v. 51. to eat is a Symbol of Spiritual nourishment Add to this that of Mr. Leightfoot That the Talmudists make frequent mention of eating the Messiah and thereby understand only their being made partakers of his Benefits And that of Clemens of Alexandria upon that passage of St. Paul I have fed you with Milk Strom. l. 5. p. 579. and not with strong Meat viz. Milk is the rudiments of Faith or the Doctrines of the Catechism the first nourishment of the Soul strong meat a comtemplation which makes us to discern the divine power and essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Contemplations are the Flesh and Blood of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meat and drink of the divine Word is the knowledge of the divine Essence Thirdly Observe that from these Metaphors our Lord proceeds to that contained in these words objected by the Roman Doctors v. 51. The Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World that is It is my Body which I will give up unto death that by it the world may have life which is a greater Benefit exceedingly than that which you received from that Manna which Moses gave you in the Wilderness or from that meat with which I did so lately fill your Bodies The Jews taking these words in a gross sence as if our Lord had promised to give his real Flesh to be swallowed down their Throats and eaten by them as they had eaten Bread the day before and as their fore Fathers had eaten Manna in the Wilderness exclaimed against him as promising a thing absurd inhumane and imposible saying How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat to this our Saviour Answers v. 53. in words still more expressive of his violent and bloody Death for the salvation of Mankind viz. Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood c. Now these words are by some conceived to import thus much Vnless you with the Mouth of your Bodies do eat my real and corporeal Flesh and drink my proper Blood you cannot have eternal Life Having premised these Observations I shall now proceed to shew both from this Chapter and from other Reasons that our Lord spake not here of oral and corporeal eating of his natural Flesh and drinking of his proper Blood but only of doing of these things spiritually and that not only in the celebration of that Sacrament which by our Lord was Instituted for the remembrance of his Death and Passion but generally believing that by his Death and Passion he became the Saviour of the World and purchased Pardon and Salvation for all that heartily believed in him and would sincerely yield Obedience to his precepts And 1. Against the gross and for the spiritual Interpretation of these words I argue from the 51. v. thus The Flesh which Christ here promised to give for the Life of the World is the same with the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. for so we learn expresly from these words I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh that I will give for the Life of the World. And again having said He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life v. 54. and he that eateth me shall live by me v. 57. he adds immediately This is the Bread which came down from Heaven and he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Now our Lord hath expresly taught us that the eating of this Bread of Life imported only our believing on him v. 35. as hath already been made evident from our second Observation therefore the eating of his Flesh doth certainly import the same spiritual Action Moreover we are only to eat of Christ as Flesh in that importance of the Phrase in which we are to eat of Christ as Bread for as Christ saith he will give Flesh to eat so doth he say he will give Bread to eat as he saith He that eateth of my Flesh shall live for ever so he saith He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever but none can say that Christ was or could properly be Bread or eaten by the Mouth as such wherefore he being only figuratively and spiritually Bread could only figuratively and spiritually be eaten as Bread if therefore in the same importance only we are to eat his Flesh that also is to be eaten in a spiritual Sence 2. From these words v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat 't is evident the Jews conceived that our Lord promised to give them his proper Flesh to eat and swallow down their Throats as they had done the Bread with which he fed them And it on all hands is agreed that they mistook the sence of Christ's words and fansied such a meaning of them as he did not intend but had our Lord intended the corporeal eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood 't is certain that it must be swallowed down their Throats as properly as was the Bread which they had eaten and therefore no Man who maintaineth this corporeal eating of Christ's Flesh to be intended here can suitably to his Opinion say That they imposed a false sence upon our Saviour's words since from this sence it does inevitably follow that Christ intended that his humane Flesh should properly be eaten and their words signifie no more Add to this one Consideration which shews what apprehensions the Fathers of the first Three Centuries had of this eating of the Flesh of Christ viz. when 't was objected to them by the Heathens that they did eat Man's Flesh they constantly in their Apologies reject the accusation as the vilest calumny and as a most abominable thing sufficient to discover that the Author of such an institution must be some wicked Damon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Christians saith Apol. 2. p. 70. 1. 50. Justin Martyr do not own the eating of humane flesh it is an infamous thing and falsly is reported of us This is saith Ad Authol l. 3. p. 119 126. Theophilus the most wicked and inhumane of
46. c. 2. p. 518. in the Church of God in the Mystical distribution of the spiritual Nourishment the Body and the Blood of Christ is taken But adds That Ser. Sancto de jejun Sept. mensis Ser. 89. the Lord saying Vnless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you we ought so to communicate of this Holy Table as not to doubt of the Truth of the Body and Blood of Christ Gelasius also saith Disp de duabus naturis Christi Bib. patrum Tom. 4. p. 432. That the Sacraments we take of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine Thing whence by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature and yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be or to remain and in this Decree that the taking of both Species is the taking of one and the self-same Mystery which therefore is not celebrated by taking of one Species only and that the not receiving of the Cup when the Bread hath been taken is the dividing of one and the self-same Mystery or the destroying of its Unity so that he argues against this practice from a Reason essential to the Mystery and which respects the Unity thereof which by the practice of receiving in one kind only is destroyed Having thus demonstrated that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church till the 12th Century taught Cap. 1. That the Laity by divine Precept were obliged to receive both kinds when they were capable of doing so Cap. 2.6 That they condemned all variation from the matter of the Institution and the Doctrine of Concomitance Cap. 3.5 That they conceived the Receiving of the Cup by the Laity was requisite to their shewing forth the Lord's Death their Vnion to Christ the increase of Grace the Remission of their Sins the Sanctification and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies and lastly Cap. 4. for their receiving an entire Communion That they constantly exhorted the People having received the Bread to take the Cup also Cap. 6.5 declaring that it was Vnlawful Erroneous and even Sacrilegious to receive the one without the other if they were capable of receiving both and having fully answered and confuted all that J.L. hath offered to the contrary Cap. 8. I shall conclude in these words of Mr. Condom on this subject a little varied viz. Thus many constant practices of the Primitive Church P. 160. thus many different Circumstances whereby it appears in particular and in publick and always with an universal approbation and according to the established Law that she gave the Communion under both Species so many Ages before the Council of Constance and from the origin of Christianity till the time of this Council do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did thwart the Tradition of all Ages P. 161. when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both and that in which manner soever they took it they neither contradicted the Institution of Jesus Christ nor deprived themselves of the Fruit of this Sacrament In his Second Part P. 194. Sect. 4th he lays down this as a principle which alone carries along with it the decision of this Question P. 195. viz. That in all practical Matters we must always regard what has been understood and practised by the Church P. 196. That the true means to understand God's Holy Law is to consider in what manner it has been always understood and observed in the Church Since there appears in this Interpretation and perpetual Practice a Tradition which cannot come but from God himself P. 200. and that Sence thereof which hath always appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it self Now by this as he well saith P. 203. our Question is decided for in the sacred Ceremony of the Lord's Supper we have seen that the Church hath always believed and taught for a Thousand years and upwards that the Laity by divine Precept and for the ends forementioned were obliged to receive both Species that the Fathers exhorted them to do so and did both by express Declarations and by many Customs and determinations sufficiently condemn the contrary Practice when any Hereticks or Superstitious Persons did decline the Cup. That they did generally so Interpret our Saviour's Institution that it as well concerned the Laity as Clergy and with one voice asserted it was not lawful to vary from it or celebrate the Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and practised in the Primitive Church Behold what has been always practised behold what ought to stand for a Law in opposition to all the Definitions of the Councils of Constance Basil Trent and all their Non obstante 's to our Lord's Institution and to the Practice of the Primitive Church FINIS